Morning Joe - Trump's Israel-Hamas ceasefire sparks cautious celebration but future remains unclear for Gaza

Episode Date: October 9, 2025

Trump's Israel-Hamas ceasefire sparks cautious celebration but future remains unclear for Gaza Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We're the hottest country in the world And if we didn't have that power I wouldn't have been able to make this recent deal Which is the biggest of them Or probably the biggest deal ever made And we're getting the hostages back We're getting and they're going to hopefully come back In a good healthy state

But you know, they'll be healthy In a short period of time They'll be healthy Their lives were hell But we're getting them back And we're getting again The bodies back The bodies of the dead

We're getting them back And which is very important to a lot of people. President Trump speaking to Fox News last night following the announcement that Israel and Hamas have agreed to the first phase of his peace plan. We'll go through what comes next. Also ahead, we'll bring you the latest from Capitol Hill on the government shutdown as a far-right Republican continues to break ranks, pushing for health care tax breaks.

Morning, Joe Economic analyst, Steve Ratner is here to explain, which states benefit most from those subsidies. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats from Arizona are trying to turn up the pressure on Speaker Mike Johnson to swear in a Democrat who won a special election in their state more than two weeks ago. We'll show you that exchange yesterday outside the Speaker's office. Plus, we'll bring you legal analysis on the James Comey case after the former FBI director's arraignment yesterday in Virginia. Lisa Rubin was in the courthouse. She joins us straight ahead. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, October 9th. With us. We have the co-host of our fourth hour. Staff writer at the

Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire. Writer at large for the New York Times, Elizabeth Bue Miller. Calmness, an associate editor for the Washington Post. David Ignatius is with us. And Roger's chair in the American Presidency at Vanderbilt University historian John Meacham. Good to have you all. We have a lot of news to get to, and you have some new reporting this. Well, you've been speaking to the White House, people involved in the negotiating overnight. And right now, they are optimistic. They believe Israel's going to be voting, obviously going to be voting. That's going to give them after the vote 24 hours to redeploy. And it is the hope of the White House. It is the hope of the negotiators that the hostages will be freed by Monday. But more than that, David,

There is hope, and they believe, with all the parties that have been assembled here, that if the Abraham Accords with step one, this is step two, but they believe that this opens the door, considering everybody that's involved into this, to a much bigger peace plan that encompasses the entire region in the months and years to come. Again, we, you know, we shall see the Middle East always, as you know, tricky and frustrating. But the key here is they have a timeline and said they expect Israel to redeploy within 24 hours after they voted the Knesset this afternoon. And the White House expects the hostages to be freed by Monday at the latest. So, Joe, President Trump made a decision and was able to impose it really on all the last. the parties, that it was time for this war to end. They do have momentum for this first phase of the ceasefire and hostage release. There's no question of my mind that that's going to go forward as planned. The next phase is going to be difficult because Hamas essentially has to

agree to surrender, has to agree to give up its weapons. Hamas fighters who give their weapons will get amnesty, allowing a kind of calm to return to Gaza. But the final terms, where Israel will withdraw to, exactly who will run Gaza, whether Hamas can be held to President Trump's demand that they play no role whatsoever in the future governance of Gaza is still remains to be seen. But your basic point, that the deal that President Trump is announcing played a key part in negotiating is a significant change. This war was blocked for two years. President Biden, who proceeded him, was unable to find a way to stop it. President Trump found that way by

being tough on both sides. And you'll take a victory lap for sure over the next few days, but it's deserved. There's no way that I can see that this would have been done without Trump's pressure in the final hours. Well, by the way, the White House would be the first to admit that it's, and the negotiators, that it's some of these business relationships that have drawn criticism in the past that actually have allowed them to go in and go places that, let's just say, a more conventional White House and team would have been able to go. Their biggest, it's so interesting, their concern is, but it's not so much of a concern

anymore, almost like they feel like their responsibility is keeping Israel in line, keeping Netanyahu in line, making sure he follows through with this. It's interesting, the Middle Eastern leaders, the Arab leaders that I've spoken with, no friends of Hamas, very skeptical, actually that in the end, Hamas will lay down all their arms, that they are going to do whatever they can to live to fight another day, but at least in the short term, it will be interesting to see if this timeline is followed through. Yeah, all the normal caveats when it comes to the Middle East. Things are fragile. Things could change. But if indeed, this deal does fall through as planned, at the beginning of the end of this war will likely

be traced to that Israeli strike in Doha. That was the moment where the United States said, enough is enough. These are the Qataris there are helping, they're mediating, there are allies in the region. We saw Trump's anger at that strike so much that he signed almost an Article 5 like security guarantee with Qatar saying this cannot happen again. He made Netanyahu apologize to the leaders there. And by that it's very interesting, you know, Donald Trump does not often do things that cross his base. There were a lot of people in the America first base angry.

And then he reached out to me, angry that he signed that security guarantee for Qatar. But what a message that sent to Netanyahu. Basically, enough is enough. And a photograph of Netanyahu on the phone in the Oval Office, the Qataris put out on the White House's social media accounts. They want to underscore, hey, this can't happen again. You're right that Trump's connections to the region, Whitkoff, Kushner. There's a lot of people involved in this peace agreement who have deep ties to the Gulf states

there. And the president has put on some real, real public pressure. He is finally putting his chip in the game here and saying even, he's going to travel to Israel, saying, look, if this gets done, and as the timeline you laid out is what I have heard as well, these next 24 to 72 hours. ideal is for the president to head to Israel himself, speak to the Knesset this weekend to sort of say this, to sort of take that the final stamp of this deal, this is first phase, to get those hostages home, will be concluded. We'll see what the future holds. But that in itself, as we think

about the tens of thousands of people who have died. And of course, the ongoing suffering there by the Israelis whose loved ones have been held hostage. That in itself, a momentous day. Yeah, no doubt about it. John Hitcham, let's talk history here. My God, the failure since 1948 to figure out a way to resolve this issue are so plentiful. I can only think of a few offhand successful negotiations. One, of course, that Meek and her family know very well about the Camp David Accords, but also the Abraham Accords, which actually Jared Kushner went around the Middle East, and of course, for Donald Trump built relationships across the Middle East. to many of those. He continued in the private sector, gaining criticism, of course, for making

money that he did for his business. But those relationships built up, and those are the same relationships that he's using right now, along with Steve Whitkoff and others, to bring us to a place where we, I don't think, I don't think we've been. No, I think that's right. I guess I should ask you, how historic is this? Well, as ever, depends on how the chapter ends, but the beginning of the chapter is remark. And one of the things about honesty and citizenship and a sense of, I would say maturity about what people in a democracy should do is even if someone with whom you disagree about 99 things, does the 100 really well, you should say so. because that's what intellectual honesty is. And so all credit to President Trump

and his, as you say, unconventional team, but if he takes an unconventional team, that's fine, right? I remember once asking the senior President Bush after something terrible had happened. It's a sign of something that I can't remember what it was after he'd been president. Something had happened in the police. And I said, you know, this is a man who spent a decade,

dealing with this. I said, Mr. President, do you think this ever gets resolved? And he said, God, I don't know. That's what one of the most experienced diplomatic presidents in American history talk, is that it was an unknowable thing. You know, there are two streams that intersect, I think, broadly put in the American relationship with the region. There is the one you allude to the 1948 recognition by President Truman. There was also the post-Yalta meeting, a board of warship in Alexandria Harbor, between Franklin Roosevelt and the King of Saudi Arabia. And it was an early moment that reflected what the complexity of our interests would be

in the region. And it's an incredibly difficult balancing act. you're right about President Carter, obviously. I think President Clinton would still say that his regret at his own Camp David efforts, very latent was one of his great regrets. But I remember the lesson of that, and I think this is, and we talked about this 48 hours ago, I think, is no one got in that zone, in that period, to meeting the incentives of all the parties. right, that it was in their interest to make a deal.

And what has happened here is, it looks as if the pressure on Prime Minister Netanyahu was substantial. And also, it must be enough that Bibi believes that the downside outweighs the upside. And so that becomes part of his incentive. And final point, final point is I think, Joe, you said, really important a minute ago, which was it went against what President Trump did with the apology, went against his base. One of the things you see again and again in American presidential history is that the things for which presidents are positively remembered are those things in which they surprised or challenged.

Yeah. Referring you to Richard Nixon and China, Ronald Reagan and the Cold War, Lyndon Johnson and civil rights, and it may just be President Trump in the Middle East year. So on social media, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the news a, quote, diplomatic success and a national and moral victory

for the state of Israel. Last night on Fox News, President Trump offered more details on the deal. The big thing is hostages are going to be released. It's probably our time. would be probably Monday. And, you know, it's, they're terribly a terrible situation. They're deep. They're deep in the earth. And they're being gotten. And a lot of things are happening right now. As we speak, so much is happening to get the hostages freed. And we think they'll all be coming back on

Monday. I'm very confident there'll be peace in the Middle East. I mean, the words, peace in the Middle East is something people have been striving for for hundreds of years. for centuries, for many centuries. Today in Paris, European, Arab, and other states will meet to discuss Gaza's post-war transition. Reuters reports. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will not attend, but the U.S. will have representation. That meeting will be held in parallel with the ongoing indirect talks between Israel and Hamas in Egypt. And Joe, we've been looking at video of the families of the hostages, jubilant tears of joy.

obviously all eyes will be on that carrying out, hopefully on Monday, for these families who have been in so much pain for two years. But John Meechamarshal talked about the pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu, which we've seen bear out even in opinion polls among American Jews. Right. He's obviously, the majority of American Jews strongly disagree with the way he's conducted this war with over 60 percent. suggesting that he's committed war crime.

You also see the numbers of Elizabeth Buhler in Israel. Also, not good. Obviously, Benjamin Netanyahu's going to have trouble with his hardcore, extreme right-wing as this peace process moves forward. But he also has an election next year, and he knows he can't win that election without the support of Donald Trump. Correct. Who is more popular in Israel than is Benjamin Netanyahu.

I suspect that may be where the main leverage point is coming from. So talk about what you expect to see in the coming days and weeks. Well, I just would like to first say that I was in Israel last summer. And to a person, Israelis said to me that the only person you can resolve this war is Donald Trump. And these were not all Israelis who were big fans of Donald Trump. But they just felt that he alone in the world had the kind of leverage and the kind of pressure he could put on president, on Netanyahu to get this done. And as we can see, you know, Netanyahu was backed into a corner,

not just by the Europeans, by Americans, by, you know, worldwide, he was increasingly isolated. And Israelis were deeply, deeply unhappy with Netanyahu. And so it's very interesting to see the celebrations in Tel Aviv. I, you know, those were, the country last summer was really, It's largely in despair about what was going on with the war and with the government. So, again, I will have to see how this plays out.

This is, you have to give Donald Trump this victory for now. And again, as we've all been talking about, the trouble is ahead. You know, will Hamas disarm, how far will the IDF pull back in Gaza and who will govern Gaza going to the future? Those are big, big questions. but you have to say this is a very, very positive happy day at this moment. Yeah, and David Ignatius, it's so fascinating. As Elizabeth said, Israelis, their belief is been if anybody who's going to be able to resolve it would be Donald Trump. That's on the Israeli side of the ledger.

I know you and I have been in meetings before together speaking with Arab leaders and Arab diplomats. who say the same thing. Only Donald Trump can resolve this issue. He understands us. We understand him. Which again, very unique that you're hearing that not only from the people in the streets of Israel, but also hearing that from Arab diplomats and leaders. So, Joe, on the two sides of that, I can remember in the month or so after October 7 and Israeli senior officials saying to me, We are so disoriented and traumatized by this war. The United States is going to have to make decisions for us. Joe Biden could never do that.

And Donald Trump was able to do it, did it at the decisive moment when he said, essentially, this war must end. And Israel cannot annex the West Bank, which many right-wing Israelis wanted. In the same way, he reached out to the Arabs and said, I'm serious about peace and began to work with them quietly. He sent Steve Whitkoff an unlikely emissary, but Whitkoff developed an extraordinarily close relationship in particular with the

Qataris. And behind the scenes, they have moved week by week toward the deal that they announced a week ago, the 20-point plan. What's interesting about that, John Mika, is that it took ideas from all over the Arab world, from the UAE, from Gutter, from Saudi Arabia, from Tony Blair and Britain, and pulled them all together into a single plan with the U.S. weight of support behind it. That's how we got here. And in each case, it's Trump deciding these people, endless combatants, cannot do it on their own. I'm going to intervene forcefully. Tragically, that is something that Joe Biden, for all his desire for peace, wasn't able to do. All right, everyone, we're going to take a quick break.

And on the other side of the break, we're going to talk to former Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren. We'll be right back with much more morning, Joe. Well, last the hour, joining us now, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. Mr. Ambassador, is there any more you can share? share with us about this peace deal and any concerns you have. Good morning, Mika. Hi, Joe. Good to be with you, as always. I'm listening, very distinguished panel, very impressive. I think everyone's missing the point. And it's this. Everyone's talking about the pressure put by Trump on Nizanau, pressure put on Trump, and now it's missing the point. The 20-point plan developed by Steve

Roth with Jared Kushner is one of the most elegant pieces of diplomacy we can remember in recent years. It's overwhelmingly pro-Israel. It addresses all of Israel's war aim. and only has one time table in it, and that is a 72 hours to release all the hostages. Other than that, it militarizes Gaza. It takes the guns away from Hamas. It exiles Hamas leaders and opens the way to a better future. And what does Israel have to give in return, withdrawal, clearly, but also in release of some security prisoners from our prisons, which is painful. But the other concessions are to talk about some future pathway to a Palestinian state,

pathway is a very obscure term. It could be pathway, it could be with gravel, and to talk about maybe some role for a reform Palestinian authority to the future governance of Gaza. The major pressure here was not on Israel, was pushing out an open door. The major pressure is on Hamas. And these leaders in the Middle East have had it with Hamas. Hamas brought war to the Middle East, instability, destruction. And what begins with Israel-Palestine never ends with Israel-Palestine. It ends up with riots on the streets of Riyadh and Cairo. And they were fed up. and they wanted it over. And that is the extraordinary achievement here

of bringing all of these disparate states together who don't agree with one another and certainly not with Israel to end the war by putting pressure on Hamas. And that is a tremendous difference between anything that proceeded

during the Biden administration. And that was predicated on America's willingness to use force in the Middle East friends. You don't bring peace without power and President Trump demonstrated again and again, first for the hoodies, and then with Iran, they was willing to exercise power, and that gets you a lot of credibility in the Middle East.

Mr. Ambassador, first of all, thank you for taking timeout to correct David Ignatius and the rest of us. It reminds me of why it reminds me. Mr. Ambassador, it reminds me of the line in broadcast news where the store is asked, it must be wonderful to be right all the time when everybody else is wrong, and Holly Hunter breaks down and cries and says,

No. It's terrible. So that's the burden you carry. I want to talk about, though, David Ignatius did say a few days ago that this 20-point plan, in effect, amounted to a surrender by Hamas. So you know what? We'll give you a point there. Let's give the ambassador a point on the board right there. You talk about an elegant solution here. And I want to walk through that where Jared Kushner writes, along with Steve Whitkoff, this 20-point plan, which of course, course came because the Qataris were talking to us and they were trying to figure out how do we negotiate a way to peace. And I think it was Kushner who decided we're not going to negotiate our way to peace. We're going to do a 20-point plan. You're going to present this to Hamas. We're

going to present it to Israel and we're going to get it done. It was pretty fascinating at that point that they understood negotiations would be protracted. This was, in effect, a 20-point plan, which for Hamas, for the most part, amounted to a surrender document, right? Exactly. My point. It's a very, I don't want to say it's a pro-Israel document, but it does address all of Israel's war aims. It's going to be supported, even within the Israeli government's going to approve it today.

Well, Mr. Ambassador, not to interrupt you, but it also, not only does it support Israel's war aims, it also supports the reality on the ground. And that is Hamas is battered, bruised. it is a spent force, and most importantly, it's isolated even throughout the Middle East with its Arab neighbors. And why is that, Joe? Because Israel used force. And because Israel used force backed by the United States. It's unpleasant. War is horrible. I've been in several. And I'll tell you, but without the use of force, this 20 points would not have been possible. And use of force, not just against Hamas, but also against Iran. The President Trump was willing to step up and project American power. What's missing, I think, from the conversation this morning is the restoration, the revival of the Pax Americana after years of withdrawal and isolationism in the Middle East.

And that, I think, is truly maybe the most historic consequence of these 20 points of this agreement. Now, having said all that, you know, this is maybe the end of the beginning. Thomas will help his guns. Thomas is still embedded in Gaza. Hootis are still firing. Iran is now rebuilding. The war may be far from over. But the fact is that these hostages are returning, and that was Israel's major war aim,

is an extraordinary achievement for which the people of Israel, and as a father and grandfather, I'll tell you, we're deeply indebted to Donald Trump. David, certainly that goal of the hostages being returned seems to be, fingers crossed, achieved the next few days, but we shouldn't lose sight of the terrible toll, civilians in Gaza, women, children, and, of course, so many hostages who didn't make it out. but certainly the region has changed dramatically since October 7th, two years ago. Give us your assessment. Just a broad step back here is the state of play in the Middle East.

And do you believe that the best way for real peace would be that two-state solution? Does this 20-point plan, is that a step along that journey? It's a beginning. If we're honest, we have to admit that a Palestinian state is still far in the distance. But it is a beginning. I think the contribution that the Trump team has made here, Ambassador Warren, is thinking and pushing on the day after what kind of transitional arrangement would be made in Gaza to move beyond this situation of what seemed a war that couldn't be ended.

It just went on and on. And as you know better than I, many Israelis even a year ago felt that. that the military ejectives had been achieved. The question I want to put to you is the one that I find I worry about most, and that's the disarmament of Hamas. A key part of President Trump's 20-point plan essential to Israel is that Hamas will no longer have military or political power. Do you think in the coming weeks and months,

Hamas actually will disarm? And if not, is Israel going to have to go back to war? It's a great question. It's the key question, David. Giving up arms, surrendering goes against the DNA of Hamas. It's what they're about. It's basically asking them to negate their own identity. And it's a difficult, difficult time. And they won't do it peacefully. Don't go peacefully to that dark night, certainly. And now Harmas is trying to parse it. They'll say, listen, we'll give up our guns. We want to keep our defensive weapons. Or we'll give up our rockets, but we want to keep our Koloxnikovs. And the Trump Minister, is going to have to step in very, very strongly, again, not with the Israelis, but with the Qatari's and the Turks who are very, very close to Qomaz, and say, no, this can't be. And everyone's talking about an international force which is supposed to go into Gaza.

That's another part of the 20 points, but that force is not going to go into Gaza if Hamas still has its guns. So everything, that is really the linchpin of what happens next. Can Hamas be effectively disarmed? you know, 20 points about Hamas people who, then you talk to you have mentioned it, David, that it would be

an amnesty for the Hamas people who give up terror. There's some kind of pledge they're supposed to make. I don't know what the wording that that pledge means or how it would read, but that is the key to everything that comes next. Elizabeth B. Miller, you may have a question for the ambassador, but my thought also would be

what does Gaza look like in the years to come so far in this plan? you're asking me or the ambassador you and you can take it to the ambassador well that's a good question i was going to ask the ambassador as well what uh the the the goal of israel was always the total the elimination the total destruction of hamas and that clearly is not about to happen so that that would be my next question too is where does hamas go after this is it is it that they're just going to following up on david are they just going to uh go peace fully into the night, and that's the end of it.

They, you know, the, because of the devastation in Gaza and so many, you know, civilians and killed, how can they just walk away from this? Well, I don't know if they're going to have a choice. What they want to do, Elizabeth, is have it his Bella-like situation. They want to have their guns, but not retain any of the sovereign responsibilities. They don't want to come out of the tunnels and be responsible for rebuilding Gaza. and denying them that option will be a major objective of American diplomacy in even the days to come, and it won't be easy. Now, Hamas can say, okay, we're going to be part of a technocratic government in Gaza, we're going to give up our guns.

I still think that goes against their DNA. They will not go quietly into that tonight. I have suggested in the past that we revisit what President Reagan did in the early 80s when Israel laid siege to Bay, route. We'd let PLO leader Yasser Arafat and his major armed force get on guns and get ships and go off to Tunis. The Hamas leaders can get on a ship and go to Algeria. They can go to Turkey or elsewhere and leave the majority of their rank and file behind. And perhaps they can have some role in the future governance of Gaza, building on as an armed force. And that's going to be, again, that's going to be key. The rebuilding of Gaza is a tremendous opportunity.

And this option for the people of Gaza, for the region, Gaza can be, and has been, by the way, in previous centuries, a tremendous, successful and influential and lucrative port. It's literally the link between continents and the future there can be very, very promising indeed. As an ambassador, I'm a great admirer of your book, Power, Faith, and Fantasy about the relationship between America and the Middle East. least. If you were having to add a chapter at this hour, what do you think the, how proportionate is this moment in the American role in what's unfolding right now? Well, thank you. Thank you, John, for mentioning my book. I'm a great friend of all your books. My book, of course, is available that famously reduced prices now. A very large book from 2006 called Power, Faith, and Fantasy. And it basically says that the American involvement of the release since 1776 has followed three

patterns. It's power, usually military power, economic power, faith, democratic faith, but also Christian faith, and fantasy. The fantasy that someday the Middle East will look like the United States of the Middle East with the Middle Eastern George Washington. And what I would have to rewrite the chapter of the recent years was that the power factor had disappeared, that you had administrations like the Biden administration, like the Obama administration, were unwilling to exert power in the Middle East. For all those are reasons. And by the way, it wasn't just a Democratic Party. The Republican Party at times was vying with the Democrats, which could be more isolationist in the world.

And what I mentioned earlier is now the United States is back exerting power in the Middle East. It is the B-2 bombers, bombing Fordow. It is the American naval forces, taking out missiles that are aimed at Israel or taking on the hoodies. And that power has given this administration leverage, leverage that previous administrations didn't have. President Biden, for all his good intentions said don't. Everyone members present Biden saying don't, and everybody did. Israel did, the Palestinians did, the Iranians did. Because everyone realized that the United States was unwilling to flex muscle.

And in the Middle East, you flex muscle, and you get leverage in peace negotiations. And that's what we're seeing right now. And of course, you brought up a Biden administration who worked on this day in and day out for quite some time. Talk about the Obama administration. Of course, remember Bush 43, and that administration early on saying, we're not going to, we're just not going to try to drag the Israelis and the Palestinians to the peace table. If they don't want peace, we're not going to waste our time with it. So you are right, both parties, Mr. Ambassador is saying enough.

But, yeah, things have changed. I want you really briefly before we go to break, because we have a big Yankees, segment we have to get to as Red Sox fans. But before we go to break, I'm a big believer in experience. I get so sick and tired of people coming to Washington going, oh, I've never been around Washington. I'm a CEO. No, experience matters. It matters a great deal. We can look at Bush 41 and see that at the end of the Cold War. Talk about Jared Kushner's experience with the Abraham Accords and how that laid the pathway. And of course, Donald Trump, He was working on behalf of Donald Trump.

But talk about how, actually in this case, one example of Donald Trump telling somebody, go, get this done. In fact, and don't come back until it's done. Talk about how the Abraham Accords laid the pathway to this morning where there is hope that the hostages will be freed. Well, again, go back to this theory of the theme that peace through strength. You know, George Bush Sr. goes to war in the Middle East, and he has the Madrid Peace Conference. George Bush Jr. goes to the war in the Middle East, and he has the Annapolis Peace Conference. And these are bringing many different countries together to talk about peace because America was willing to use force to have that. Again, the Abraham Accords were forged because there was a president who made the impression that America was willing to exert power.

The countries that signed the Arab Accords, signed them not because of the state of Israel. Their leaders don't get up in the morning and saying, you know, Hatikvah, our national anthem, they stood up because Israel was fighting the two major foes of all of these countries, which was Islam extremism from the Sunni camp and Islamic extremism from the Shiite camp, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. And the United States was backing that. Though in addition to exerting power in the Middle East, it's personal relations. And David, you know that 90% of diplomacy, like almost everything else in life, is personal relations.

And Jared Kirstner succeeded in establishing personal relations with every single leader in the region. And he was able to capitalize that, to harness those personal relations in bringing together these 20 points, which frankly astonished me. I could not, I don't can't think of any other document in recent memory where so many disparate interests and abilities were brought together around a very complicated issue and putting together a blueprint, which everybody agrees on. And even the Israeli right, for the most part, agreed with it. And that is an extraordinarily accomplishment. And John, someday, you and I are going to be writing about this. All right, former Israeli ambassador to the United States. Michael O'Horen, thank you for coming on this morning.

We really appreciate it. Thank you so much. Presidential historian John Meacham, thank you as well. And coming up on Morning, Joe, much more ahead. Former litigator Lisa Rubin joins us to break down the James Comey case. after attending the arraignment yesterday for the former FBI director. Also ahead, the government shutdown creating more tension between lawmakers with a couple of heated exchanges yesterday as both sides appear committed to the stalemate. Morning Joe.

And Jonathan Amir will have breaking news on this. We'll turn to our top story. No. We'll be right back. 42 past the hour. Welcome back to morning, Joe, former FBI director James Comey pled not guilty yesterday in a federal court in Virginia to separate charges of making false statement and obstruction of a congressional proceeding. The lawyer waived the formal reading of the indictment and requested a jury trial, which is set for January 5th. Let's bring in MSNBC legal correspondent and former litigant. Lisa Rubin, who was in the courtroom yesterday and president of the National Action Network host of MSNBC's

Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton. Good to have you both. So Lisa, your reflections after what went down in court yesterday. Miko, part of what was so extraordinary about it was how ordinary it felt. You would have thought that if you were witnessing the arraignment of the first truly politically motivated prosecution of this presidency, you would see a phalanx of protesters outside the courthouse. You would have thought you would have seen some of the same media presence that we saw for many of the Trump proceedings that I attended. And I went to all four of the trials involving then former President Trump during that Biden administration.

But that's not what you really saw at all. I think part of what was so surprising is how pedestrian it felt, even as something totally extraordinary was happening. There was not an enormous. media presence. There was an anemic gathering of protesters. There is a picture that getting images took yesterday of me running out to our camera to report on what happened inside. And there is a single protester standing next to me with a sign that says show trial. But that was sort of it. And in the meantime, you're watching the arraignment of a man

who not only served as the FBI director. He was the U.S. attorney of the Southern District of New York. He was the deputy attorney general during the George W. Bush administration. That's the same position Todd Blanche has now. We talk about him all the time in his influence. That's a level of influence that Jim Comey once had over federal law enforcement and the Department of Justice. And when he was asked, you know, there's a part of every arraignment where a judge has to ask the defendant whether they understand their constitutional rights and their statutory rights. And Jim Comey stood up, all six, eight of him, went to the lectern and said, yes, I do. Thank you very much, Your Honor.

And then he sort of stood there for a second, almost as if Jim Comey, who's held enumerable press conferences in his life, has been in more courts than you can count, almost forgot that he was there as the defendant and not the lawyer, particularly when his own lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald, is a longtime friend of his and colleague of his. A couple things. First of all, I wonder, Rev, if in part this is more pedestrian because I think most people are expecting. even conservative commentators for it to be thrown out at the first opportunity. That's one. And two, politically, James Comey has long been a man without a country despised by Donald Trump, despite the fact he helped elect Donald Trump, which is one of the reasons why the left has no use for him either. So he is a man without a political country.

So any thought of progressives rushing down there to support him or conservatives rushing down there to support him. just as not the case. He's going to have to rely actually on the law, which seems to be pretty good for him. No, he's definitely on a political island. I mean, Comey worked for Giuliani in the Southern District. Comi has been the person that many of us felt led to the defeat of Hillary Clinton. And then now he ends up being the main, one of the first targets of Donald Trump. So it's kind of hard to rally the troops where there's been a guy that's been shooting at it at all angles. But notwithstanding those facts, this is a blatant manipulation, in my opinion, of the law for retribution.

And I think that if we're going to be consistent, we have to say that Comey should not be scapegoated because of his differences politically with Donald Trump. But at the same time, if you don't see the... whole congregation standing up saying amen, it might be because they saw the preacher at the bar last night. Right. Well, exactly. And despite the fact he may be a man without his own sort of political country or political clan, this is something that should be seen as a five alarm fire by the media by jurists, by conservative jurists, by liberal jurists, by everybody. because, again, this is the first of, it seems many, many people that the President of the United States is ordering his Attorney General to target. That couldn't be more right.

It's what I wrote last night for The Atlantic about that it's been easy. Donald Trump has been, for years now, has been calling for people's arrests. And most recently, yesterday, during our air, he talked about the governor of Illinois and the mayor of Chicago. But to this point, it had been. By the way, an interesting reaction. from the governor of Illinois who almost seemed to be saying please please come to Chicago arrest me please make my day. Governor Pritzker I would suggest not one of those people that you want to tweak. No, Governor Pritzker certainly said go ahead, bring it on. Governor Pritzker

also obviously running for president in a couple years and sees this as a useful boy. May also be another It might be part of this. It works. It worked for Donald Trump. I don't think that's the whole reason. He's thinking it worked for Donald Trump. It may not be bad for me. Wouldn't mind the attention. In fact, I go into that in the piece.

Also, how Trump privately has said for months now, he recognizes the criminal trials were the best thing that happened in his campaign. He's back in the White House partially because of it. But he's also still angry about it. That's fueling, Lisa, his retribution. And that's why the Comey thing is so striking because it's happened. This is no longer bluster. We are seeing it.

This is a political foe of Donald Trump's. And the legal process is moving towards him. So talk about that and also just simply, what are the next steps in the case here? Well, let's start with the next steps first, and then I'll move backwards. The next steps are Pat Fitzgerald is going to file two motions on October 20th, one for vindictive and selective prosecution. And, of course, he outlined to the court. That's all about the fact that you're not supposed to prosecute a person for retaliation

for exercising their free speech rights, which is what he characterized is happening against Jim Comey. But the second one I would submit to you is more interesting. It's more weedy and technical. But I think it's also the one that might have the better chance of succeeding, even though if there were ever a case for predictive prosecution, this one is it. This is the motion to throw out the indictment on the basis that Lindsay Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was unlawfully appointed. Now, we've seen those kinds of fights happen in other districts in the country with similar

interim U.S. attorneys. Alina Haba, for example, has an order against her saying she's not the lawfully appointed U.S. attorney. Same with Seagal Chata in the District of Nevada. But here's the main difference. The courts in those two instances said there's nothing wrong with indictments that came down during each of their reign because there were other people who signed those indictments, obtained those indictments. But here, as we all know, through our own reporting, Lindsay Halligan was the only person who went to the grand jury. Lindsay Halligan is the only signature on that indictment. And that means that if Lindsay Halligan was unlawfully appointed under a series of statutes that allow the president to make these interim or acting appointments,

then the whole indictment has to fall. Now, the one thing that's a hiccup here is Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who has this case, isn't going to hear that motion. Judges have generally been referring these motions to the chief judges of their appeal circuits to sort of take it outside the district. Meaning like, if you're the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, you might not think you could have a fair hearing with any judge in your district because all those judges see you and your colleagues in front of them each and every single day. So the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit is going to have to pick another judge in a district within the Fourth Circuit's ambit to decide whether Lindsay Halligan is the lawfully appointed U.S. attorney. And both

from a timing perspective, but also from a predictability perspective, that throws everything up into the air. Wow. You know, Elizabeth, it's fascinating as I talk to people who I, former political allies of mine, who I may agree with on 50, 60, 70 percent of things, we get to this story. And these people who I might be agreeing on everything up to a point will immediately talk about the weaponization of justice against Donald Trump. They'll say, come on, you're now concerned about this? Had five cases against him.

You had this New York City case, which of course we were critical of. I say we, not you, we here on the show. The New York State case, which again, I thought was flimsy at best. But then you had the documents case, which of course seemed to be about as solid as could be. There were one or two cases that, and even Donald Trump will say, you know, if they'd come after me on one case. I may have been in trouble, but they came after me on five cases. And that's, I just, my fear is, we get past this, and there's just this cycle. Well, we've entered into a new era where you, and I will say, you had, you know, we have people running for office

when Donald Trump was president vote for me and I are, after you've been president, and I will bring charges against Donald Trump. I just fear we've entered a new era and this weaponization of justice is going to be a wicked cycle. And some of the very Republicans right now doing it may be the targets three years from now. One would hope for restraint in a future administration. And I think perhaps maybe they just would hope for restraint. I wanted to ask one question, though, about the Comey appearance. I noticed that Lindsay Halligan didn't say anything. Is that, was that, is that normal that she just, the prosecutor would not, not have anything to say during a big case like that, a big appearance? Well, there, Elizabeth, there's one thing

that's abnormal about it. Most U.S. attorneys don't show up at arraignments, right? Sometimes the U.S. attorney will come and sit in the audience at a sentencing to show support for the office, for example, or come and observe a trial. I'm not familiar with instances where the U.S. attorney himself or herself comes to an arraignment. So in that respect, that was itself unusual. Didn't they have to get people from out of her district? That is what I was just about to talk about. She couldn't even get anybody in her own office to be there because you're so embarrassed by the charges. That's correct. And, you know, our colleagues, Carol Lening and Kandelion have done fantastic reporting about the fact that the Eastern District of Virginia is in chaos right now.

Moral is sinking there. Why? Because all these people are watching this prosecution take place that their own colleagues wrote an extensive moment to Lindsay Halligan about saying, we don't believe this is in the interest of justice. We don't believe we can win a conviction. Under the Justice Manual, which is a Bible for federal prosecutors, if you don't believe you can get a conviction, you're not supposed to bring the case. And so, therefore, Lindsay Halligan yesterday, accompanied by two prosecutors from the Eastern District of North Carolina, Tyler Lemons and Gabriel Diaz, Mr. Lemons, straight out of central casting.

As a prosecutor, Donald Trump would have been extraordinarily proud to see him. But he basically admitted to the judge, he doesn't know anything about the case. Again, he was just brought into it. What goes around, comes around. And again, for these lawyers who are being smart enough to say, I want no part of this, they'll be in good shape. We can look back to Donald Trump's first term. We can look back to the people that went out and did his bidding just because he was telling them to do it, who no longer have law licenses.

Again, what goes around. around comes around. And if you're like going into court filing bogus charges because you were told to by the president, like obedience, Rev, not a defense when you're in front of the bar committee. And we can't normalize using the justice system or judicial process for vengeance. I mean, like you just said, what goes around comes around, the Democrats should not do that, nor the Republicans. And I think rather than Trump saying that he felt that he was being abused and being done wrong by all of the prosecutions he faced, he should be wanting to bring the system away from that rather than him putting it on overdrive himself against people like James Comey. I mean,

how many times do we hear people around him saying, oh, he's not going to have time for that? He's not going to have time for retribution. Well, he has time for it. He's made the time. MSNBC legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin. Thank you so much. All right, writer at large for the New York Times, Elizabeth Buhmiller. Thank you as well.