Morning Joe - ‘Trying to distract’: Joe slams Trump for accusing Democrats of sedition ‘punishable by death’

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

‘Trying to distract’: Joe slams Trump for accusing Democrats of sedition ‘punishable by death’ To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I think what they did was despicable. I don't agree with the president. They should be put in jail. But I do believe what they did was despicable. They need to explain themselves. He did you go too far? Saying punishable by death? I think they went too far.

Well, yeah, I think that's over the top. But the point you're missing here is you had six members of Congress openly encourage members of the military to disfay orders of this president without giving an example of order that is illegal. I think they're despicable. But he also endorsed a call to hang them, the members of Congress. I mean, what do you make of that? Is that too far?

Yes. Okay, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham offering a little bit of pushback to President Trump's suggestion that some Democrats should be executed after accusing them of sedition. For telling them not to commit illegal evidence. Acts. Yeah. Think about this. The president is suggesting that members of Congress should be hung because they're just telling American troops don't commit illegal, illegal, illegal acts.

Abu Ghraib, my lie. we could go down the list of illegal actions that have been committed in war. And now we have a president that is suggesting that he's going to have them commit illegal acts in peace. Remember when he was on the plane? And they asked him if he was going to send troops around the country, the Army, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, around for crime control. illegal, and he said he didn't care what the court said, well, here's the funny thing, Willie, that courts care. Yeah. And we're seeing that this week. Donald Trump can say whatever he wants to say. Just like Rudy Giuliani could hold his press conferences outside of

courtrooms and then go in and say things that were false. Rudy Giuliani today is disbarred. if these U.S. troops commit illegal actions now, they could end up behind bars for illegal. Let me say that again, White House, illegal, not legal, illegal, illegal actions. And if they do that, there will be no pardon for them. And so it seems to me a very reasonable thing to say, which is serve your country, follow your legal orders. But if somebody tells you to go to crime control somewhere where you know that would be against the law, you can't commit illegal acts, it will come back, it will blow back on you for committing. Let me say one more time, illegal acts. And it will be you, the service member, who pays the price for that, not Donald Trump.

So this is a group of Democrats. We'll dig into this. Senators and congressmen and women, most of whom serve the country in some way. Concerned about their family. Worried about what they've seen over this first nine, ten months of this administration saying, two members of the military do not commit illegal acts, meaning you can defy an illegal order. It's within your rights to defy an illegal order. Now, the White House, Lindsey Graham kind of willfully pretending he didn't really understand what they said that it was illegal.

The White House now taking this as an issue, the president saying these are seditious acts by the Democrats, punishable by death, and even reposting something that said these members could be hanged for their crime. Yeah, and of course, if the president had not already said he was going to have service members commit illegal acts and the court. weren't going to do anything to stop him, that would be one thing. I want to bring in General hurtling here. General, this is black and white. This is as black and white as it can be. I know you understand this more than I ever will. But these issues came up in the Armed Services Committee.

These issues came up during the Iraq War. These issues came up during Vietnam. You know about it all too well. If you commit an illegal act in uniform, then you're going to face consequences. So the fact that Donald Trump and press secretaries and Republicans are running around saying that Democrats could be hung for simply saying you can't do Abu Ghraib, you can't do my lie. You can't commit illegal acts. who don't follow illegal orders. I mean, it's stunning to me,

especially with a history of what we learned growing up. I mean, how many times did people say after World War II we were just following orders? Well, the message in America is, don't follow illegal orders. And that's at the core, is it not, of the discipline and the duty that men and women in uniform,

that you have trained, that you have led? Isn't that at the core of their beliefs? It is absolutely at the core, Joe, and it begins the first day of basic training for soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, whatever branch you're in, it becomes an element of the first thing you do as an officer when you join ROTC or go to West Point. I mean, I remember taking the oath to defend the Constitution, but also to take the obligation. willingly without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and well and faithfully execute the duties of my office, which were, first of all, making sure the soldiers didn't do anything legal, but also to ensure that I didn't give any illegal orders. And Joe, you've

mentioned a bunch of major incidents like Maelai or Abu Ghraib or several others. There's a movie out right now that I've seen, a great movie about Nurember. It was the basis for the criminal trial of most of the Germans after World War II, the German officer corps, because they did do illegal things and their excuse was I was just following orders of Hitler. Well, that's not an excuse. Sorry, you still did the illegal act and it's against what we believe as a professional military. You know, Joe, it's fascinating. I mentioned on X yesterday that there were times when I was giving order, given orders that I considered to be illegal. And I had, when my JAG officer cleared them up, or when we determined that they were borderline, I went to my bosses

who gave me those orders and says, we can't do this. We have to change this. So this is not just a major incident kind of thing. This happens in every war, and it happens a lot to commanders and officers where they have to clarify what an order says. I even remember back in the 2016, presidential campaign where I was on a different cable TV channel and I was asked about the candidate Trump's statement about stealing oil from land or killing the families of terrorists and I said both of those are illegal. They violate the laws of land warfare and they are illegal acts to commit. So you have to always be careful about giving orders that do that and it all relates back to every member of the military

on the first day in uniform swear an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign, and domestics. The enlisted personnel take it one step further in their oath. There are two different oaths. And they say, and I will

obey the orders of the President and the orders of the officers pointed over me. The officers take a different oath. It says nothing about obedience. It says defending the Constitution and then taking the obligation willingly without any mental reservation. So the founders and our Constitution implied the fact that these two different oaths are guardrails against exactly the kind of things that some of the members of Congress

and some like the press secretary and the president are saying are seditious. I'd add one more thing. It is especially troubling to me that Senator Graham is the one that's making a big fuss about this because he's a lawyer. He was a JAG lawyer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. He spent snippets of time with me in Iraq when I was there for longer deployments, and he was part of the legal team in the headquarters in Baghdad. So he should know better. He is an officer. Now, Lindsay knows better. I mean, that's what's so pathetic about it. It's sad. I know Lindsay and I've known Lindsay for a long time. He's been a friend.

But Lindsay knows better. These Republicans on Capitol Hill know better. Saying, getting angry at anybody for telling troops don't commit illegal acts. It's just nonsensical. And then Donald Trump, because he's trying to distract from the Epstein files, He's trying to distract from the fact that he has the lowest approval rating that he's had in the second term. He's trying to distract from the fact that Democrats have the largest generic ballot lead that I can remember in my lifetime, 54 to 41. He's trying to distract from the fact that only one in three Americans say that they think Donald Trump is handling the government the right way.

You can go on and on and on. But again, go back to the Epstein file, something that he wants to desperately take off from a minute. So what do you do? You just say, hey, these senators should be executed because they're actually stating law that you can't commit illegal actions. It's very simple unless you're very stupid. Or unless you're just following. the orders of the strong man. On cable news channels, on cable news channels, you're not that stupid folks.

You know, there's like romper room. I can put up my mirror and I can see through you. You're not that stupid. Stop blindly going along with this. Same thing with Republicans. And come on, Lindsay. You, of all people, know that troops cannot commit illegal actions. and you should be saluting your colleagues for telling them don't commit illegal actions. Great point. You've got to wonder why they made the video. They must have been concerned about something, which we'll get to him. We'll get to the video as well.

Along with the co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan the mayor, we have Caddy Kay in D.C. And White House correspondent for Reuters, Jeff Mason is with us here at the table. So let's back up a little bit, President Trump, of course, accusing that group of democratic lawmakers of seditious behavior. that he says could be, quote, punishable by death. It's an all-caps claim from the president of the United States. And it comes after the lawmakers, all of whom served in the military or intelligence community, served this country. They posted this video reminding members of the military to refuse illegal orders.

We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now. Americans trust their military. But that trust is at risk. This administration is pitting our uniform military and intelligence community professionals against American citizens. Like us, you all swore an oath. To protect and defend this Constitution. Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad, but from right here at home. Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.

You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. And Willie, I thought it was fascinating watching another news channel, Chicken Hawks, who've never served in the military, attacking men and women that have served in Iraq, that have served in Afghanistan, that have, I'm sure, lost friends in fighting that served this country proudly, saying what they all know, you can't follow illegal orders. But see how easy this is for Donald Trump? everybody's talking about Epstein everybody's talking about record low poll numbers

and all he has to do is going through social and just say kill senators right right and so all of that obviously you can't ignore it when a president says kill senators they should be hung sedition all this stuff but that is how easy it is for him

have somebody type it in send it out boom you don't hear about Epstein you don't hear about affordability you don't hear about how young people can't get houses. You don't hear about how people can't afford health care insurance, how they can't afford groceries, how they can't afford to live, how they can't afford cars. Go down the list. It's been a terrible couple of weeks for President Trump for all the reasons you just laid out there, especially with the new polling that he's aware of Fox News polling

this week that shows him deeply underwater on a number of issues. And as you say, he knows if he does this, if he says what he said and wrote what he wrote yesterday, that all of the people who support him on TV and podcasts online and in the halls of Congress will fall in line. What they're all doing if you listen to the criticism from Republicans is leaving out the word illegal. Of course. So Speaker Mike Johnson said Democrats are encouraging troops to disobey orders. That's not true. No, Mikey. That's not what they said. No, Mikey. That's not what they said. No, Mike. Speaker Johnson twisting himself in knots yesterday saying, well, he's just giving a literal, factual definition of what sedition is and talking about what the punishment might be for that

crime. Now, this was a guy, I think, I can't remember. Was he the one that said that he was going to be ruling by the Bible, what the Bible said? He is. I guess the Bible said, bear false witness against your brother. Is that what Mike's Bible says? Bear false witness. Keep the illegal word out of there. So it means just the opposite of what Mikey knows it means. And you had Caroline Levitt from the podium yesterday is saying that these Democrats are telling troops that they can betray their oath. No, the call was to uphold the oath and not to commit illegal acts. Let's listen to just the opposite. They are literally saying, this is Orwellian, they're literally saying just the opposite of what is true. They're lying to the American people. People on other news

channels are lying to the American people. They are literally saying you have to uphold your oath. The White House is saying, no, you don't, by every action that they're saying and lying about the senators who are saying, this is about upholding your oath. Here's what both the White House Press Secretary and Speaker Johnson said yesterday. Just to be clear, does the president want to execute members of Congress? No. Let's be clear about what the president is responding to, because many in this room want to talk about the president's response, but not what brought the president to responding in this way. We have 1.3 active duty service members in this country. And if they hear this radical message from sitting members of

Congress, that could inspire chaos, and it could incite violence, and it certainly could disrupt the chain of command. And so these members knew what they were doing. They were leading into their credentials as former members of our military, as veterans, as former members of the national security apparatus to signal to people serving under this commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, that you can defy him and you can betray your oath of office. That is a very, very dangerous message, and it perhaps is punishable by law. I'm not a lawyer. I'll leave that to the Department of Justice and the Department of War to decide. What I read was he was defining the crime of sedition. Okay. I don't, that is, that is a factual statement. But obviously, attorneys have parsed

language and determine all that. What I'm saying, what I will say unequivocally is that was a wildly inappropriate thing for so-called leaders in Congress to do to encourage young troops to disobey orders. I mean, think of what the threat that is to our national security and what it means to our institutions. I just, we have got to raise the bar in Congress. This is out of control and is wildly inappropriate. And for a senator like Mark Kelly or any member of Congress in the House or Senate to be engaged in that kind of talk is, to me, just so. beyond the pale. You know, he lies so pretty.

He lies so pretty. I mean, it's too easy for him to lie. Clutching the pearls. Clutch in the pearls. The fading couch. You know, it was very rude of those press members to be standing all around. He had a fainting couch.

It was beautiful, beautiful pink satin, a fainting couch with all the frills. He was going to just flop over. I tell you, He was so shocked and stunned. These people are lying through their fuck through their teeth. These people are lying through their teeth. He didn't say it.

It was just half. It was like Joe Biden when he said fat. So anyway, these people are lying through their teeth. Mike Johnson knows that this is all about what military men and women need to do to uphold their sacred oath. and that is not commit illegal actions. And they know that, and yet they keep lying through their teeth. And running through the halls, John, without criticism for this president, you heard Lindsey Graham briefly said, no, no, no, they shouldn't be hanged.

Okay, great, we've established that. But immediately going to the criticism of these Democratic members. So calling, again, not to disobey illegal acts. It's willful ignorance, and, I mean, it's obviously an extraordinarily serious moment. The President of the United States calling for the execution of lawmakers. But Joe nailed it. This is what we've seen this precise playbook before. Remember when President Trump called for President Obama to be arrested on treason charges?

That was the summer when the Epstein story blew up the first time. This is exactly the playbook to distract. Let's talk about something else, anything else from what's going on with Epstein, first and foremost, but also things in the economy. But it is an interesting point because this is a moment that there are service members who are wrestling with this exact question, is whether or not the orders I've been given are legal. And yes, it may come that way on American streets. it's already happening now in the waters of the Caribbean, the Caribbean. We have had a high-ranking admiral walk away and resign because of concerns about the boat strikes that the U.S. is conducting off of Venezuela and the White House really providing next to no legal justification for any of this.

They're trying to do more now. But this is, for the President of the United States, we've seen this so many times in his first term as well, where he feels like he's cornered and he's lashing out trying to drive the new cycle in any other way. I'm just curious. I mean, what would be so upsetting to cause this behavior? Well, he's trying to track. Yeah. Just trying to distract. Like, what?

I mean, just trying to distract. You know, the thing is, crazy behavior. It always catty. It always has to be the debate. We've always said this. President Trump's great keeping the debate on his ground. So before the Epstein files blew up, it was about crime. And then Epstein got him off of crime.

And then the government shut down, got him off of crime. And so they were debating health care instead of crime. And, of course, Republicans always lose when you debate health care instead of crime. The numbers are historically low numbers. So what does he do? He accuses Democrats of sedition and says that they should be hung. I mean, and so that's what we're talking about today. We're not talking about Donald Trump's record low approval ratings.

We're not talking about the fact that Democrats are ahead by 14 points, 13, 14 points. We're not talking about all of the stupid things. things that his Department of Justice has done just this past week. Or health and human services. Whether regarding Comey or whether it was Texas redistricting where they

may have cost Republicans five seats. So he just snaps this out and everybody's going to follow this for a day or two and stop talking about the things that again show how weakened the Republican Party's position

is right now. Yeah. I mean it's classic Steve Bannon Flood the Zone idea, right, that you throw out so many things that people can't focus on one thing and you use one excessive news headline to bury something else. The thing is for the Republicans at the moment is that ordinary voters clearly are focused on one thing and one thing overall and they keep telling it to pollsters and they keep telling it every time they have the opportunity to vote in a ballot box, they're worried about prices. And we may spend a morning as we should because it's extraordinary for a president to suggest that members of Congress should be hung and sent to their deaths. But that is not what people around the

country who are figuring out how to vote if there was a vote coming up next week or even next year's midterms. That's not what they're thinking about. They're thinking about how do I pay for my turkey? How much of my sweet potato is going to cost? How am I going to pay for the cost of my kids to come and travel to see me for Thanksgiving? And this will blur because we live in this frenetic news cycle, we all know around this table that by next week there will be something else that we're talking about. And the week after that, there will be something else that we're talking about. And those news spikes, we will talk about them because they are news and because Donald Trump makes news. But underneath all of that is the reality for American voters that things cost too much

money and they're not loving what they're seeing and their opinion of the president of the White House at the moment is not great. And the Republicans are in charge. So Jeff, tell us what's going on here and what do you think happens next? Well, I think, number one, it's worth talking about this in the context of political rhetoric. It wasn't that long ago that everyone was up in arms, quite rightly, about the execution of Charlie Kirk. And now the discussion of political rhetoric allows the president to use his platform and his bully pulpit to say things like this about members of Congress. I also think it's worth remembering what happened on January 6th, when the same kind of rhetoric that the president used then when talking about overturning

the results of a lawful election led to some of his supporters to bill the gallows on the grounds of Capitol Hill aimed for or with the intention of sending a message to Vice President Mike Pence. So words have actions. The president knows that words have actions. One of those actions is quite rightly what you're saying is the distraction that comes from throwing things out like this. but it's more than just words. It's very dangerous words that his people may act upon. Yeah, and of course. Some of these members have security because of exactly what we're talking about here.

Well, yeah. I mean, you say this, and then you have Slotkin who has to have around the clock security now because these things are being said. Again, all to distract. And general, I'd love to end on you and get your final thoughts and what we should be looking for as we move forward. today? Well, two things, Joe. As anyone who says this is wildly bizarre that these congressmen say this, I would say that it must be wildly bizarre that drill sergeants say it

every day to new recruits, that it's passed along year after year in law of land warfare classes to make sure soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines don't obey unlawful orders. And I'd just say one last thing, if I could clarify and help everybody remember, no one in the American military swears allegiance to any individual. The oaths are not pledges of loyalty to a party, a personality, or a political movement. Loyalty is pledged to the Constitution. And officers, when they take their oath, take that pledge one step further by saying, without mental reservation. They know full well what they're being asked to do, and it may require them to stand up with courage against any unlawful authority to stand between them and the people that

they serve, not only the American public, but the soldiers that are under their command. It's critically important. It's driven hard into every single person that wears the uniform, and I personally have taken that oath hundreds of times, and it's the most beautiful kind a vow that you take as part of a professional ethos. Wow. Retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hurdling, thank you so much for coming on this morning. He's the author of the forthcoming book entitled, If I Don't Return, a Father's Wartime Journal. And still ahead on Morning, Joe, one of the lawmakers in that video, Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, who served as a captain in the U.S. Navy will be our guest.

But first, there's a new measure that could allow senators to sue. the federal government, but it's nearly impossible for U.S. citizens to do the same. We'll bring in a reporter who's digging into that. And as we go to break, a quick look at the Travelers forecast this morning from Accuethers Bernie Rayno.

What's look like, Bernie? How's it looking on this Friday? Mika, happy Friday. Clouds today, New York City, and in Boston. Acquether exclusive forecast calling for some rain in Washington, D.C. Meanwhile, the warmth continues in the southeast, drier in Dallas, beautiful day in Miami.

And if you're doing any traveling, Accuether said should be fine along the East Coast, despite the morning clouds this morning. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the ACUweather up today. Welcome back at 32 past the hour. The Wall Street Journal. It looks pretty there, huh? Yeah, it does. It's a gorgeous, beautiful morning. It's very nice. Very, very, very nice. The Wall Street Journal editorial board is writing about, quote, Trump's Texas gerrymander backfire. The piece reads in part, quote,

President Trump's insistence that Texas Republicans redraw their house map before the 26 midterms as looking like it could backfire in a big way. Brobro. A federal court on Tuesday struck down the new map as an unconstitutional, racial gerrymander. The dispute is a legal hash, but it suggests the GOP didn't look, before leaping in a mid-decade gerrymander free-for-all. Texas Republicans will surely petition the Supreme Court to stay the panel's decision, and its reasoning is convoluted and questionable,

especially given that many GOP legislators in Texas admitted their partisan motives. Even so, it shows the risk that Republicans took by starting this mid-decade redistricting race to the bottom. The Democratic reaction to Mr. Trump's Texas power. play could erase most, if not all, GOP gains. Mr. Trump's attempt to bludgeon GOP state legislatures to redo their districts could turn out to be a misjudgment that costs Republicans their House majority. Yeah, I mean. I'm pretty much calling it dumb.

Yeah, I mean, Cathy Kay, again, there are no shortcuts here. I know that as somebody from Britain you're a huge baseball fan Right Huge oh my god I see I keep seeing this clip And it's George Will talking about how democracy is

The perfect game Baseball is the perfect game for democracy Because you know You're going to fail more than you succeed If you get up and you you succeed One out of three times you're an old star You go to the ballpark knowing that your team is going to lose has a one-third to one-half chance of losing.

But it's through the season. It's the grinding. It's a back and forth. It's a compromise. It's a small things that help you win at the end. Please stay with me, Caddy, because I see you're about to explode in last. It's sort of 6.30 in the morning.

I haven't had a coffee yet, but I'm trying. Okay. I'm here. So you're smiling because you're trying to stay awake. All right. And so it's the same thing with Washington. there are checks and balances. I remember telling Donald Trump a very long time ago.

You know, the most important person in Washington, D.C. is usually the Senate minority leader. It doesn't sound, it sounds bizarre, but it's the truth. If you're the president, you have to get up to 60 votes. It's something, though, they never consider. They've never, one Republican operative told me a couple days ago that Republicans are now just waking up on the hill going, oh wait we have to get the 60 votes to do anything you're just figuring that out now but that's the thing so it's always like

shortcuts shortcuts shortcuts and every one of his shortcuts are turning around and and actually backfiring politically in this texas one where he's got gavin newsome to get five the right way it's a perfect example yeah i mean i think this is why i remain an optimist every time i'm asked one i've just come back from a couple of weeks in europe and i'm I feel like I'm playing therapist again, and I'm asked, you know, is it time for us to jump out the window and give up on America? And I say, no, no, no, you have to wait because the system actually is pretty ingenious. And I think we've seen examples of that. We see examples of that in this Texas ruling that actually there are procedures, legal procedures that have to be upheld and the law will uphold them. You see it in the case of Jim Comey. There are checks and

balances, legal checks and balances, legal hurdles that put in place. And if you don't follow those legal hurdles, it turns out you may not actually have the case that you thought you had and the case could end up being dismissed. So I think what we're seeing in this administration at the moment, and I don't know if it's because they feel so under pressure because of the low approval ratings, because of the economy not doing badly, because of the Epstein files not doing badly, the rush in which they're doing things, the speed in which they're doing things, is leading to a certain amount of sloppiness. And when you are sloppy, if you are incompetent up against a system that is actually a pretty competent system,

even though Congress has kind of been asleep for the last eight months, you don't win. And I think you're seeing that start to happen time. And again, whether it's in the Jim Coma case, whether it's in the redistricting, you have to actually get it right. Otherwise, the system is stronger than you are. Well, often there's the concept of putting people who are incompetent in jobs

so that they are subservient. Right. The problem is there still are consequences. Cathy brought up Comey. And we're seeing that. time. Again, Willi, we were just talking about this. We, Will and I just returned from Capri. Oh, God. Stayed at Gourvedal's old home.

Clear our heads. We had to clear our heads. Often we go there and just have, drink port and say, what would Gore do right now, right? So, but anyway, it's always, again, these shortcuts, there are no shortcuts. I remember one time walking out when I decided to leave Congress and I walked out and I looked at 435 people on the floor and I go, there's sure a lot of people out here I got to deal with before I get anything done. But that's the way democracy's supposed to work, and that's what Donald Trump should understand.

You've got to get to 60. And government never intended to be run through executive order, which is how this president has tried to do it, and he's bumping up against the system that's pushing back. I should point out, too, and the journal gets at this, even the redrawn district that Republicans in Texas, which are in dispute right now, but in Ohio and North Carolina, those aren't considered gimmies, all of those districts,

so that may backfire in those places, too. In other words, Democrats may end up winning some of those redrawn districts. We'll see. But this is not working out, I think, the way they designed it. Let's go back to Comey. Just 24 hours after acknowledging a federal judge, the full grand jury had not reviewed the final indictment of former FBI director James Comey.

The Justice Department is now reversing its position in shocking testimony. Oh, wait. We did? Wait. What do you do that? They're deboned in federal court, and then like I said, they're like, oh, wait, wait, yeah, yeah, I think, oh, wait, yeah, we did. Whoa. In shocking testimony, Trump appointed acting U.S. attorney Lindsey Halligan said when jurors voted to indict Comey on two of the three counts submitted in the original indictment, the full grand jury had not reviewed a final revised document. Instead, only a jury four-person and an additional grand juror saw the document.

But in a court filing yesterday entitled Government's Notice Correcting the Record, Federal Prosecutors... It was originally titled, wait, my bad. But go ahead. Federal prosecutors took back that claim, saying the full grand jury actually did review the final indictment and disputed arguments by Comey's defense team that it is invalid. Halligan, Trump's former personal attorney, who has no prior prosecuting experience, also released an unusual statement yesterday, criticizing the judge in the case? Oh, that always helps.

By mischaracterizing comments he made on Wednesday. Oh, that always helps. Writing in part, quote, personal attacks like Judge Nakmanoff referring to me as a puppet, don't change the facts or the law. All right. So anyway, she should be so lucky that statements could change the facts. or the law, Jonathan, because they all work against her. They all work against the Department of Justice, and they all work for James Comey here. Yeah, I mean, it was really just an embarrassing

the other day. We talked to the day. I think the Times characterizes an excruciating session there in the courtroom. And they made mistake after mistake. Yesterday, we're seeing some pushback here, some attempting to get the case back on track. But we've talked to legal experts all week long who have said, like, these are gifts for the Comey defense here. And to the broader point, just the sloppiness that is suddenly permeated the Trump administration where for the first, you know, six-ish months, they largely enacted what they wanted to do. People disagreed with some of the legality of it. But they had their agenda, Project 2025 infused, and they got a lot done. That seems to be careening off the rails and rapidly. The president, as someone

put to me, is acting like he's in his final months of his term. That's what I don't understand. Yeah, as opposed to still year one. And I think the pressure, this seems to be the pressure is building about because of this, the, all of these things going wrong at once, he's seeing the midterm slip away. He knows how hard his life would get. That's what I don't understand. At this point, you can't. Sorry, Joe, I was just going to say, like, the Supreme Court ruling on tariffs is coming up. Yeah. Like, that has been so key to his governing, so key to how he has tried to reshape the U.S. economy, the world economy. And if that comes down from a Supreme Court that is a majority in conservative with three

appointees from his first term that'll be such a blow to him and that is hanging over him just like all these other things so let's look at what's bothering him those are the things yeah let me let me ask what what what's going on though inside the white house i know i know this sounds like a stupid question because well i'm asking it so it is but but all that aside they have to get to 60 votes in the senate to pass any law that will will have a lasting effect all of these presidents orders that he signed are going to be reversed by the next president. So is there nobody in the White House that's saying, let's get a Democrat over here? Let's figure out how to get to 60 votes.

Let's build your legacy, Mr. President, because your truth social posts and the insults and the executive orders, those will all just vanish. So your question is, are people around him saying that? I think the answer is, I think the answer to that is no. I mean, I think one of the big differences between Trump 2.0 and Trump 1.0 are the people that the president surrounded himself with. If they were looking further down the line at his legacy, then some of those are points that they would be making.

But this is a president who largely during his second term has governed by executive order and had some success during the first several months. And now he's coming up against those limitations, including the 60 votes. you're referring to. And those limitations are real. And the idea of outreach to Democrats just this week, Trump claimed he'd been talking to Democrats on some health care things. Hakeem Jeffrey spoke to every member of his caucus. There's been no conversations. There has been no talks between the White House and any Democrat on any of these issues. The extent of his outreach to Democrats is calling for their execution. Well, you know, the thing is, I mean, it sounds radical,

but he may find his life in Washington much easier, Willie. If he does start talking to Democrats, if he says we have an affordability problem, let's start with health care. We know Obamacare is very popular right now, but we also know that the price for it continues to go up. I mean, they could come to a deal with Democrats and the president on health care in general, like health care coverage, that just something simple, that would help Donald Trump and Democrats. Like, for instance, if a doctor,

orders up a test and says something is medically necessary, your private health care insurance company can't deny that coverage. Or if you have coverage and then you get home, there can't be hidden billing. You can't have a doctor say, oh, here, you got to go get this test and it's covered here. And then suddenly you come home and you have a thousand dollar bill for some test that is going to put you behind on paying groceries and paying your rent for the next six months. And that would actually help people's lives.

It's not sexy, it doesn't make a fun, true social post, but that actually would make a difference to Americans' lives. And I'll tell you, if these ACA subsidies expire on December 31st, there's going to be real pain for a lot of people, not just Democrats, Democrats and Republicans across the country, and that's not going to help him either. But to your question about, is there anybody who can go in and talk to him?

1.0 versus 2.0. There's no General Kelly this morning going in saying, sir, here's what those members of Congress were saying. They were saying you cannot defy an illegal act, and they're right about that. There's no one. In fact, they're going in and saying, sick burn, great post yesterday. You got morning Joe riled up. Stay at it. Stay at it. All right. White House correspondent for Reuters, Jeff Mason. Thank you. Not really. I know. No, no. No, I just talked about a fainting couch. Yeah.

I think Mike Johnson needs to have his fainting couch. No, I think Lindsay needs to, like, you know, actually, they just need to tell the truth. That's all I'm asking. Yeah. Coming up, as we mentioned, Senator Markelly will be our guest after the president accused him and five other Democrats of seditious behavior. For telling troops not to do things that are illegal. Morning, Joe. Nice definition of seditious you got there, buddy.

It's coming right back. It is 10 minutes before the top of the hour. Homeland Security says its immigration crackdown in Charlotte, North Carolina is not over, despite earlier reports that the operation had concluded. Initially, the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office said yesterday that Border Patrol had ended its immigration enforcement operation in the city. Nearly a week after, the agency first deployed agents to the state's most populated city. But just hours later, several local media outlets reported DHS officials

had informed them the operation was still active. Look at that picture, by the way. And would not be ending anytime soon. If you're in Carolina, if you're in North Carolina, a swing state, and you see that like by, like where you're picking your kids up for school? Yeah. Or if you see that downtown, or if you see that by a mall, or you see it by a pigly wiggly. I mean, what are you thinking? You're not thinking, oh, these are the good old days. I mean, you're thinking like, man, come on. It looks like an occupying army.

Yeah, why are you occupying like Billy Graham's hometown? That's what they're asking. Your kids, friends, mom is taken away by these people? I don't know. A dad just really not. Just not a good look. It doesn't feel American. Well, it's just not.

It doesn't. And it's not a good look for, it's just not a good look for people in Charlotte. It's not a good look for this administration. I mean, listen, there's, there are ways to do this. Yeah. There are ways, this is not the way to do it. So as of yesterday, Homeland Security said more than 370 people had been arrested in the Charlotte area since the operation launched last week. The Associated Press is reporting Border Patrol is now preparing to mobilize New Orleans for its next.

I mean, you know, Jonathan, weren't you the one that told me, it told us that that whole scene, that Jerry Bruckheimer film that they, they did in Chicago with helicopters swirling around, I mean, it looked like a Bruckheimer film. And basically an invasion of Chicago ended up netting no arrests. Zero arrests. It was, you know, they got a slickly produced video out of it. This is all showbiz. It's all showbiz. They got zero arrests out of that. We, we, We've talked all week about the, I believe it was ProPublica's reporting about how few of the people who were having picked up in any of the Chicago raids actually had violent criminal offenses in their past. And this is something that we've seen his poll numbers, the president's poll numbers on immigration, take a hit every time there is one of these flashy raids. Like, maybe it plays well with a segment of his base, but it's not playing well with the rest of the country.

But we talked to officials just yesterday. New Orleans does seem next, and they're still eyeing a New York City push come January. The president is meeting with mayor-elected Mom Dani today in the Oval Office, so perhaps that will change things. But as of now, Homeland Security officials say New York after the New Year. And they put out these numbers, like Mika just read 400-some arrests in Charlotte. What we've learned from previous cities, that's a big top-line number. And then when you process, you realize it's a tiny, vanishingly small percentage of people who actually have violent criminal histories and need to be deported. The Trump administration's immigration crackdown has led to some U.S. citizens being arrested and detained by federal.

agents. New reporting by MS Now highlights how these American citizens essentially have no effective direct legal path to sue the government or individual federal agencies for damages inflicted upon them. But that is not the case if you are a United States senator. Join us now to explain the author of that piece, MS Now White House reporter Laura Barone Lopez. Laura, good morning. Tell us more about your report. Yeah, Willie. So essentially, I had been talking to U.S. citizens and civil rights lawyers, even before Republicans and the Senate tucked this direct right to sue, this tailor-made right to sue, into the shutdown deal for senators. And these U.S. citizens and civil rights lawyers had essentially told me that after these arrests are happening, after the

arrest and detainment of U.S. citizens, sometimes for days on end, they're detained by federal immigration agents, after some U.S. citizens have seen agents trespass on their property to chase Latino construction workers as one in Chicago resident that I spoke to had that done. After all of that, they effectively have no direct legal path, no direct avenue, no accountability

to sue not just those individual federal agents that potentially violated their constitutional rights, but also the federal government. And so when they found out that this was tucked inside the bill, this essential, you know, fast-tracked right to sue the federal government

for Senate, Some of them called it a slap in the face. Some of them called it perverse. They were incredibly upset about this, given what they're facing. I mean, the House has repealed it, right? Senate still needs to pass it. That's the situation. What is the benefit, the direct benefit to senators of this bill passing for them?

So this gives senators the ability to sue for at least $500,000 in damages if their phone records are seized without their knowledge. And it all came about because of the fact that it was revealed in October. that senators had their phone record seized during that Arctic Frost investigation by Special Counsel Jack Smith. And it was, Jack Smith had a lawful subpoena to do this. And he seized the phone records, which was just call history, the date and times of the calls, who they called.

But it was not the content of these calls that senators had in the lead up to and around January six. and that effort by President Trump to overturn the 2020 election. And so that's what the investigation was about. And when senators found out that, especially Republican senators, found out that that was the case, they got this tucked inside of the bill. And so now they're able to sue for at least $500,000, if not more. All right.

MS Now White House reporter Laura Barone-Lopez. Thank you very much. Her piece is available online at MS.D.N. Now. I mean, you'd really think if you're an American citizen, you get arrested. wrongly. You have to have recourse. I mean, that's simple. You should have recourse. And these senators are saying, you know, pay us $500,000 or, you know, it's kind of crazy. Now, listen, the way it's done is, if an agency does that to you, then you call them before you and, you know, you make sure it can ever happen again, and you take, you take appropriations from them.

And certainly there are some senators who oppose this, including Josh Hawley. Yeah, Josh. Josh Holley is on the right side on this one. Yeah, he was angry at the January 6th Arctic Frost-related investigation, but says, look, we shouldn't have recourse to sue here. But the biggest champion to do so, and it said he will try to sue for a half million dollars, the aforementioned Lindsey Graham. Graham is the biggest proponent of this ability to sue the federal government from senators.