i saw the inflation reduction act. yes, of course it helps black people. i saw the chips act. but the promises you've made that disproportionately impact black people, where has that worked? i think that's something the administration has to wrestle with. more importantly, the campaign is going to have to figure out how to message over the next year. >> eugene, one quick, quick, last question. if you had to rank your favorite colleague at "politico," who would it be? >> you know, there's this editor of mine who is very high up there. >> there we go. >> i won't say who he is, but he is there. >> thank you. "politico's" eugene daniels, the best answer of the day. congratulations. you score. you win. thank you very much. thank you for getting up "way too early" with us on this thursday morning. "morning joe" starts right now. hey, colorado. donald trump is no longer on the ballot, but you can still vote for a proven winner. a glorious leader with a very large brain. his name, dernald termp.

never indicted or incited an insurrection. he loves his children. he doesn't hide classified documents. vote dernald turmp, and he'll make the united states goodest, as it once one. i approve this message. >> i didn't know. >> good morning. welcome to "morning joe." it is thursday, december 21st. great to have you with us. also with us, we have white house editor for "politico," sam stein, who intimidates people who work for him to say that he is their favorite. we heard that, sam. also, msnbc contributor mike barnicle. washington bureau chief for the "usa today," susan page. and staff writer at "the atlantic," mark leibovich. president biden made his first remarks yesterday about the colorado supreme court ruling that donald trump is disqualified from that state's

204 primary ballot because of his role in the january 6th attack on the capitol. in milwaukee, biden initially refused to comment but then said this when asked if trump supported an insurrection. >> well, i think it's self-evident. you saw it all. whether the 14th amendment applies, we'll let the court make that decision, but he certainly supported an insurrection. no question about it. none, zero. he seems to be doubling down on about everything. anyway, i've got to go do this. >> by the way, there is nothing controversial about that. mike barnicle, we all saw it with our own eyes. >> yeah. >> this is one of those moments, what, you going to believe me or your lying eyes? >> yeah. >> americans saw this with their eyes. they understand that donald trump did, in fact, take part, lead, encourage an insurrection to take place. they know that he told people they needed to storm the

capitol, they needed to stop the count. he got extraordinarily angry with the secret service when they stopped him from going up there because he wanted to march on the floor. he wanted to be in the center of the insurrection. mike, you know, it's so maddening when donald trump talks about the, quote, hostages and how grotesque to say that with what's going on in israel. but donald trump talks about the hostages being held. he about the people who beat the hell out of cops. donald trump has still escaped justice. donald trump is not in jail for committing insurrection, which we all know he did. americans know he did. he's out of jail because he is rich and powerful. those people being in jail, those working americans that followed his instructions and told the judges they were just following his insurrection

instructions, they're in jail because they're not rich and powerful like donald trump. so, yeah, yeah, he committed insurrection. yes, if there were justice already, he'd be a lot more concerned about things than just not being on the colorado republican ballot. he'd be concerned because he should be in jail. >> well, joe, you know, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. in this case, the proof is on the video tape. like the old sports announcers used to say, "let's go to the video tape and take a look." donald trump did, indeed, support and promote an insurrection. everybody in america and everybody in the world saw it play out. it was not a great day for democracy, certainly not a great day for this country. donald trump is still -- he has yet to pay a price, joe, not only for all of this. he really, in effect, has not paid a price for anything over the past 30 to 35 or 40 years when he was in business in new york. >> nah. >> he's never been touched by

the law. he's always avoided it with delays and obfiscation and lying. the sad part is, he has enormous support considering the amount of people in the country who pay attention to politics but not really all of politics. the colorado ruling, sadly, as legitimate as some people think it is, it is more or less a get out the vote operation for donald trump, for his people. >> well -- >> it's just -- >> -- yeah. >> -- kind of disturbing. >> you know, it may be a get out the vote operation. there are those of us, and i've said it all along, i know it's irritating to people who think politics is about everything and men are above the law, but we either have a constitution or we don't have a constitution. here's the factual question: did donald trump commit insurrection? >> yes.

>> if donald trump committed insurrection, then as judge ludig said, it is not anti-democratic to follow the constitution of the united states and section 3 of the 14th amendment. that's, in fact, the most pro-democratic thing that can be done. stay with me. because if, in fact, he committed insurrection against the united states, this is the ultimate protectorate of that democracy. i understand, it's sad and pathetic that people will say, "oh, trump derangement syndrome. oh, this. oh, that." on other networks, they're going to be trying to confuse you. they're going to be trying to move the ball. they're going to be trying to confuse viewers which they do regularly, quite often. the fact is, the constitution is crystal clear.

if a court finds, as a colorado court found, donald trump committed insurrection against a united states government, you either follow the constitution or you don't. talk about democracy all you want. i'm sure people who were following hitler were talking about democracy a lot, i don't know, mussolini. i guess they can go wave the banner of democracy around when it's actually the opposite of democracy. actually the opposite of democracy. committing insurrection against the united states constitution, trying to actually steal a presidential election, the an an antithesis. if the constitution of the united states is followed, these people want you to believe it's anti-democratic. they want you to believe the 14th amendment is anti-democratic. they want you to believe that section 3 of the 14th amendment, which is crystal clear, is anti-democratic. the fact is, what it does, the 14th amendment, section 3,

protects us against those people and protects us against the thug that sent those people to capitol hill. i'm not alone in saying this. >> joe, i -- >> 54% of americans -- mike, hold on one second. 54% of americans. 54% of americans approve of the colorado supreme court's decision to kick donald trump off the state's 2024 presidential primary ball 54% of americans approve of it. only 35% of americans disapprove of it. the survey conducted by yougov america found 84% of democrats, 48% of independents. 48 independent of independents and 24% of republicans approve of the ruling. do polls dictate what courts should do? no, they don't. but when you have donald trump and people who want an

authoritarian taking control of washington, d.c., again, saying, "oh, this is a radical decision. this is anti-democratic," when, in fact, it's the opposite, that poll is just one snapshot to show the majority of americans are like, "yeah, yeah. you know what? he shouldn't be on the ballot because he committed insurrection against the united states." >> joe, i don't disagree with a word you've said. i fully subscribe to all of it. my problem is, i'm conflicted. i'm torn about it. because we are a country of habit. we do things by habit. we have certain days, memorial day, july 4th, it's habit. one of the habits we all share is election day. >> right. >> it's voting people on or out of office. i would think now the courts have spoken in colorado. other courts will speak. the supreme court will likely speak within the next month, certainly, maybe sooner. i mean, the habit people have of voting, that's the way to do in donald trump. that's the way to do him in.

it is up to the democratic party, president biden's party, his campaign for re-election, to do the job, to help us do the job to get ride of him. >> yeah. >> not the courts. >> i completely understand what you're saying. but when the habit, susan page, of voting peacefully is broken for the first time since the civil war by somebody that wants to stop the peaceful transition of power, that habit, that norm is broken by donald trump. that said, i completely understand what mike barnicle is saying. susan, you've been in washington almost as long as me, and i'm sure you understand, and i know you've thought about it an awful lot, this supreme court, this roberts supreme court, they have a massive decision to make. if it were just a law review article to be written, they'd probably come down on the side of the colorado supreme court. but with all the implications

that mike is talking about, i just think how hard it is going to be. i know people don't understand this. but how hard it is going to be for the united states supreme court to get there, even if it is the legally correct thing to do under section 3 of the 14th amendment. just the real-life implications are going to be so massive, i think an institutionalist like john roberts and his court is going to have to hard time getting there. >> yeah, for sure a tough decision. do we think it might be a 9-0 decision instead of a 5-4? possibly. that'd be reassuring for americans, no matter which way it went. i think back to the 2000 election, decided by the supreme court with a 5-4 decision along what amounts to partisan lines on the court. what strikes me about the time since then is how, after that court decision came down, it was accepted by al gore, even though he'd won the popular vote. it was accepted by most americans.

there was not rioting in the streets over an election being stolen. what if the court came out with a decision this time around, 5-4, closely divided, largely along partisan lines, that went one way or the other -- with a 5-4 decision, it'd probably go trump's way, maybe it wouldn't -- would the country accept the decision in the same way as the country accepted it in 2000? i think the consequences would be considerably more serious. >> i agree with you. it's been a rocky 23 years since that supreme court decision that decided the 2000 race. here's former attorney general barr who is usually critical of what donald trump did on october 6th and the days -- january 6th, i mean, and the days following. yesterday, he was critical of donald trump's racist language that channelled adolph hitler. we'll show that clip in a little bit. but here is barr, former

attorney general barr, oppoing the colorado decision, saying it only helps donald trump. take a look. >> i think that this case is legally wrong and untenable. stretching the law, taking these hyperaggressive positions to try to knock donald trump out of the race are counterproductive. they backfire. as you know, he feeds on grievance, just like a fire feeds on oxygen. this is going to end up as a grievance that helps him. >> again, mark leibovich, this is a fascinating legal question. he said two things there. barr said it was legally wrong. i actually disagree with him there, and i think a lot of legal scholars, of which i am not one, but a lot of legal scholars would disagree with the former attorney general, that it's legally wrong. i think a lot of them might agree on the second thing he said, which is untenable.

i know a lot of people are watching and they're noting the friction, "wait a second, you're saying it may be legally correct but untenable at the same time?" that's exactly what i'm saying, mark, because of the consequences. i mean, i would hope that the supreme court could put on blinders and say, "this is a law. we're going to apply section 3 of the 14th amendment in the way that it was written." but, again, i think if there is any ambiguity, the court, maybe in the 9-0 fashion, is going to rush to the ambiguity, even if it is not legally correct. >> yeah, i think the notion of grievance in this context is, frankly, a political construct, right? i mean, donald trump has used grievance to his political advantage, and the legal aspect of this is, yeah, i mean, it is obviously very contentious and something that is going to be, you know, argued up the ladder. i mean, i think, though, that, you know, ultimately, i think

most americans would think that this should be decided by voters. i mean, whether they theoretically agree with the court case most people haven't read terribly closely is one thing. voters shouldn't get off the hook that easily. that's the view of a lot of people who disagree with the decision, whether they disagree for political reasons, practical reasons, what have you. ultimately, voters need to weigh in on donald trump at some point. joe biden, too. you know, wherever the election comes out next november, it is going to have to be some kind of national consensus. it is very messy. it might not be an electoral consensus. ultimately, i mean, i think the court here is -- i guess what attorney general barr was saying is it muddles the issue a little bit. it turns it political inherently. you know, it probably is not going to save us ultimately from what is going to be an extremely messy election. >> yeah. joe, let me just add a couple things here. one is, you know, barr said, you know, he obviously disagreed

with the decision. he said it is stretching the law. maybe so. but it is worth noting the law is stretched not by the people who brought this case forward. it's stretched by trump, right? trump brought this issue upon himself by his actions on january 6th. we've never had to debate these legal issues in the 14th amendment's third clause before because, frankly, we've never had a president involved in inciting an insurrection before. this is the situation we have ourselves in. secondly, you know, there's probably a lot of public misconception about this, but this case is, yes, being cheered on by liberal activists, but it is being brought forward by longtime conservative activists. obviously, they're critical of trump, but these aren't, you know, like ralph nader types. they worked for the federalist society. something to consider. also, to mark's point, when you take the temperature of even democrats, i mean, i thought the most interesting thing yesterday

was just how quiet democrats were about this. they're not cheering it. they recognize that it's a tinderbox politically for them to say, "yeah, let's let the courts knock trump off the ballot." looks like they're engineering trump's defeat. dean phillips, challenging biden, said he disagreed with the decision. i think the general consensus politically is that this can't be held up. it has to be decided at the ballot box. but, you know, to underscore your point, joe, i think there is a seriousness to the challenge and the legal issues at hand that barr probably dismisses too kindly. >> well, he does dismiss way too kindly. i understand the political impact of this. a couple laughable arguments, though, that if you hear somebody saying today, feel free to mock them. don't mock them. i'm just joking. it's the christmas season. be sweet. maybe just gently correct them. the number one thing is that this is some kind of leftist plot. this is not a leftist plot.

this idea, this law review paper, this approach was actually framed by two of the -- two highly respected members of the federalist society. people that the new members of the supreme court that were appointed by donald trump know all too well and have read all too often. to just simply dismiss this as some sort of left wing, legal conspiracy. sam, you're exactly right. i think bill barr was wrong to dismiss it out of hand in saying it was, quote, stretching the law. it's not stretching the law. the second thing is, again, how anybody that supports donald trump can say with a straight face that this is anti-democratic, as sam said, again, this goes back to january 6th. the most anti-democratic actions that were taken against the united states of america since fort sumpter. and the very people that

continue to support that insurrection and promise us if donald trump is elected again, he's going to jail his opponents, he's going to assassinate generals, he's going to ban media outlets that he disagrees with, these are the people that are now preaching about anti-democratic amendments to the constitution of the united states, as they fall on their fainting couches and are triggered, that somebody may actually apply the constitution to the facts at hand on an insurrection that donald trump inspired, that he led, that he was responsible for. again, so many of these people are serving jail time and donald trump is not, for one simple reason. unlike donald trump, they are not rich and powerful. so, please, spare me the anti-democratic lectures.

what a joke. anyway, when we come back, we already showed you some of what former attorney general barr said about this case. we're going to show you what he said about donald trump's poisoning of the blood fascist rhetoric. also going to show you some of the more milley mouth responses from republican presidential candidates when "morning joe" returns. i had gained everything back extremely fast. i was unhealthy, miserable and depressed. following golo, and taking release, i was able to lose weight gradually and keep it off. i wish i'd started sooner. don't wait, go straight to golo.com.

we have a lot of work to do. when they let -- i think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country, when they do that, we have a lot of work to do. they're poisoning the blood of our country. we have no idea who any of them are. they come from africa. they come from asia. they come from south america. and it's true, they're destroying the blood of our country. that's what they're doing. they're destroying our country. they don't like it when i said that, and i never read "mein kampf." they said, oh, hitler said that

in a much different way. no, they're coming from all over the world, people all over the world. we have no idea. they could be healthy. they could be very unhealthy. they could bring in disease that's going to catch on in our country, but they do bring in crime. they have them coming from all over the world, and they're destroying the blood of our country. they're destroying the fabric of our country. we're going to have to get them out. >> a couple of quick corrections here. by the way, that is rhetoric that is eerily reminiscent of what adolph hitler said. donald trump said he didn't read "mein kampf." perhaps he never read "mein kampf". i don't know. i know ivana trump said he kept a book of hitler's speeches by his bedside. told "vanity fair" that. maybe it's not "mein kampf," but he is certainly channelling that book that ivana trump said he

kept by his bedside. that was some of donald trump's worst rhetoric lately, and, of course, there's quite a hardy competition for the worst things that he's been saying recently. that was some. this is some of donald trump's 2024 opponents who are lobbing mild criticisms at trump for his repeated fascist rhetoric, talking about migrants poisoning the blood of our country. in an interview released yesterday by the christian broadcasting network, florida governor ron desantis said this. >> when you start talking about using those types of terms, i don't think that that helps us move the ball forward. i would not put it in those terms. >> a former u.n. ambassador, nikki haley, told the ""des moines register" that trump's remarks were, quote, not helpful. compare it to chris christie, seen in an interview sunday, called donald trump's, quote, disgusting for the comments and

said he was dog whistling to americans. may be more of a foghorn. when you're quoting hitler, we're beyond the dog whistling stage. more than dogs can hear hitler rhetoric. here is what former trump general attorney bill barr had to say about it. >> i'm offended by it because it has racist overtones. i actually feel -- as you say, we have to control the border, and a lot of people are coming across the border from anywhere in the world. we don't know where they're coming from. but at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is, the hispanic-americans that have come up from south america have made great citizens. they have strong values. they're entrepreneurial. my son-in-law was a marine combat officer, and he said the best marines in his unit in iraq were recent hispanic immigrants. i don't like these racist overtones. in the broad sweep of history,

the fact we have a reservoir to our south of these people who come out of the western tradition, they're religious people, good family people in general, is a boom to the united states. does that mean they're all like that? no. does bringing in a lot of people at once from a different country, does that put stra str on our system and harm the country to an extent? yes, it does. but the attacks on the idea that they pollute our blood, you know, i think are foul. >> yeah, you know who he sounds a lot like is ronald reagan. i know trump republicans probably don't understand that because they probably don't read ronald reagan, what ronald reagan said, or ever listen to what ronald reagan used to say, but that's what reagan said. he said it in the farewell address to americans, how important immigrants are.

he brought up hispanic-americans are some of the bravest, some of the toughest, some of the best fighters that we have in uniform, which i'm glad he brought up. i've heard that time and again. so it is interesting, susan page. while some of the condemnations may not have been as full throated as some would like, it is interesting that most republicans now do feel comfortable, at least these presidential candidates in at least condemning him for what bill barr said was foul language. >> i don't know if i would give them that much credit. nikki haley, the child of immigrants, she says they're not helpful. i mean, these are dehumanizing comments with a fascistic history. poisoning the blood of our country, earlier president trump referred to them as vermin. this is language we know about in not-so-far history.

why are the candidates who most want to replace him as the republican nominee not calling this out in a more serious way? it says something about the state of the republican party and the hold that trump continues to have on its voters. >> well, to me, you know, it says something about the sort of centrality of immigration and fears of immigration in trump's appeal. i mean, this has been the sort of bedrock principle of trumpism from the get-go, starting with the muslim ban to the attacks on justices over their nationality. i don't know, mark, you followed the guy for a while. i'm kind of curious biographically, prior to his political days, where does this come from? what informed his thinking? or is this a crass political calculation he is making? >> i think both. first of all, two of his three wives were immigrants.

>> right. that's not that -- that tends to happen sometimes, where you have a familial connection and you are blatantly racist. >> i think there is a visceral calculation. he comes from a world of ethnic politics and ethnic friction. that's the melting pot of new york, and it is often vibrant and very dynamic, but it also can be turned on its head. it can be an incredibly divisive notion that can be used quite cynically. i don't know. i would just say that it would not kill me never to hear the expression, "that's not helpful" again from politicians. i mean, the idea that everything must be helpful. you're right, though, i do think it goes to the level of passivity that is the anti-trump resistance in the republican party, which is, frankly,

abysmal, as we've all said. >> mike barnicle, susan page brings up a great point. for nikki haley to say that it's not helpful when she is the daughter of immigrants, as somebody that has seen firsthand the american dream and seen how important immigrants are to the american dream. you know, just like donald trump's mom was an immigrant. just like two of donald trump's three wives were immigrants. just like nikki haley's parents were immigrants. we have -- just like people who have made and remade silicon valley are immigrants. we can go down the list of people who we see on tv, people who impact our world, people who make america stronger and more vibrant, in the words of ronald reagan, and they're immigrants. i take susan's point, "not helpful" is not helpful. she needs to say more. >> everybody needs to say more. i mean, think about what we've been talking about here for 20 minutes. this country is in a state of

turmoil. who caused the turmoil? largely, donald trump caused the turmoil because of his behavior, because of who he is and what he does. the question is, for all of us as americans, not the politics, all of us as regular americans to ask, how did we get here? how did a guy with a 40-year record of being a fraud skate on everything? escape from every charge, how did that happen? how does it happen that he was once a president of the united states, now might be again a president of the united states as he is running for president and clearly has the nomination of one of our two major political parties, when this guy, one judge called him a rapist, another judge, another court declared that he is a total fraud, a fake, a crook, a thief? he is going to be odds-on favorite to be president of the united states. where are the democrats in dealing with this?

why haven't they gone after him harder than they have ever in the past? the republicans are foolish. they sound foolish. they sound fraudulent. they sound really, really weak. i mean, nikki haley, that's a perfect example. the daughter of immigrants said, "oh, that's not helpful." i mean, she's not helpful. >> yeah, it really is -- again, yeah, not helpful. it's also fascinating, what mike said, susan, that donald trump has never been held accountable. he's never been held accountable for anything. his supporters are so shocked and stunned that there are all these lawsuits, all of these cases, all of these charges that have been brought against him, when we were saying here in 2019 that if he lost in 2020, he would run again so he could say, "oh, they're only coming after me, only bringing these charges

against me" -- which people knew were coming -- "they're only bringing them against me because i'm running for office." there was talk. you could look in "the washington post." look in the "usa today." look in "the new york times." there were people that were telegraphing this, saying, "well, yeah, he may run again if only to be able to use it as a shield against the prosecutions that he knows are coming." >> yeah, and, of course, he's seeking to delay a quick supreme court decision on presidential immunity. that's one of the big cases coming up. if he succeeds in having kind of regular order, meaning a slower process, the delay is victory, i think, this year for donald trump. it would put him in position, if he wins the election in 11 months, that he could dismiss these, order the justice department to not pursue these charges against him. you know, one question i have is, we've seen this phenomenon where all these indictments have not affected trump's support. it's, in fact, solidified

trump's support. if there is a conviction on some of the serious charges before the election, does that have a different effect? does that have a reckoning effect that will prompt some voters who have not yet changed their view on trump to reconsider their support? that's a question i don't know the answer to. i wonder if you know. >> i've seen -- mark leibovich, i've seen some reporting that suggests in recent polls that it doesn't have an impact. we heard originally that it would. it seems that the more donald trump is indicted, the more wrongdoing that's exposed, the more republicans like him. >> you know, but, in some cases, voters surprise us. they surprise us sometimes by the things they dismiss. they can surprise us by the things they take seriously. >> right. >> this is, i think, something to just -- i think it is something to be aware of and watching. >> i do think, though, that a conviction would move the needle more than an indictment.

there have been a lot of indictments now at this point. also, you know, people will say, i think, you know, the process has to play out. he needs to go through the courts and so forth. but to actually be convicted by a jury of his peers would, i think, make a statement. there would be a lot of courtroom drama around that. you know, it might make for a different calculus. >> polls show exactly that. they show a quarter of the republican electorate would turn against trump if he is convicted, which is significant. are people are likely to be turned off by trump because of these legal problems? voters 65 and older. traditionally, it's been a gop constituency, but they're more offended by this. i wonder if it is because maybe more of them lived through watergate and understand the severity of this. maybe they're just more inclined to turn democratic in recent years. i've noticed that in the polls, 65 and older tend to be more

turned off by trump because of this stuff. >> one of the reasons why i'm looking at polls now a bit more skeptically is because of how upside down they are. >> sure. >> you see joe biden doing better holding on with older voters and donald trump doing better with younger voters, something that many of us believed, up until the last couple of months, would actually just be in reverse. coming up, our next guest describes this past year on capitol hill as, quote, grossly unproductive. i know a couple days ago, "axios" said it was the least productive session in modern american history. we're going to break down the record historic dysfunction in the house and what it may mean for next year. "morning joe" will be right back. this, i believe, is one of the most important sources of america's greatness. we lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people, our strength, from every country and every corner

of the world. by doing so, we continuously renew and enrich our nation. while other countries cling to the stale past, here in america, we breathe life into dreams. we create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. thanks so each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. this quality is vital to our future as a nation. if we ever close the door to new americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost. this, i believe, is one of the most important sources of america's greatness. ♪ all come to america ♪ relief and helped leave bathroom urgency behind. check. when uc tried to slow me down... i got lasting, steroid-free remission with rinvoq.

check. and when uc caused damage rinvoq came through by visibly repairing my colon lining. check. rapid symptom relief... lasting steroid-free remission... ...and the chance to visibly repair the colon lining. check, check, and check. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal; cancers, including lymphoma and skin cancer; death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least 1 heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. put uc in check and keep it there with rinvoq. ask your gastroenterologist about rinvoq and learn how abbvie can help you save.

i'm andrea, and this is why i switched to shopify. it gave me so much peace of mind. if we make a change, my site's not going to go down. and just knowing that i have a platform that we can rely on, that is gold to us. start your free trial today. there is a lot of

information out there. hamas oppresses the people of gaza, uses civilians as human shields, and steals their basic supplies to use them in a war of terror. even when given the chance at peace, hamas broke the truce. our community needs to stand against hamas and stand with palestinians and israelis for basic human rights. focus on the truth. -dad, what's with your toenail? -oh, that...? i'm not sure... -it's a nail fungus infection. -...that's gross! -it's nothing, really... -it's contagious. you can even spread it to other people. -mom, come here! -don't worry about it. it'll go away on its own!

-no, it won't go away on its own. it's an infection. you need a prescription. nail fungus is a contagious infection. at the first signs, show it to your doctor... ... and ask if jublia is right for you. jublia is a prescription medicine used to treat toenail fungus. its most common side effects include ingrown toenail, application site redness... ... itching, swelling, burning or stinging, blisters and pain. jublia is recognized by the apma. most commercially insured patients may pay as little as $0 copay. go to jubliarx.com now to get started. ♪♪

beautiful shot of lower manhattan. four days before christmas. welcome back to "morning joe." it's been 75 years now since president harry truman nicknamed the 80th u.s. congress the do nothing congress. actually helped him very much in his re-election campaign. that title actually may be fitting for today's 118th congress more than the 80th congress. according to the bipartisan policy center, the republican-led house has held more votes this year while passing fewer laws than at any other time in the past decade. they really have done nothing. but don't take their word for it or my word for it. here's republican congressman chip roy. >> one thing! i want my republican colleagues to give me one thing, one that i can go campaign on and say we did. one! anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to come down to the

floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the republican majority has done besides, well, i guess it's not as bad as the democrats. >> with us now, let's bring in congressional correspondent for "the new york times," annie karni. she details the political corral sis stemming from the house republicans taking over in her new piece. annie, this was a train wreck legislatively from the start. of course, kevin mccarthy, you know, they couldn't even pick a speaker. when they did, they got rid of him. we went through the whole debacle again. the numbers don't lie here. in your article, you talk about how they've only enacted 27 laws compared to 2022, when 248 laws were passed. bills were signed into law. you just look at the comparison congress by congress, session by session.

this really is in a league of its own, isn't it? >> oh, absolutely. it was a historically unproductive congress that really did nothing. the comparison -- and last year's bills included, you know, landmark legislation like the inflation reduction act, the first bipartisan bill on guns in decades. this congress, some of those 27 bills include, like, renaming a veteran affairs clinic and something about a commemorative coin for the marine corps. these were really small bore items. a little bit of that is unfair. last year, democrats controlled the house and senate, and they could easily pass things to biden to sign into law. even comparing this year to other years of divided government, when the house was controlled by republicans and the senate was controlled by democrats, even factoring that in, it was a grossly unproductive session. most of that has to do with the fact that people like chip roy

enjoy making the point, the government does nothing. that's why we should have less of it. >> annie, i was going to say, how can you call it unproductive when it produced the likes of george santos, who gave us so much drama? but isn't the goal here to do nothing? isn't that the entire point of why republicans took over, is to basically stop everybody from happening? in that case, isn't what we're talking about a mission accomplished here? >> oh, yeah, that's part of the problem. first of all, if you count, like, personal grievance and drama, it was super productive. >> highly productive, right. >> censured three members of congress, expelled george santos, lots of speaker races, so in that sense, a productive year. but do nothing is the point, that is why, that is going to the why of it, why was it so bad? the republicans have a tiny majority only getting smaller with santos' expulsion and

mccarthy's resignation, and that's given people that are here to reireign in government, basically dismantle government, outsized power in the republican conference. it's allowed them to, you know, hold up any agenda. chip roy looked like he was having a ton of fun making the floor speech, talking about how they're doing nothing and got a clip that he can campaign on, that government is useless. that has made -- so not only is it a moment of divided government, but republicans have been divided against themselves, and the small group of far-right people have a lot of power. >> there is a relatively new speaker, mike johnson. we've witnessed the turmoil the last year. we've witnessed kevin mccarthy being thrown out and johnson succeeding him after multiple ballots, things like that. going forward, is it going to be the same old, the same movie we're going to be watching? is mike johnson going to be

walking on eggshells for fear of alienating maybe three people who could say, "get him out of there"? is that what we're looking forward to? >> i think so. i don't think he is afraid of being ousted. i think republicans realized how hard it was to install someone new and don't really want to do that again. but absolutely, the same dynamics are there. he has made all of the same moves that mccarthy did. january is going to be much worse. he has -- he passed short-term government spending bills to avoid a shutdown there year. he punted that into early next year. the far-right is mad at him for the same reasons that they were mad at mccarthy. they're pulling the same moves to demonstrate that by voting down rules on the house floor, which is something also that's never happened really before this congress. never happened to the past three speakers. yes, i think that the dynamics haven't changed.

the majority in the house has gotten smaller. mike johnson, so far, has proven to be an indecisive leader. despite being from the far right of the party, they're already angry with him. the honeymoon is over. i don't think anyone should expect next year to be any more productive than this one. >> oh, my god. what a clown show. kevin mccarthy taking, what, 15, 16 ballots. george santos. marjorie taylor greene, lauren boebert, their different exploits. the new speaker, very fascinating times. congressional correspondent for "the new york times," annie karni. thank you very much. appreciate you being with us. have a great holiday. >> you too. >> all right. mark leibovich -- coming up, we're going to -- i'm sorry, i was supposed to go to break.

whenever mark leibovich is here, you know, he is an idol to all of us that read "the atlantic." >> commercials can wait. >> yeah, the commercial can wait, said me always. so you have had this really interesting relationship with kevin mccarthy. i'm curious what your insight is on annie's reporting, on the house gop, how it got to where it's got, and how dysfunctional it was. again, i talked about how mccarthy, how hard it was for him to become speaker. lauren boebert, mtg, george santos, and now a speaker channelling jim and tammy faye bakker. i'm dead serious. dead serious, he's channelling them. i'm just curious what your

thought is about, not just what led to where we were, but kind of what we're looking at. through all of your reporting on kevin mccarthy. >> yeah, i mean, what is interesting about mccarthy, you want to ask him, was it worth it, kevin? this guy wanted one thing his entire career, which was to hold the speaker's gavel, to get the photo-op of him holding up the gavel, looking like a toy in his hands. then he had the pictures of himself outside the speaker's office. was it worth it? he had an extremely tumultuous speaker's, you know, less than a year speaker's tenure. what is interesting, though, is the two things that really got him booted by his caucus were arguably the only two responsible things he did. he crafted the debt ceiling deal with the white house. you know, he helped ensure that the government stays open when it looked like it was about to close. again, those are kind of standard speaker things. i mean, that's what happens and has traditionally happened without people, you know, really blinking an eye. yet, he does them, then he's

gone. i mean, i do wonder what he thinks from the outside. by all accounts, he seems kind of bitter about how it all went down. he seems to be on a revenge tour with some of the former colleagues who were behind his ouster. but, look, this is -- i think what we're looking at right now for as long as republicans control congress, especially with these margins, is speakers just terrified of, you know, ticking off the wrong person and having someone do the next motion to vacate and the next chaos period can commence. i don't know. i think mccarthy got what he was looking for, a bunch of photo-ops. not sure if it was worth it in his mind. >> maybe not. go ahead. it's official. that was great. it was worth putting this story off for about 90 seconds. let's do it now. it's official. the baltimore orioles will keep playing at camden yards for a very long time. we'll talk to maryland's governor wes moore about that. ♪ music in you ♪

>> and much more with moore when there's more "morning joe" coming up. ♪ one dance left ♪ you have a driver's license? oh. what did you get us? [ chuckling ] with the click of a pen, you can a new volkswagen at the sign, then drive event. sign today and you're off in a new volkswagen during the sign, then drive event. hi, i'm janice, and i lost 172 pounds on golo. when i was a teenager i had some severe trauma in my life and i turned to food for comfort. i had a doctor tell me that if i didn't change my life, i wasn't gonna live much longer. once i saw golo was working, i felt this rush, i just had to keep going.

a lot of people think no pain no gain, but with golo it is so easy. my life is so much different now that i've lost all this weight. when i look in the mirror i don't even recognize myself.

i'm a little anxious, i'm a little excited. i'm gonna be emotional, she's gonna be emotional, but it's gonna be so worth it. i love that i can give back to one of our customers. i hope you enjoy these amazing gifts. oh my goodness. oh, you guys. i know you like wrestling, so we got you some vip tickets. you have made an impact. so have you. for you guys to be out here doing something like this, it restores a lot of faith in humanity.

you were patient. you tuned in night after night, hoping for a moment like this. the 1-1 is grounded to third. reyes from third. the orioles have done it! go crazy, baltimore. you are the new champions of the american league east! >> well, i'm glad the red sox had at least one bit of history last season. that's the baltimore orioles clinching the american league east pennant in september for the first time since 2014. a little rougher in the first round, but the american league east had a down year last year. the orioles, make no mistake of

it, a great team last year. they've got some of the best up-and-coming prospects. they should be good for quite some time. and on monday, o's fans were given another reason to celebrate when the team and state officials formalized a year to keep the birds at camden yards for the next 30 years. governor wes moore, thanks so much for being with us. talk about the good news. >> it's great. i don't know if you're a little hot. i'm a little hot here. if you need some help, you know, just let me know here. let me know, with the a.l. east champs. yes, so the chagrin of all of our red sox and yankees fans, the a.l. east champions are going to be in baltimore for the next 30 years. we're ectatic. it's a great deal for the state, and, honestly, we showed this is how you get big deals done. you do them in partnership. you know, we did it in partnership with the team. we did it in partnership with

the general assembly, the maryland authority, and our outstanding chair thompson. i had three criteria when we entered into this, and there were no negotiations taking place when we took office 11 months ago. we knew one of the most storied franchises in sports was about not to have a lease and would be homeless. we had three criteria. one, we'd be good stewards of taxpayer dollars. two, we wanted winners on and off the field. three, i'm not doing a short-term deal. our state had a history of the one-year deals. i said, these short-term deals, they're not only unimaginative, they're dangerous. only long-term deals. so we're really proud that this is a deal that's going to keep the orioles here for 30 years and start just a larger process of how are we rethinking this larger renaissance of baltimore with one of baltimore's core anchors at the forefront. >> governor, first of all, i'd

just like to say, it's so refreshing to see an american politician with a great smile, a sense of humor about himself, a sense of purpose about his mission, that's you, governor wes moore. so i want to thank you. these are pretty dark days politically for a lot of us who cover politics and talk about politics each and every day. but camden yards, it was built by a guy by the name of larry laquino, a baseball icon. >> that's right. >> it's been the model for nearly every new park that's been built since the early '90s that followed camden yards and changed major league baseball. so this new 30-year lease, tell us what it means to the core of the city of baltimore, a city that's had some problems economically and otherwise. what does it do to the core of the city in terms of future growth for the city around camden yards? >> thanks so much, mike. you're right, it's everything. economically, what it means is

we have our anchors between the orioles and the ravens that are now going to be two crucial players in a larger master planning process about how we're rethinking a downtown core that's going to benefit the entire city. it is going to help small business owners, minority business owners, women business owners, and people who now have a measure of predictability. it is difficult to get someone to invest in a city when its core anchors could potentially leave. we've seen the consequence of that in oakland. we're seeing the conversations that are taking place in washington, d.c., between the wizards and the caps. you need to give predictability. this dealpredictability. in addition to the economic growth this will spurn, the live, work, play environment that everybody can benefit from, it's also the psychology of it. the orioles are us. they're a huge part of the psychology of this city and the psychology of the state, and having them here for a long period of time, you know, it doesn't just inspire memories that so many of us have coming

up and going to o's games, but it's really proud to know that, you know, my kids and grandkids, hopefully one day, will be able to go out there and watch the birds win. this was a major, major win for our state and major win for our taxpayers. >> governor, i'm wondering, you mentioned the importance of doing a long-term deal. you know, i tend to agree. i think fans, if they're going to invest emotionally into a team, it is good to know they're going to be around. >> sure. >> talk a little bit about why that was important and why this was one of your priorities here. >> well, because we need to create measures of predictability. only long-term vision and long-term deals can give you that. if people think that you could have core anchors that could pick up and leave, that could change an economic dynamic of a region, then they won't invest. they'll find other places. the bigger renaissance that's taking place right now, where we're look at baltimore, where we have the state making

investments in a harbor, making investments in the baltimore orioles and the baltimore ravens, making investments in housing that's impacting everyone from west baltimore, east baltimore, and all around. baltimore is on a rise. the first year in nine years, baltimore will not see 300 homicides. it's not going to come close. for the first time in nine years, the homicide and the non-fatal shooting rate in the state of maryland is beginning to break. where we've had the rise, almost double, for the past eight years. this is a new time where there is new energy, new momentum, but these long-term deals become crucial because no one is going to make long-term plans when your anchors are there on a short-term basis. you've got to give that measure of predictability, and that's why this became so important. that's why we took, and our administration just took a different posture than what we've seen in the past. >> you're a rising figure in maryland and nationally. i wonder if you could look at

the divisions we're seeing emerge in the democratic party on issues like immigration and on the mideast. i wonder, are you concerned about these divisions? and what is your assessment of the state of president biden's re-election campaign as we head into this election year? >> well, i'm excited to go out and campaign all over for president biden. and not just because i'm fearful of the alternative. i know what president biden has already delivered for our state. you know, i think about the fact that the president has been here multiple times, that the federal government has made over $450 million of investments in the state of maryland to help rebuild bridges and roads and tunnels. i think about the fact that we are going to have broadband and wi-fi for every person in our state by the end of my first term. that could not have happened without a $267 million investment that came from the federal government. right now, since i've been governor, maryland has jumped 20

slots in economic competitiveness. maryland now has the lowest unemployment rate in the entire country. and i know that all the progress we are making, that marylanders are excited about, is because we have the partner that we need in president biden. and so i am excited to make sure that we're going out, and i tell the folks in my state, look at what we've gotten done in 11 months. imagine if you can give me another four years. that's why i'm campaigning for president biden. that's why we're confident, no matter who the republican nominee is, president biden will win re-election next november. >> all right. as always, it's great to see you, wes. maryland governor wes moore. show the colors again. wave it. come on! i didn't have to even tell ya. >> let's go o's! let's go o's! >> all right. thank you so much, governor. great to see you. >> merry christmas. happy holidays. good to see you. >> all right.

great. thank you. sam stein, mark leibovich, thank you, all, both, as well. appreciate it, as always. sam, anybody on "politico" you'd like to call out and intimidate and ask who their favorite boss is? >> i'll save that for tomorrow's show. i will be guest hosting again. hopefully can berate a few more colleagues. >> this is all very exciting. very exciting. we can't wait. thanks so much for being with us, guys. appreciate it. let's bring in former u.s. senator and now an nbc news and msnbc political analyst, claire mccaskill. claire, it is so good to see you. we had a discussion last hour just about the colorado decision. of course, there is understandable concern about a court stepping in and possibly the supreme court stepping in and keeping donald trump off of a ballot in colorado and possibly other states. i wanted to show you this poll,

finding 54% of americans actually approve of the colorado supreme court's decision to kick donald trump off the 2024 primary ballot. it was conducted by yougov america. 84% of democrats, 48% of independents, and 24% of republicans approved of the ruling. polls shouldn't determine the way a court interprets the law, but neither should politics. you look at the 14th amendment. section three of it is clear and unambiguous, isn't it? >> it is. i have taken the time to read some scholarly treatises on this issue, and there are some really smart lawyers who have come down on both sides. so it is one that is absolutely just made for the supreme court to make a decision. now, there's two hats here i

wear. one is a lawyer, and one is somebody who has run for office and cares deeply about the election next year. the lawyer stays this is pretty obvious. especially to a supreme court who is so fixated on texualism and realism. if you put it in context of when it was written and what it was written about, this is a tough one for the supreme court to abandon their two pillars that they claim to be making all their decisions around. as a lawyer, i get this. i think there is a real, strong case for the supreme court to agree with colorado. as somebody who is a politician, i think it is a real bad decision. i think it really helps donald trump. i don't like anything that helps donald trump. i find myself in the weird position of agreeing with bill barr in terms of it helping him. i think it does help him.

and so, you know, in a perfect world, if i could write the script, the supreme court would put him back on the ballot, then he would be defeated soundly. that's my -- that's what i want in my christmas stocking this year. >> again, for people listening, it may not make a ton of sense, but you're right. legally, this may be, in fact, the right call. it might be the right call for this supreme court especially to follow this reasoning, which was first put forward by a couple of federalist society scholars. but, politically, again, mike barnicle, you said this, as well, politically, there are consequences that actually -- and the blow back could help donald trump. >> i totally agree with claire. it's a massive get out the vote rally for donald trump, this se decision.

that's how his people view it, and more will be fevered to support him. the flip side, joe, and, again, claire pointed it out, we were talking about it last hour, the way to defeat him, the way to put him away for good is to vote him out. by going to the polls in november, where he will presumably be on the ballot nationwide, because he will presumably be the republican nominee for president, and to vote him out, to end it, to inif finish it. why it hasn't happened an eternal question people wrestle with. why nobody ever called him to account for anything, not just during his presidency, but over the last 40 years of business and politics. >> what an appropriate way to have him exit from the stage, by beating, democratically, one of the most anti-democratic forces in america since jefferson davis and the confederacy.

yesterday, president biden was asked about colorado's decision, and he was asked in milwaukee. he initially refused to comment, but then he said this when asked if trump supported an insurrection. >> well, i think it is self-evident. you saw it all. whether the 14th amendment applies, i'll let the court make that decision. he certainly supported an insurrection. no question about it. none, zero. and he seems to be doubling down on about everything. anyway, i've got to go do this. >> you know, nothing controversial about that, susan page. it's very obvious he supported an insurrection. take a look, by the way, again, take a look at this poll that yougov did that shows 54% of americans, obviously, agree with that. only 35% disapprove. that's, again, almost a 20-point margin there. susan page, it is pretty obvious, as joe biden said, that he was responsible, did commit

an insurrection, and there are an awful lot of people sitting in jail right now who said they tried to commit an insurrection against the u.s. government because they were inspired by donald trump and his words and actions. >> what was particularly interesting to me, joe, yesterday with president biden's comments yesterday, was that he made them. you remember the time not so long ago when president biden would refer to trump as "the other guy. " he wouldn't say his name. he's being more frontal in pointing out the legal troubles and taking trump on in a more traditional, political way as we head toward the general election. i know it is a dilemma for the white house, which is often that people at the white house argued that issues like progress on the economy, the kind of things that we heard wes moore talk about just a few minutes ago that's worked in maryland, talking about the issue of abortion access, are the things that will move voters. yet, surely they cannot ignore

what's happening in the courtrooms with president trump very likely to be the republican nominee. >> claire, i'm so glad that joe biden did speak out on it yesterday, and i think he did it just about right. he left the judicial decisions up to the judges, but when asked about an insurrection, he stated the obvious. >> yeah. and being the devil's advocate here, because this is part of what my job is, i will say, what lawyers are going to argue in front of the supreme court is that the federal government didn't charge him with insurrection. we all know what he did. he was still calling senators after he watched those people beat police officers and trash the capitol. he did not call for them to leave, and he was working the phones the entire time, trying to get senators to still defy the constitution, ignore their constitutional duty, which is a

form of insurrection and, you know, violating his oath to uphold the constitution. he was trying to get them to not do the pro forma action of certified the vote. he did that all afternoon. factually, it is certainly an argument that is strong, but for some reason, jack smith didn't charge him with that. now, that was probably a strategy on jack smith's part because he thought the other charges were going to be more open to proof in a court in front of a jury. but, believe me, that's an argument they're going to make in front of the supreme court. if he was guilty of an insurrection, why hasn't he been charged with it? >> i think that's going to be the most effective argument they could make for the justices that want to reverse the colorado supreme court decision. they can say exactly what clear clearly was brought up, not only

was he not charged with insurrection, the federal government didn't bring charges against him. when they do, if they do, if, in fact, he is charged and convicted, then come back to us at that point. of course, by that point, the election will be over. negotiations to secure the release of more hostages and pause the fighting in gaza looks like it may be getting more serious. hamas' top political leader is currently in cairo, a sign of potential progress on the talks. the last time he was in egypt in early november just before the temporary truce, it lasted seven days. another group believed to be holding hostages in gaza, the palestinian islamic jihad, is also expected to take part in those negotiations. according to "the wall street journal," hamas has already rejected an israeli offer to stop the fighting for one week in exchange for dozens of hostages. egyptian officials tell "the journal" hamas wants a cease-fire to go into effect first. meanwhile, secretary of state blinken called out those in the

international community for not being clearer in their condemnation of hamas. >> what is striking to me is that even as, again, we hear many countries urging the end to this conflict, which we would all like to see, i hear virtually no one saying, demanding of hamas that it stop hiding behind civilians, that it lay down its arms, that it surrender. this is over tomorrow if hamas does that. this would have been over a month ago, six weeks ago if hamas had done that. >> well, of course, there was a cease-fire on october 6th, and then on october 7th, of course, the worst slaughter of jews since the holocaust. yeah, it is interesting the international community is not asking hamas to lay down its arms, release the hostages, and then move toward a cease-fire. let's bring in columnist at "the

washington post," max boot, and executive director for the mccain institute, evelyn farkas. max, there's similariies between what's happening in gaza and ukraine. tell us. >> there's no question, joe, though there are different wars and hamas is labeled as a terrorist organization and russia as a nation state, but hamas is really a quasi-governmental entity with 30,000 fighters under their command at the start of this war. i think some of the challenges that israel is facing in battling hamas are similar to the challenges ukraine has been facing in battling the russian army. including dealing with an adversary who doesn't care about casualties. this is, you know, one of the most chilling aspects of both wars. the ukrainian commander in chief recently admitted he thought that inflicting all these casualties on the russians would cause them to end the invasion, and it hasn't because vladimir putin doesn't care about how

many of his own people die. in a similar fashion, israel inflicted horrifying casualties in the gaza strip. they're not trying to target civilians, but, unfortunately, civilians are in the line of fire because of the way hamas fights, they're not shielding civilians, and the leadership is willing to fight to the last palestinian. liberal countries like ours need to realize when we're fighting adversaries that don't care about the loss of life, they don't operate under the same rules we do. that requires a different playbook to deal with it. i think there's also a lot of other similarities with the importance of information operations and the way both hamas and russia have tried to negate western technology by blinding our sensors. they've also forced the ukrainian army and the israeli army to fight in cities, which is difficult to do and something

that the u.s. needs to learn an awful lot about. i think the general, overall theme, joe, is simply the need to prepare for all sorts of con contingencies. there's no question, israel and ukraine were not well prepared for the wars in which they are now fighting. as a result of that, they paid a heavy price in blood. the thrust of my column is to suggest the u.s. military needs to learn some of these lessons so we, ourselves, are prepared in the future for whatever conflict we face. >> evelyn, max just raised a critical point when he talked about hamas will fight to the last person before they concede anything in gaza. my question to you is the leader of israel, bibi netanyahu, has said, we're going to kill every member of hamas. that's our mission. that's our mission. well, you can't kill an ideology. my question to you really is, how much of an impediment do you think bibi netanyahu is to a

solution here? >> well, mike, first of all, thanks, guys, for having me back on. i think netanyahu is a huge impediment because if you just look at his political situation, he's really the actor who is benefitting the most on the israeli side from having an ongoing, full-scale, you know, hot war waging in gaza. if there is a ratcheting back and a more precise war and, not a cease-fire, but something, again, where tony blinken himself, the secretary has said it, where it is more precise and you're going after the leadership in the tunnels, but you can start rebuilding and people can start having some semblance of security and a chance for a life in gaza, then netanyahu has to face the israeli people. he has no political future once you head into a more peaceful scenario. i think he is a huge impediment. i agree with a lot of the comments max made. i think what max is trying to do is get us to think beyond this

moment and understand what the challenge could be for the united states in other scenarios. i do think it is important to remember that hamas broke the cease-fire, that hamas stole these 200 plus hostages, raped, killed, you know, children, women, is holding, we think, about 129 still, and, of course, they are the ones holding their people hostage. >> you know, this is all such a difficult situation for the united states. max boot, you talk about the need to change our playbook going forward. if you look at the divisions within the united states about what to do on hamas and israel, on the considerable support among progressives for palestinians in gaza, i think it surprised some political figures in the united states. are there calibrations, changes, or adjustments the biden administration ought to be making because of what they see happening with american public opinion? >> i think what president biden

is doing is basically the right thing, and i think it is politically courageous, and he doesn't get enough credit for it. basically, he is going against the base of the democratic party, which is increasingly critical of israel. there is a recent poll that showed only 18% of democrats think that what israel is doing is the right thing right now. but, you know, president biden, joe biden, is a very instinctive, pro-israel, pro-zionist kind of guy, and he understands the horror that israel suffered on 10/7. he is backing israel's right to defend itself, while at the same time saying, you have to be discriminating. if you're killing a lot of civilians, this war could backfire. he's also saying, "you have to think about what happens the day after. you have to have palestinians come in to rule gaza. it can't be indefinite israeli occupation." unfortunately, netanyahu is not listening to that, as evelyn was pointing out. he's being driven by the political imperatives in israel, which is his coalition partners hate the idea of a palestinian state. in fact, they want to annex the

west bank. bibi is listening more to his coalition partners than president biden. i think president biden's message is the right one, and i think he is trying to balance. he is trying to be a good friend for israel, which is not to give israel a blank check, but also not to say, like a lot of people are saying, "you have to cease fighting right now." if they do that, hamas wins. >> yeah, claire, i'm curious what your thought is, what the biden administration should do. i think most of us here would agree that israel has a right not only to defend itself but to seek the military destruction of hamas. but saying that we support israel is far different than saying we support benjamin netanyahu. here is a man that even israelis don't support. here's a man who, in 2018, knew where hamas' major funding sources were and he decided to do nothing about it, let them continue to get billions. this is a man who had the attack

plans, his government had the attack plans one year before the attack. they did nothing about it. ignored repeated warnings. in september, right before the attack, this is a man who was asked by qatar -- he sent his people to doha, and they asked netanyahu's government, "do you want us to keep funding hamas? want us to keep channelling billions of dollars to hamas?" netanyahu's government said, "yes, please keep doing that." of course, this isn't even going into what happened before the war. i heard repeated warnings out of israel that israel was being divided terribly, militarily and the intel community being divided by netanyahu's attacks on the rule of law and the supreme court. how do we divide our support, our historic support that goes back to harry truman in 1948, our support for israel and our disapproval of benjamin

netanyahu, who, again, as evelyn and max say, more focused on his coalition in israel than on doing what's right for the israeli people? >> remember, bibi netanyahu is only in power right now because he formed a government with the most extreme, most hard right portions of israeli elected officials. and keep in mind, bibi netanyahu has done more to destroy the bipartisan factions in israel than any in history. he came to washington when i was in the senate and began behaving in a partisan way, speaking to republicans, refusing to come speak to democrats in the senate. it really was shocking to us at the time. bipartisan support of israel has always been an oasis of civility and priority for the american government. but let's be clear about one thing. they cannot with a straight face

say they are not doing indiscriminate killing in gaza when they kill three of their own hostages that were waving a white flag and shirtless. and they knew days before they killed their own hostages that those hostages were in that building. they had sent a dog in with a camera, and the militant hamas people in that building killed the dog, but the camera kept recording and heard the voices of the hostages there. so if they're killing their own hostages, they have no credibility on the world stage that they're not doing indiscriminate killings. and it is really hurting the cause of israel and the national security of israel for decades to come. something has to change in the way they are prosecuting this war, or they're going to -- they may win a battle, but as the saying goes, they're going to lose a much bigger war that is so imperative for the safety of israel going forward. >> evelyn, claire brought up

perhaps the most critical aspect of this ongoing escalation in the war in gaza, the hostages. they are the most important element that we're talking about here today. do you have any idea why the international red cross has failed or refused or been inable to see the hostages for proof of life, for treatment of the wounded, to count casualties? any idea why they've been absent? >> well, you know, i don't have newer insight into this, mike, but my guess is no one is putting sufficient pressure on hamas. the uae, qatar, saudi arabia, these countries that have influence, they have real power to make hamas listen to the international community, they're not using it. that is a huge failure. obviously, we face the same situation in other places, like russia and ukraine, where the russians are also not allowing access to the red cross. so, you know, we've seen a real

degradation in the power of the united nations. it's up to nation station s it's up to nationtates, the strong nation states that have influence. the qataris should be able to exert influence and get the u.n. in there. that's a failure, of course, of the international community, as well, and probably of our government, as well. >> all right. executive director of the mccain institute, evelyn farkas, thank you for being with us. and columnist for "the washington post," max boot, thank you, as well. great seeing you all. still ahead on "morning joe," we're going to be talking to an israeli special forces paratrooper whose unit was one of the first responders to the october 7th terror attack. and ben smith of "semafor" joins us to explain why more attention must be paid to the republican horse race. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back.

switch to shopify and sell smarter at every stage of your business. take full control of your brand with your own custom store. scale faster with tools that let you manage every sale from every channel. and sell more with the best converting checkout on the planet. a lot more. take your business to the next stage when you switch to shopify.

hi, i'm jason. i've lost 228 pounds on golo. ♪ i don't ever want to go back to wearing a 4xl shirt or not being able to climb up stairs without taking a break. so i'm committed to golo for life. there is a lot of information out there. hamas oppresses the people of gaza, uses civilians

as human shields, and steals their basic supplies to use them in a war of terror. even when given the chance at peace, hamas broke the truce. our community needs to stand against hamas and stand with palestinians and israelis for basic human rights. focus on the truth. these underwear are period-proof. and sneeze-proof. and sweat-proof. they're leakproof underwear, from knix. comfy & confident protection that feel just like normal. with so many styles and colors to choose from, switching is easy at knix.com

secured control of an area in gaza believed to be the center of power for hamas' military and military wings. officials released this video, saying they uncovered a large network of tunnels near commercial stores, government buildings, and civilian residences. the idf believes the tunnel route is connected to other significant infrastructure in the gaza strip, which has allowed hamas terrorists to make covert escapes. nbc news hasn't been able to independently verify these claims. with us now, idf paratrooper in the reserves, shahar. his unit was one of the first to respond to the october 7th attacks. thank you so much for being with us. your -- you say this is a generational fight. you are the grandson of holocaust survivors. your father fought in the yom kippur war. now, it's your generation fighting after the worst attack

since the holocaust. what's at stake here for you, for your family, for your country, for jews? >> yes. first of all, thank you for having me, joe. as i said, it is a generational war because we saw what happens when our enemies that say they want to destroy and kill us all live up to what they stay. it is best we start believing them. when they said they'll do october 7th, we didn't. i'm not sure we're ready, but they say they'll do it again and again. what is at stake is the jewish entity in israel. it's that big. it's not just hamas from israel. it is hezbollah and iran. they all don't want us there and won't stop until they kill us all. if this is the jihadist, radical strategy, we have to believe them. it is our only chance and mandatory fight to make sure this never happens again. you know, we have never had such a big, you know, hit since the holocaust. when we said never again, it's never been truer.

never again is now and always. this is what's at stake. >> your unit was one of the first to respond on october the 7th. tell us some of what you saw. >> it was a combination of an apocalyptic and a horror movie inside of israel. everything was either on fire or burnt. you'll still see buddies on the streets, blood everywhere, bullet holes, bullet shells, things that you thought were just burnt logs but happened to be burnt people that we learned later. bodies of people that just have been mutilated. just very, very hard to unsee these kinds of things. people have seen the videos. what one can't describe is the smell, the smell of death. i will never be able to un-smell. it's also one of the reasons that, you know, it's not just the numbers. it's the atrocities. it's all these raped women that have gone through hell before they were shot in the back of the head. it's these people who were burnt alive or babies that were

beheaded. i saw this first responder to came to us, one of the first days after leaving the house in one of the small kibbutz near the border, 22 dead babies. some beheaded, some burned, some tied together with a wire. these are the things we've experienced, so people need to understand, they didn't just want to murder us all. they wanted to terrorize us so we can be scared forever and just leave. this is not who we are. we're not going to give up or leave. we'll ensure safety comes back to our streets. by the way, if we're successful and when we are successful, the safety will be back in their streets, as well. they will not live under a terrorist regime, hamas. this is why all those people that think they support the palestinians when they go to the pro-hamas rallies, they need to move to support us. we are the only ones who can eliminate hamas and bring the safety back to both streets. >> you have seen things that you

can never unsee. you've experienced things that you can never live without experiencing them over and over again. we were talking about the hostages in a prior segment here. of course, last week, the world seemed horrified that three israeli citizens surrendering to the israeli army were shot and killed. talk about the danger of hostages, and talk about what happened the day prior to the hostages being killed by the israeli soldiers. >> yes. so this was the most horrible weekend since the beginning of the war, if you are asking me. these three people who went through hell for 70 days and were so close to being released by the idf. what chose soldie those soldier against the rules of engagement, against the code of conduct, and the idea of values. as you're asking about the day

before, we need to understand what these soldiers have been through. two days before, nine of their peers and commanders, including the battalion commander, were killed in this neighborhood. the day before, you know, these are the soldiers that have experienced being lured into a building while seeing a hostage, which happened to be a doll, and a speaker with hebrew voices, so they can be lured in and blown to pieces. they also saw terrorists who surrender, almost in the same way, but when they went to get them, they were suicide bombers and those soldiers died. they were so tense in this neighborhood, having fought so many terrorists, hundreds, and they're going to have to live with this for the rest of their lives. >> so you were wounded, and you have been here in the united states for five or six days recovering. you're going back to israel tonight. >> yup. >> to rejoin your unit and fight again tomorrow and the next day and god knows how many days. when you were here in this country, what was your sense of the support for israel and the

resistance to supporting israel and support for the palestinians amongst so many young people, just about your age? >> i think on one hand, i've experienced support i never have before. on the other, i was walking the streets of new york city. i used to live here before and wore this proudly. i still do. now, i'm scared to do so. i was speaking at an event where 1,000 plus mob just came knocking on the doors, trying to get in. hitting police officers, yelling and cursing a mother of a hostage that only came to ask for her daughter to be released. i think something has changed since i lived here seven years ago. because what people don't understand, this is not a gray area anymore. it's not israel and the palestinians. it's literally good versus evil. we're not fighting the palestinian people. we are fighting hamas. when they support hamas, which they believe represents the

palestinian people, they support isis, they support hezbollah and al qaeda, and what do these people in america, which used to be my friends and family, what would they expect us to do when hamas says they will do it again and again until they're done? what would they have expected your leaders to do if this was in your doorstep after 9/11 with al qaeda? i don't think they'd ask them to stop until they can ensure the people can live in peace. i'm not going to stop until i can go to sleep without being scared that someone is going to come in and rape my fiance and shoot her in the back of the head before burning her alive. i'm not going to stop. we deserve to live in peace. we deserve a state of our own. this tiny beacon of peace in the middle east, we deserve self-determination. the jews are a strong people. we're also a minority. calling for the genocide of jews is not, you know, better than calling for the genocide of anyone else. our lives are worth just as much as others.

raping our women is just as horrible as raping any other women. people don't understand that. all of these wars on social media, they used to be just words. they've turned into action. this world has become a more dangerous place. lastly, when we fight in gaza, yeah, we are the israeli defense forces. we also feel like we're the jewish defense forces. it is scary to be a jew right now across the world. what people don't understand, we feel that we are the first line of defense for the western civilization, although some of them just don't get it yet, but they will. they're already here. their goal is not just to eliminate israel. it's to destroy the western civilization. this is the radical jihadist ideology. this is who we are fighting. we are literally on the same side. help us finish this, and understand who we are fighting. >> yeah, this is susan page. certainly, no one, i think, expects israel to stop defending itself. obviously, the events of october 7th were horrific and an

existential threat. but i wonder if you -- what you think of the argument from some friends of israel, that israel needs to take more care in protecting palestinian civilians and protecting journalists in acting in a more strategic and targeted way, to avoid some of the cost we've seen to innocence in the gaza strip. is that something -- should israel, should the israel military be doing something different to address those concerns? are those legitimate concerns? >> yeah, so thank you for raising this. first, i will say that we die because of our morality. my friends died because of our morality. i would love for you to enlighten me, and tell me and show me another military force that has done ever in history more than what the idf does to protect the civilian population of the other side. that shares a map of the war

with the safe zones, has broke gaza into 2,000 mini areas and tell people where it is safe, including the terrorists who now know where to go. that opens a humanitarian corridor for the palestinian people in gaza to be able to leave to safety, temporarily, until we can destroy hamas and they can go back to their homes. but we also need to protect this corridor from hamas, who kill their own people while living because they needed them as human shields. we make tens of thousands of phone calls and text messages, and we throw hundreds of thousands of flyers from the air to tell people to evacuate before we attack. our people on october 7th got no warning. having said all of that, having said it, we die because of our morality, i hurt and i pain, i'm in pain on any civilian that lost their lives while being not related to this war. but who can you blame? had hamas let them lead to the safe area, no civilians would

have gotten hurt. when they hold their kids in the air after shooting at us, what would they expect? i can share so many examples of being in gaza, of seeing civilians, and from the civilians, the terrorists who, by the way, don't wear a uniform. they do have this uniform, but they want to hide behind civilian population. they also want to be counted as civilians when we kill them. just come out of the civilians, shoot and kill soldiers. the soldiers don't shoot back because we're not going to kill 100 civilians because of these two terrorists. yes, we die because of our morality. if hamas was, you know, truly caring for the palestinian people, they would let them lead to safety. they will fight us, soldiers against the terrorist organization. this is what we would expect. so hamas is to blame for any casualty of the civilian population, and, yet, we hurt for this, as well. lastly, and sorry about that, you also need to understand who is a civilian. is the doctor who held the hostage for 50 days in their

home, is he not involved in terrorism? those people who are not ha pas hamas, but surrender, are they not terrorists? when you are in an educational system who teaches you to be a martyr, this is what they believe in. we're painful. everything hurts when civilians die, and we try to limit it as much as any other western military force. but who can you blame for this? what did they expect? >> as we've said from the beginning since the attacks, for hamas, when an israeli soldier dies or israeli die or a jew dies, that is good news for hamas. when a palestinian is killed in war, even better news. idf paratrooper and reserve,

shamar, thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. a new piece in "the atlantic" titled, "it sure looks like phones are making students dumber." we'll talk to the author next on "morning joe." ♪ today, my friend you did it, you did it, you did it... ♪ centrum silver is now clinically shown to support cognitive health in older adults. it's one more step towards taking charge of your health. so every day, you can say, ♪ youuu did it! ♪ with centrum silver. the first time you made a sale online with godaddy was also the first time you heard of a town named dinosaur, colorado. we just got an order from dinosaur, colorado. start an easy to build, powerful website for free with a partner that always puts you first. start for free at godaddy.com

welcome back to "morning joe." a shot of reagan national airport. it is going to be busy out there for the next couple of days. a new report reveals that students around the world are performing worse academically now than in any time this century, according to the study. test scores, science, reading and math scores plummeted since 2012. one factor contributing to the decline, cell phones. the report cites an example in

math classes, with around 30% of students reporting they get distracted using digital devices and 25% of students indicating they become distracted by other students who are using digital devices. let's bring in staff writer at "the atlantic" derek thompson. his new piece, "it sure looks like phones are making students dumber." thanks so much for being with us. this seems painfully obvious to any parent with children and watching friends of the children, sometimes the children themselves, their brains have been rewired, shorter attention spans and just harder for them to stay focused. what have you found in your reporting? >> let's go back a few years. i've been very interested in the last few years and have been reporting more deeply on the youth anxiety crisis in america. the cdc found teen rates of anxiety and depression, the share of teens who say they are, quote, consistently or persistently hopeless or depressed is at all-time highs.

i've been looking for reasons why this is the case. maybe it's about changes in parents. maybe the world is more depressing. really, i've been most persuaded by the argument that this is mostly a technological story. you see the lines of teen anxiety and depression rise around 2012, 2013, when smartphone penetration in the u.s. passes 50%. i had never before beensuaded b phones were not only making us more anxious but also maybe hurting student performance. that brings us to and it's pisa test, the program for international students assessment, came out with a study recently that found that science scores around the world, around the west peaked in 2009. reading scores peaked in 2012. there it is again, the big year, 2012, and in the report, the head of this survey, said he believes one of the major

factors that is cauing student achievement to decline not just in the u.s., around the world is the presence of smartphones. you just said it. if you just use your common sense, phones act as a kind of drain on our attention. we've all been in a meeting where we couldn't focus on the speaker on maybe on a conversation with our family, where we couldn't focus on our loved ones because the phone acted like a brain drain. this is for kids trying to learn how to read, trying to understand biology, and algebra. it's very clear that phones in the classrooms are a drain on learning retention and we should probably begin to do something about it. >> and we're seeing it in politics. younger americans are learning about politics in 15-second sound bites or on tiktok or instagram reels and it's having an impact on the shape of the presidential debate for the election next year. i want to ask you about the findings because you are right.

there is science that shows repeatedly over and over again that not only these smartphones, but also social media, especially instagram creates anxiety, depression, suicidal ideations, especially in teenage girls, but among a lot of younger americans male and female. i'm wondering, is the research -- you've brought up some of the research, but is the research as well developed when it comes to learning as we have on the other front of it, causing the emotional problems for younger americans? >> yeah. having just stated my thesis, we could be clear that smartphones are a phenomenon that are just about 10, 15 years old. so it's really difficult to be incredibly sure about the effects of a novel phenomenon. that said, i think it's worth thinking about two different mechanisms here. the first one relates to student learning and that's the distraction. we are distracted by our phones and there is lots of research that suggests the brain drain

effect. the mere presence even of a locked phone on a table in front of us in our pockets can almost, like, slurp our attention from us, and our attention from what we should be paying focus to. whether it's someone we're talking to, or a teacher we should be trying to learn from. there's a mechanism you talk about. you talk about both the decline of student achievement and the rise of anxiety, and the mechanism that i think is causing the rise in anxiety, is the presence of social media. i don't think teenagers who are exquisitely sensitive to the judgment of peers, should be hooked up to a device where they can read the judgment of their peers. i don't think it's good for social comparison. i don't think it's good for confidence. i don't think it's good for development. so when we're talking about phones, it's important to be talking about two things. number one, we're not entirely sure what's going on here. it's a novel phenomenon, and we should be clear what mechanisms we're talking about when we look

at the independent variable here. are we talking about anxiety or are we talking about students' achievement? >> and clare, this is such a societal problem. you can just walk into a restaurant and you can see families that are, you know, four people sitting at a table at a restaurant, all four of them staring at phones. so it's not just students. i must also say at some point, it's a security problem too because i won't mention the airport i flew into recently where all the police officers and law enforcement officers were staring at telephones, but i have been in several places where security officers that are supposed to be obviously protecting americans, whether it's at airports or governmental buildings, they're staring at their telephones. this is a societal problem with major implications. >> yeah. i hate to sound like that person who said, you know, i walked two miles to cool in the snow and back in my day, but i think

about students today and their ability to look up answers compared to what i had to do when i was in school in terms of actually going to a library and actually researching in a book. there was no such thing as google search, and my kids and my grandkids, they could -- they all are dependent on gps. they have no idea where they're going half the time. >> claire? claire, could i just bring up because you're an attorney, and you caxpla this and a lot of people don't understand. the best part of law school was when they sent you to the library to search for an answer and while you were searching for that answer, you had to stumble across three, four, five, ten, 20 other cases where you learned something in the process. so by the time you got that answer that you were looking for, you've gone on this extraordinary journey, and

you've gotten that much smarter. >> yeah. my grandkids come across other information on their phones, but it's not related to the subject. it's distracting them. it's algorithms that are enticing them away from whatever research they're trying to do online. but i have a question for derek. i know that some schools have experimented with banning cell phones in the classroom. talk about that in your research. how successful has that been? how important is that, and is that going to be a trend we're going to start seeing where schools are actually taking asserted steps to get phones out of kids' hands when they're supposed to be listening to what's going on in the class? >> yeah. there are several good questions there. number one, is it being tried? number two, is it working, and number three, will it be tried in the future? >> number one, yes, it is being tried. we're not sure how well it works and number three, i think we should keep trying it, right?

the fallacy here is the experiment of taking phones out of school is some radical things we're trying. the radical thing is placing a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of a 15-year-old when they should be learning algebra. the outcome of that experiment is seeming to be when you put a weapon of mass distraction, they are distracted less when they don't have it in their hands. we should be prepared for the fact that maybe it won't have an immediate effect. maybe, in fact, the phone effect happens, like, later, after school that somehow, you know, feeling anxious about your place in the social pecking order, feeling anxious about your friends, maybe that's the thing that's happening on student learning. it's a complicated picture, but yes. absolutely i am in favor of trying out something new and something new could absolutely include, for example, taing phones out of schools.

you come to school, check your phone. maybe there are windows where you can text your parents, but when you are sitting in a class, learning chemistry, learning biology, learning history, reading "great gatsby," i don't understand why students or teachers and administrators in particular are allowing kids to check instagram and tiktok at the same time. >> nor do i. the new piece is titled "it sure looks like phones are making students dumber." "the atlantic's" derek thompson, thank you for being with us. we greatly appreciate it. >> thank you. coming up next, all right. president biden is reacting to the colorado supreme court's ruling that bars donald trump from the state's primary ballot. we'll play that sound for you that says majority of americans actually support the colorado court's decision. also ahead, oscar-nominated director michael mann will be a guest to discuss his new film. "morning joe" will be back. new. "morning joe" will be back suran0

or more she can sell all or part of it to coventry for cash. even a term policy. even a term policy? even a term policy! find out if you're sitting on a goldmine. call coventry direct today at the number on your screen, or visit coventrydirect.com. hey, doc, quick question. okay? if you had to choose, would you give yourself a root canal or run payroll? run payroll, no question. you know how tough payroll can be, right? no. we switched to gusto, and paying my team couldn't be easier.

gusto gives me unlimited payroll runs, next day direct deposits, and automatically files my taxes. ooh, taxes! sounds like you know the drill. good one! can i run payroll too? sure, after this. choose payroll without the pain. that's working with gusto.

hey, colorado. donald trump is no longer on the ballot, but you can still vote for a proven winner. a glorious leader with a very large brain. his name, dernald termp. he loves his kids, and he does not hide classified documents at his florida mansion merp-a-lergo, and it will be as goodest as at once was. >> good morning, and welcome to "morning joe." it's thursday, december 21st. great to have you with us. with us, we also have sam stein who intimidates people who work for him to say that he's the favorite at politico. we also heard that. we have mike barnicle, washington bureau chief for "usa today," susan page, and staff

writer at the new yorker, mike leibovich. there was a ruling that donald trump was disqualified from the colorado ballot because of his role in the january 6th attack on the capitol. in milwaukee, biden initially refused to comment, but then said this when asked if trump supported an insurrection. >> well, i think it's self-evident. you saw it. we let the court make that decision, but he certainly supported an insurrection. no question about it. none, zero, and he seems to be doubling down. anyway, i've got to go do this. >> by the way, there's nothing controversial about that. i mean, mike barnicle, we all saw it with our own eyes. this is -- >> yeah. >> -- this is one of those moments where, are you going to believe me or your lies eyes? >> yeah. >> americans saw this with their

eyes. they understand that donald trump did, in fact, take part, lead, encourage an insurrection to take place. they know he told people to storm the capitol, they needed to stop the count. he got extraordinarily angry with the secret service when they stopped him from going up there because he wanted to march on the floor. he wanted -- he wanted to be in the center of the insurrection, and mike, you know, it's so maddening when donald trump talks about the, quote, hostages and how grotesque to say that, well, what's going on in israel, donald trump talks about the hostages that are being held, people who let people beat the cops out of jail when they get there, and the reason he comes up, it's glaringly obvious. donald trump still has escaped justice. donald trump is not in jail for committing insurrection whichwe

all know he did. americans know he did, but he's out of jail because he's rich and powerful. those people being in jail, those working americans that followed his instructions and told the judges they were just following his insurrection instructions, they're in jail because they're not rich and powerful like donald trump. so yeah. yeah, he committed insurrection. yes, if there were justice already, he would be a lot more concerned about things than just not being on the colorado republican ballot. he would be concerned because he should be in jail. >> well, joe, you know, the proof is in the pudding so to speak. in this case, the proof is in the video tape. like they used to say, let's go to the video tape and take a look. donald trump did indeed support and promote an insurrection, and everybody in america, and everybody around the world saw it. it was not a great day for democracy, and not a great day for this country, and donald trump is still -- he has yet to pay a price, joe, not only for

all of this. he really in effect has not paid a price for anything over the past 30 to 35 or 40 years when he was in business in new york. he's never been touched by the law. he has always avoided it with delays and obfiscation and lies. he has a large support from people in this country who pay attention to politics, but not all of politics. the colorado ruling sadly as legitimate as some people think it is, it's more a get out the vote operation for donald trump, for his people. >> well, yeah. >> it's kind of disturbing. >> well, you know, it may be a get out the vote operation. there are those of us, and i've said all along. i know it's irritating to people who just think that politics is about everything and men are above the law, but we either

have a constitution or we don't have a constitution. here's the factual question. did donald trump commit insurrection? >> yes. >> if donald trump committed insurrection, then as judge livingston said yesterday, it's not anti-democratic to follow the constitution of the united states and section 3 of the 14th amendment. that's, in fact, the most pro-democratic thing that can be done. stay with me because if, in fact, he committed insurrection against the united states, this is the ultimate protact rat of that democracy. people say, oh, trump derangement symptom, oh, this. oh, that on other networks. they're going to be trying to confuse you. they're going to be trying move

the ball. they'll try to confuse their own viewers which they do regularly quite often. the fact is the constitution is crystal clear. if the court finds as a colorado court found, donald trump committed insurrection against the united states government, then you either follow the constitution or you don't, and you can talk about democracy all you want. i'm sure people that were following hitler were talking about democracy a lot. i don't know. mussolini. i guess people can wave the banner of democracy around, but it's the opposite of democracy. committing an insurrection, trying to actually steal a presidential election, the antithesis of democracy. you see what's going on right there? these people would want you to believe that if the constitution of the united states is followed, that's anti-democratic. they want you to believe that the 14th amendment is anti-democratic. they want you to believe that

section 3 of the 14th amendment, which is crystal clear, is anti-democratic. the fact is what it does is the 14th amendment, section 3 protects us against those people and protects us against the -- the thug that sent those people to capitol hill, and i'm not alone in saying this. >> joe, i don't -- >> 54% of americans -- mike, hold on one second. 54% of americans. 54% of americans approve of the colorado supreme court's decision to kick donald trump off the state's 2024 presidential primary ballot. 54% of americans approve of it. only 35% of americans disapprove of it. the survey conducted by yougov, 48% of independents and 24% of republicans approved of the ruling, and mike, do polls

dictate what courts should do? no. no, they don't, but when you have donald trump and people who want an authoritarian taking control of washington, d.c. again saying, oh, this is a radical decision. this is anti-democratic when, in fact, it's just the opposite, that poll is just one snapshot to show the majority of americans are, like, yeah. yeah. you know what? he shouldn't be on the ballot because he committed insurrection against the united states. >> you know, joe, i don't disagree with the wordyou said. i fully subscribe to all of it. my problem is i'm conflicted. i'm torn about it because we are -- >> what. >> -- a country of habit. july 4th, it's habit what we do. one of the habits we all share is election day, and it's voting people on or out of office. >> right. >> and i would think now the courts have spoken in colorado. other courts will speak.

the supreme court will likely speak within the next month certainly, maybe sooner. i mean, the habit people have of voting, that's the way to do in donald trump. that's the way to do him in. it's up to the democratic party, president biden's party, his campaign for re-election, to do the job, to help us do the job to get rid of him. >> right. yeah. >> not the courts. >> i completely understand what you are saying, but when the habit, susan page, of voting peacefully is broken for the first time since the civil war by somebody that wants to stop the peaceful transition of power, that habit -- that norm is broken by donald trump. that said, i completely understand what mike barnicle is saying, and susan, you have been in washington almost as long as me, and i'm sure you understand, and it's -- i know you've thought about it an awful lot. this supreme court -- this

roberts supreme court, they have a massive decision to make, and i think if it were just a law review article being written, they would probably come down on the side of the colorado supreme court, but with all the implications that mike's talking about, i just think how hard it's going to be -- and i know people don't understand this, but how hard it's going to be for the united states supreme court to get there. even if it's the legally correct thing to do under section 3 of the 14th amendment, just the real-life implications are going to be so massive i think an institutionalist like john roberts and his court is going to have a hard time getting there. >> for sure a tough decision. do you think we might be a 9-0 decision instead of a 5-4 decision? it would be reassuring. i think back to the 2000 election with a 5-4 decision with what amounted to partisan lines on the court, and what strikes me about the time since

then is how after that court decision came down, it was accepted by al gore even though he'd won the popular vote. it was accepted by most americans. there was not rioting in the streets over an election being stolen. what if the court came out with a decision this time around, 5-4, closely divided, largely along partisan line that is went one way or the other with a 5-4 decision, and it would probably go trump's way. maybe it wouldn't. would the country accept it in the same way that the country accepted the court decision in 2000? i am skeptical that that would happen. i think the consequences -- >> yeah. >> -- would be considerably more serious. >> i agree with you. it's a -- it's been a rocky 23 years since that supreme court decision that decided the 2000 race. here's former attorney general barr who's usually critical of what donald trump did on october 6th -- january 6th, i mean, and

the days following. he was very critical of donald trump's racist language that channeled adolf hitler. we'll show you that clip in a little bit, but here is barr -- former attorney general barr a posing the colorado decision saying it only helps donald trump. take a look. >> i think that this case is legally wrong, and untenable, and i think this kind of action of stretching the law taking these hyperaggressive positions to try to knock trump out of the race are counterproductive. they backfire. as you know, he feeds on grievance just like a fire feeds on oxygen, and this is going to end up as a grievance that helps him. >> again, this is, mark leibovich, this is a fascinating legal question. he said two things there. barr said it was legally wrong. i actually disagree with him there, and i think a lot of legal scholars of which i am not

one, but a lot of legal scholars would disagree with the former attorney general that it's legally wrong. i think a lot of them might agree on the second thing he said which is untenable, and i know a lot of people are watching, and they're noting the friction and they go, wait a second. you're saying it may be legally correct, but untenable at the same time? that's exactly what i'm saying, mark, because of the consequences. i mean, i would hope that -- that the supreme court could put on blinders and say, this is a law. we're going to apply section 3 of the 14th amendment in the way that it was written, but again, i think if there's any ambiguity, the court maybe in a 9-0 fashion is going to rush to that ambiguity even if that's not legally correct. >> yeah. i think the notion of grievance in this context is frankly a political construct, right? i mean, donald trump has used grievance to his political

advantage, and the legal aspect of this is, yeah. it's obviously very contentious, and it's something that is going to be, you know, argued up the ladder pitch mean, i think, though, that, you know, ultimately, i think most americans would think that this should be decided by voters, whether they theoretically agree with the court case most people haven't read terribly closely is one thing. i think voters shouldn't get off the hook that easily. that's the view of a lot of people who disagree with this decision, whether it's for practical reasons or what have you. voters need to weigh in on donald trump at some point and joe biden too, and wherever the election comes out as next november, it's going to have to be some kind of national consensus, and it's very messy. it might not even be an electoral consensus, but ultimately i think the court here, what attorney general barr was saying, it muddles this a

little bit, and it won't save us from what will be an extremely messy election. >> joe, let me just add a couple of things here. one is that, you know, barr said, you know, he obviously disagreed with the decision. he's saying it's stretching the law, and maybe so, but i think it's worth noting that the law's being stretched not by the people who brought this case forward. it's being stretched by trump, right? i mean, trump brought this issue upon himself by his actions on january 6th. we've never had to debate these legal issues in the 14th amendments third clause before because frankly we've never had a president involved in inciting an insurrection before. this is the situation we have ourselves in, and secondly, you know, there's a lot of public misconception about this, but this case is, yes. it's being cheered on by some liberal judicial activists, but it's being brought forward by longtime conservative activists. obviously they are critical of trump, but these are, you know, these aren't, like, you know,

ralph nader types. they work for the federalist society. that's also to consider, but also finally, to mark's point, when you take the temperature of even democrats, i mean, i thought the most interesting thing yesterday was just how quiet quiet democrats were about this. they're not cheering it. they recognize that it's a tinderbox politically for them to say, yeah, let's let the courts knock trump off the ballot. it looks like they are engineering his defeat. others disagree. i think the general consensus politically is this can't be held up, and it has to be decided at the ballot box. i think there is a seriousness to the challenge and the legal issues that barr probably dismisses too kindly. >> what he does dismiss too kindly, and i understand the political impact of this. there are a couple of laughable arguments though that if you hear somebody saying though, feel free to mock them. don't mock them. i'm just joking.

it's a christmas season. be sweet and maybe just gently correct them. the number one thing is that this is some kind of leftist plot. this is not a leftist plot. this idea -- this law review paper, this approach was actually framed by two of the -- two highly respected members of the federalist society, people that the new members of the supreme court that were appointed by donald trump know all too well, and have read all too often to just simply dismiss this as some sort of left-wing legal conspiracy. so sam, you're exactly right. i think bill barr was wrong to dismiss it out of hand and say, it was, quote, stretching the law. it's not stretching the law, and the second thing is, again, how anybody that supports donald trump can say with a straight face that this is anti-democratic as sam said again, this goes back to january the 6th.

the most anti-democratic actions that were taken against the united states of america since fort sumter, and the very people that continue to support that insurrection and promise us if donald trump's elected again, he's going to jail his opponents. he's going to assassinate generals. he's going to -- he's going to ban media outlets that he disagrees with. these are the people that are now preaching about anti-democratic amendments to the constitution of the united states as they fall on their fainting couches? and they're triggered that somebody may actually apply the constitution to the facts at hand on an insurrection that donald trump inspired, that he led, that he was responsible for, and again, so many of these people are serving jail time and donald trump's not for one

simple reason, because unlike donald trump, they are not rich and powerful. so please, spare me the anti-democratic lectures. anyway, when we come back, we showed you some of what former attorney general barr said about this case. we're going to show you what he said about donald trump's poisoning of the blood fascist rhetoric. we're also going to show you some of the more mealy-mouthed responses from republican presidential candidates when "morning joe" returns. n presidential candidates when "morning joe" returns. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

♪ today, my friend you did it, you did it, you did it... ♪ centrum silver is now clinically shown to support cognitive health in older adults. it's one more step towards taking charge of your health. so every day, you can say, ♪ youuu did it! ♪ with centrum silver.

we got a lot of work to do. when they let -- i think the real number is 15 million or 16 million people, into our country, when they do that, we got a lot of work to do. they're poisoning the blood of our country. we have no idea who any of them are. they come from africa. they come from asia. they come from south america, and it's true. they're destroying the blood of

our country. that's what they're doing. they're destroying our country. they don't like it when i said that, and i never read mein kompf. they said, hitler said that in a much different way. they could be very unhealthy. they could bring in disease that could catch on. they do bring in crime, but they have them coming from all over the world, and they're destroying the blood of our country. they're destroying the fabric of our country, and we're going to have to get them out. >> a couple of quick corrections here. by the way, that is rhetoric. that is eerily reminiscent of what adolf hitler said. donald trump said he never read "mein kompf." i know that ivana trump said he

kept a book of hitler's speeches by his bedside, told "vanity fair" that, and so maybe it's not that exact reading, but he's channeling that book that ivana trump said he kept by his bedside. that was some of donald trump's worst rhetoric lately, and of course, there's quite a hearty competition for the worst things that he's been saying recently, but that was some, and this is some of donald trump's 2024 opponents who are lobbing mild criticisms at trump for his repeated fascist rhetoric talking about migrants poisoning the blood of our country. in an interview released yesterday by the christian broadcasting network, florida governor ron desantis said this. >> when you start talking about using those types of terms, i don't think that helps us move the balls forward. i would not put it in those terms. >> former u.n. ambassador nikki haley gave a similar response telling the register that

trump's remark was not helpful. comparing that to former new jersey governor chris christie who called donald trump quote, guys dusting, and saying he was dogwhistling to the americans. >> it's not a dogwhistle as much as a foghorn. when you quote hitler, you've moved beyond the dogwhistle stage. here's what bill barr had to say yesterday about it. >> i'm offended by it because it has racist overtones. i actually -- as you say, we have to control the border and a lot of people coming across the border from anywhere in the world. we don't know where they're coming from, but at the end of the day, the fact of the matter is that the hispanic americans that have come up from south america have made great citizens, you know, they have strong values. they're entrepreneurial. my son-in-law was a marine combat officer, and he said the

best marines in his unit in iraq were recent hispanic immigrants. so i don't like these racist overtones. in the broad sweep of history, the fact that we have a reservoir to our south of these people who come out of the western tradition, they're religious people, good family people in general, is a boon to the united states. does that mean they all are like that? no, and does bringing in a lot of people at once from a different country, does that put strains on our system and harm the country to an extent? yes, it does, but the attacks on the idea that they pollute our blood, you know, i think are foul. >> yeah. you know who he sounds a lot like is ronald reagan. i know that trump republicans probably don't understand that because they probably don't read ronald reagan, what ronald reagan said or ever listen to what ronald reagan used to say.

that's exactly what reagan said. in fact, he said it in his farewell address to the americans, how important immigrants are to the core of the country. i'm glad he brought up that hispanic americans are some of the toughest, bravest, best fighters we have in uniform, and i've heard that time and again. so it is interesting, susan page, while some of the condemnations may not have been full-throated as some would like, it is interesting that most republicans now do feel comfortable at least these presidential candidates in at least condemning him for what bill barr said was foul language. >> i don't -- i don't know if i would give them that much credit. nikki haley, the child of immigrants, she just says they're not helpful. i mean, these are dehumanizing comments with a fascistic history. >> yes. >> poisoning the blood of our

country. earlier former president trump had referred to hem as vermin. this is language we know something about in not so long ago of our history. how can it not be denounced in a full-throated way? why are the candidate who most want to replace him as the republican nominee not calling this out in a more serious way? it says something about the state of the republican party and the hole that trump continues to have on its voters. >> well, and to me, it's, you know, it says something about the sort of centrality of immigration and fears of immigration in trump's appeal. this has been the sort of bedrock principle of trumpism from the get go starting with the muslim ban to the attacks on justices over their nationality, and i don't know, mark. you followed the guy for a

while. i'm kind of curious biographically, is this a plain crass political calculation he's making? >> i think both. i think first of all, two of his three wives were immigrants. >> right. that's not that, you know, that tends to happen sometimes where you, you know, have a familial connection to an immigrant and you say things that are blatantly anti-immigrant. i'm sorry. i didn't mean to interrupt. >> that's true. there is a political calculation. i think there's a visceral calculation though, and i think he comes up from a world of ethnic politics and friction, and it's that part of the world, and it's vibrant, and it can be turned on its head, and it can be an incredibly divisive notion that can be used quite cynically. i don't know. i would just say that it would not -- it would not kill me never to hear the expression that's not helpful again from politicians. i mean, the idea that -- everything must be helpful, and

you're right though. i think it goes to the level of passivity that is the anti-trump resistance in the republican party which has frankly been abysmal as we've all said. >> and mike barnicle, susan page brings up a great point. for nikki haley to just say it's not helpful when she's a daughter of immigrants who has seen firsthand the american dream and how important immigrants are to the american dream, well, you know, just like donald trump's mom was an immigrant. just like two of donald trump's three wives were immigrants, just like nikki haley's parents were immigrants. i mean, we have -- just like people who have made and remade silicon valley are immigrants. we can go down the list of people who we see on tv, people who impact our world, people who make america stronger and more vibrant in the words of ronald reagan, and they're immigrants. so i take susan's point "not

helpful" is not helpful. she needs to say more. >> everybody needs to say more. i mean, think about what we have been talking about here for 20 minutes. this country is in a state of turmoil. who caused the turmoil? largely donald trump caused the turmoil because of his behavior, because of who he is and what he does. so the question is for all of us as americans, not the politicians, all of us as regular americans ask, how did we get here? how did a guy with a 40-year record of being a fraud skate on everything? escape from every charge? how did that happen? how does it happen that he was once a president of the united states, now might be again, a president of the united states as he's running for president, and clearly has the nomination of one of our two major political parties when this guy, one judge has called him a rapist. another judge -- another court has declared that he's a total

fraud, a fake, a crook, a thief. he's going to be odds-on favorite to be president of the united states. where are the democrats in dealing with this? why haven't they gone after him harder than they have, ever in the past? the republicans are foolish. they sound foolish. they sound fraudulent. they sound really, really weak. i mean, nikki haley, that's a perfect example. the daughter of immigrants, and she says, "oh, that's not helpful." she's not helpful. coming up, colorado isn't the only state that believes donald trump is ineligible to run for president again. we're going to be talking about where the fight heads next when "morning joe" returns. ♪♪

are you still struggling with your bra? it's time for you to try knix. makers of the world's comfiest wireless bras. for revolutionary support without underwires, and sizes up to a g-cup, find your new favorite bra today at knix.com (fisher investments) it's easy to think that all money managers are pretty much the same, and sizes up to a g-cup, but at fisher investments we're clearly different. (other money manager) different how? you sell high commission investment products, right? (fisher investments) nope. fisher avoids them. (other money manager) well, you must earn commissions on trades. (fisher investments) never at fisher investments. (other money manager) ok, then you probably sneak in some hidden and layered fees. (fisher investments) no. we structure our fees so we do better when clients do better. that might be why most of our clients come from other money managers. at fisher investments, we're clearly different. nexium 24hr prevents heartburn acid before it begins. get all-day and all-night heartburn acid prevention with just one pill a day. choose acid prevention.

choose nexium. - [narrator] what will you do when the power goes out? cpower outages can ben. unpredictable and inconvenient, but with a generac home standby generator, your life goes on uninterrupted because you'll have power when you need it the most. - with the generac it powers our well, the refrigerator, and my cpap machine, which are all things that we need to survive on a day-to-day basis - [narrator] get the security and peace of mind your family deserves with a home standby generator from generac. eight out of 10 home generators are generac with thousands of satisfied customers. - it's the peace of mind to get the generac generator. that was the best investment that we could have ever made. - [narrator] and owning a generator is easier than ever. special financing is available with low monthly payment options. act now and you will also receive a free seven-year warranty valued at $735. power your life with generac. call or go online to request your free quote today.

i've struggled with generalized myasthenia gravis. but the picture started changing when i started on vyvgart. ♪♪ vyvgart is for adults with generalized myasthenia gravis who are anti-achr antibody positive. ♪♪ in a clinical trial, vyvgart significantly improved most participants' ability to do daily activities when added to their current gmg treatment. most participants taking vyvgart also had less muscle weakness. and your vyvgart treatment schedule is designed just for you. in a clinical study, the most common side effects included urinary and respiratory tract infections, and headache. vyvgart may increase the risk of infection. tell your doctor if you have a history of infections or symptoms of an infection. vyvgart can cause allergic reactions. available as vyvgart for iv infusion and also as vyvgart hytrulo for subcutaneous injection. additional side effects for vyvgart hytrulo may include injection site reactions. talk to your neurologist about vyvgart.

♪♪

a beautiful shot of lower manhattan. four days before christmas. welcome back to "morning joe." it's been 75 years now since president harry truman nicknamed the 80th u.s. congress the do-nothing congress. it actually helped him very much in his re-election campaign, but that title actually may be fitting for today's 118th congress, more than the 80th congress. according to bipartisan policy center, the republican-led house has led more votes this year while passing fewer laws than any other time in the past decade. they really have done nothing, but don't take their word for it or my word for it.

here's republican congressman chip roy. >> one thing. i want my republican colleagues to give me one thing, one, that i can go campaign on and say we did. one! anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the republican majority has done besides, well, i guess it's not as bad as the democrats. >> with us now let's bring in congressional correspondent for "the new york times," annie carney. she details the political paralysis stemming from the house republicans taking over in her piece. annie, this was a train wreck legislatively from the start. of course, kevin mccarthy couldn't, you know, they couldn't even pick a speaker. when they did, they got rid of him, and we went through that whole debacle again. the numbers don't lie here. in your article, you talk about

how they've only enacted 27 laws compared to 2022 when 248 laws were passed. bills were signed into law, and you just look at the comparison. congress by congress, session by session, this really is in a league of its own, isn't it? >> oh, absolutely. it was a historically unproductive congress that really did nothing. the comparison -- and last year's bills included, you know, landmark legislation like the inflation reduction act, the first bipartisan bill on guns in decades. this congress, some of those 27 bills include renaming a veteran affairs clinic, and, you know, something about a commemorative coin for the marine corps. these were really small items. a little bit of that is unfair. last year democrats controlled the house and the senate and they could easily pass thanks to

president biden, sign things into law. even this year compared to other years of divided government, when the house was controlled by republicans and the senate was controlled by democrats, even factoring that in, it was a grossly unproductive session, and most of that has to do with the fact that people like chip roy enjoy making the point that government does nothing, and that's why we should have less of it. >> yeah, annie, i was going to say, how can you call it unproductive when it produced the likes of george santos who gave us so much drama? isn't the goal here to do nothing? like, isn't that the entire point of why republicans took over is just to basically stop everything from happening? in that case, isn't what we're talking here, isn't it mission accomplished here? >> oh yeah. that's part of the problem. well, first of all, if you count personal grievance, and drama, it was super productive. they censured three members of congress, expelled george santos and they have a lot of speaker races and in that sense, it was

a very productive year, but do nothing is the point. that is why. that is going to the why of it. why was it so bad? the republicans have a tiny majority that's only getting smaller with santos' expulsion and mccarthy's resignation, and that has given these people who want or are here to basically dismantle government, outsized power in the conference, and it has allowed them to kind of hold up any agenda. chip roy looked like he was having a ton of fun making that floor speech and got a good clip out of it that he can, you know, campaign on that, you know, government is useless, and that has made -- so not only is it a moment of divided government, but republicans have been divided against themselves and this small group of far-right people have outsized power there. >> so annie, we're on the verge of a new year, and there's a relatively new speaker, mike

johnson. we've all witnessed the turmoil over the past year. we've alls witnessed kevin mccarthy being thrown out and johnson succeeding him after multiple ballots and things like that. going forward, is it going to be the same movie we're going to be watching? is mike johnson going to be walking on eggshells for fear of alienating maybe three people who say, hey. get him out of there? is that what we're looking forward to? >> yeah. i think so. i don't think he's actually afraid of being ousted. i think that republicans realized how hard it was to install someone new and don't really want to do that again, but absolutely. the same dynamics are there. he has made all of the same moves that mccarthy did. january's going to be much worse. he has -- he passed short-term government spending bills to avoid a shutdown. this year he just punted that into early next year. the far-right is mad at him for the same reasons that they were mad at mccarthy.

they are pulling the same moves to demonstrate that by voting down rules on the house floor which is something also that's never really happened before the congress, never happened to the past three speakers. so yes. i think that they -- the dynamics haven't changed. the majority in the house has gotten smaller. mike johnson so far is proving to be pretty an indecisive leader, and despite being from the far right of the party, they're already very angry with him. the honeymoon is over. i don't think anyone should expect next year to be any more productive than this one. coming up, one of our next guests has been nominated for four oscars. director and producer, michael mann, joins us with his new film when "morning joe" returns. urns

coming from where i come from, i've learned that what makes a better life is having economic freedom and economic options. my name is darren, i'm the founder of justair, a green technology company. everyone deserves a liveable wage, access to clean air, access to clean water. joe biden and kamala harris are investing in our community. these policies are helping to support small businesses like mine, allowing us to really grow and create jobs. we have a president that actually just cares about the work and cares about doing stuff that helps everyday people. i'm joe biden and i approve this message. when you're ready to begin treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukemia, calquence helps you do the fighting. and you can do the exploring. you can do the splashing... ...the sightseeing...

...and the playing. calquence is an oral targeted therapy for cll. more patients begin with calquence than any treatment of its kind, and calquence is proven to work better than chemoimmunotherapy in patients with previously untreated cll. calquence may cause serious side effects, which may lead to death. these include serious infections with fever, chills, or flu-like symptoms; and bleeding problems that may increase with blood thinners. decreased blood counts are common and can be severe. new cancers have happened, including skin cancers. heart rhythm problems with fast or irregular heartbeat, dizziness, feeling faint, chest discomfort, or shortness of breath, have happened. tell your doctor if you have bleeding, heart rhythm, or liver problems; infection, or if you are or plan to be pregnant or breastfeeding. calquence helps you do the fighting. and you can focus on the things you're loving. ask your doctor if calquence is right for you.

you're probably not easily persuaded to switch and you can focus on the things you're loving. mobile providers for your business. but what if we told you it's possible that comcast business mobile can save you up to 75% a year on your wireless bill versus the big three carriers? did we peak your interest? you can get two unlimited lines for just $30 each a month. there are no term contracts or line activation fees. and you can bring your own device. oh, and all on the most reliable 5g mobile network nationwide. wireless that works for you. it's not just possible, it's happening. you all were patient. you tuned in night after night hoping for a moment like this.

it's grounded at third. the orioles get it! go crazy, baltimore. you are the new champions of the american league east. >> i'm glad the red sox had at least one bit of history in last season. the baltimore orioles clenching the american pennant east for the first time since 2014. a little rougher since the first round, but the american league east had a down year last year. but the orioles a great team last year and they've got some of the best upcoming prospects. they should be good for quite some time. on monday o's fans were given another reason to celebrate when the team and state officials

formalized the deal to keep the birds at camden yard for the next three years. joining us is governor wes moore. thanks for being with us. talk about the good news. >> i don't know if you guys are a little hot. i'm a little hot here. if you need some help, just let me know here. the al east champ. yes. to the chagrin of all the red sox and yankees fans the al east champs are going to be in the baltimore for the next three years. we did it in partnership with the team, the general assembly and the maryland stadium authority and our outstanding new chair craig thompson. i had three criteria when we entered into this. there were no negotiations taking place.

we said, one, we were going to be good stewards of taxpayer dallass, two, we want to create winners on and off the field, and, three, i'm not doing a short-term deal. these short-term deals are not only unimaginative, they're dangerous. only long-term deals. we're really proud this is a deal that's going to keep the orioles here for 30 years and start a larger process with how we're rethinking the renaissance of baltimore. >> it's so refreshing to see an american politician with a great smile, a sense of humor about himself, a sense of purpose about his mission. that's you, governor wes moore. i want to thank you, because

these are pretty dark days for politics. camden yards was built by a guy by the name of larry aquino, a baseball icon. it's been the model for ballparks that followed camden yards and changed major league baseball. this new 30-year lease, tell us what it means to the core of the city of baltimore, a city that's had some problems economically and otherwise. what does it do to the core of the city in terms of future growth for the city around camden yards? >> thanks so much. economically what it means is we have our anchors between the orioles and the ravens, that are going to be two crucial players in a process of how we are thinking about a downtown core that is going to help the city,

minority business owners, women business owners. it's difficult to get someone to invest in a city when its core anchors could eventually leave. we're seeing the consequence in oakland and in washington, d.c. between the wizards and the caps. you need predictability. this deal gives predictability. in addition to the economic growth, the ability to create a live, work, play environment that everybody can benefit from. it's also the psychology of it. the orioles are us. they're a huge part of the psychology of this city and state. having them here for a long period of time, you know, it doesn't just inspire memories that so many of us have coming up and going to o's games. it's really proud to know my kids and grandkids one day will hopefully be able to go out there and watch the birds win. coming up, what's a biden

agenda for a second term? it's not totally clear yet. now democrats are calling on the president to get specific. w deme president to get specific. watch how easy it is to put on new hands free skechers slip-ins. i just step in and go. sitting? doesn't matter. i don't even have to touch them. ooo, gangsta. in a hurry? there's not a faster, easier way to put on shoes. they know a 10 when they see it. there is a lot of

information out there. hamas oppresses the people of gaza, uses civilians as human shields, and steals their basic supplies to use them in a war of terror. even when given the chance at peace, hamas broke the truce. our community needs to stand against hamas and stand with palestinians and israelis for basic human rights. focus on the truth.

♪♪ welcome to the fourth hour of "morning joe." it is 6:00 a.m. on the west coast, 9:00 a.m. back east. with us for the hour, former msnbc host chris matthews and republican strategist susan del percio. claire mccaskill is with us as

well. the fallout continues after the colorado supreme court's decision to disqualify donald trump from the 2024 ballot because of his role in the january 6th attack on the u.s. capitol. garrett haake as the latest. >> reporter: the legal ruling that could keep donald trump off colorado's primary ballot looming large on the campaign trail with his republican rivals defending the man they hope to defeat. >> just because these liberal justices don't like him, they want to take him off the ballot. that's not a democracy. >> reporter: bill barr, who has been critical of donald trump, questioning the legal merits of the case, arguing it will work to his former boss' advantage. >> he feeds on grievance. >> reporter: the colorado supreme court citing donald trump's own words as evidence of inciting an insurrection.

>> we fight like hell. if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore. >> reporter: president biden calling donald trump's role in the capitol attack self-evident. >> it's an insurrection, no question about it. >> reporter: the trump campaign has vowed to swiftly appeal the colorado case. a 4-3 decision by justices appointed by democratic governors. cases like the one in colorado have faced an uphill battle. litigation and appeals are pending in more than a dozen states. efforts to ban trump from the ballot have not succeeded in the past. mr. trump also faces more than 90 charges in four separate criminal cases, including in washington, where the special counsel has asked the supreme court to weigh in on the issue of whether the former president has immunity for his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results. now the nation's highest court could have to rule on whether

trump is eligible to run even before the primary votes are cast. >> chris matthews, i can't wait to get your read. as a former u.s. capitol police officer, capitol staffer, a hill staffer, staffer for speaker of the house, presidential speech writer, i mean, you go on and on. you just have a grasp of all the issues involved here. i'm curious what your thought is as we have some of the best legal experts in america, including conservative legal experts from the federalist society who agree with this colorado supreme court decision. talk about the balancing act, the law. i'm curious, though, you've got the balance of the constitution versus the balance of what

claire mccaskill said earlier, which is, the ballot, let people decide. mike barnicle agrees. let people decide whether he's president or not based on what they do inside the ballot box. what do you think? >> i thought the president was very astute in his handling as he's going to the airport there. he said basically it was insurrection. we've got the tapes. he did lead that insurrection on january 6th. but let the court decide. i thought that was a very smart decision. don't tell people how to rule. let the courts decide. i wouldn't want to be on the supreme court. this is a terrible decision for them. politically people are going to be looking at these polls. when 84% of the people on the democratic side said they loved

this position, tells me two things. they think donald trump is going to be the nominee, and they're afraid of him. 24% of republicans are for for this decision, because they want trump to run. it's about college. it's the old college or no-college issue. 70% of people who did not get to go to college believe trump should run no matter what convictions are found against him by juries. most non-college graduates believe he hasn't committed any crimes. these are all in the "new york times" poll the other day. it's very clear it's a divide. people make logical decisions in their lives. some people go to ivy league schools. most people don't get to go. many have applied and don't get in. some people get to go to good

colleges, more people don't. this was in george will's column the other day. you've got to look at the politics. nikki haley says liberal judges. judge ludwig was very articulate on this the other day on your show. they're saying look how afraid of him they are. >> claire, this obviously is the lead, main story in the "wall street journal," also in the "new york times." i want to read the lead in the "new york times." boy, it really encapsulates it. it's been obvious for months that politics and the law were

going to bump into one another in the 2024 campaign. given the double role donald trump has been playing as a criminal defendant and a leading republican candidate. but in a way that few expected, that awkward bump has turned into a head-on collision. and there we are. the last thing i would want to be right now is a united states supreme court justice having to sort of balance this delicate balance we were talking about between the law and the constitution and political reality. >> if you think back to bush v gore and the first time the supreme court really got pulled into partisan politics in a very vivid way, you know, that court had not had a bunch of ethical scandals. that court had not had to deal with the republican leader of

the senate refusing to allow a supreme court nominee to even have a hearing from a duly-elected president. that court had not dealt with the republicans rushing through a nominee after voting had already began for president to get this solid 6-3 conservative majority on the court. so this court is already in very choppy waters with the american people. its approval rating is at an all-time low. many people do not trust it. many people believe it has become just a vehicle for partisanship. on that doorstep lands three cases right now that will have a dramatic impact in 2024. the first one is the eligibility for trump on the ballot based on the 14th amendment. the second one is whether or not he's entitled to immunity on the charges he's facing because he was the president. the third one is whether or not

the statute used to charge him by jack smith actually apply to these set of facts. so that's one, two, three. this is really tough territory. for them to come out the other side with the american people feeling better about them, the chances are between slim and none. >> chris, let me bounce back to you. you were there. you were in washington, 1974, watergate. that was a unanimous decision. i think 8-0 because rehnquist couldn't take part in the proceedings. whatever this ruling is, we don't see a 6-3 decision straight down idealogical lines like we saw in 2000. >> you're right, joe. the supreme court ruling on the tapes of richard nixon that he

had to turn them over was a clear-cut statement. he did not have private possession of those tapes. it was a clear-cut decision by the republican leadership. they went to the white house and said to the press -- president, you have to leave when that decision was made. there was a clarity there. the country spoke in watergate. i mean, nixon wasn't the worst president we ever had, but he was wrong, and he broke the law and he covered up and he basically engaged in leading the coverup. but the country agreed. we were happy. 5-4 decisions are not happy. we had a 5-4 decision on the al gore case. al gore took it like a man and gave a concession speech right for everybody to see.

he gave it up, like a great american. he went onto fight for climate. today i don't think we're going to see that clarity. i think judge roberts is not going to go with the crowd. i think he's going to have a real tough time. i think he didn't want to go for dobbs. i think he didn't think it was right for his court to blow up roe v wade. it was not a perfect decision, but it worked for everybody. it worked for keeping the country together. i want to talk about biden for a second. he's trying to deal with the border. he knows northeasterners are very concerned about the border, not just border state people. he also knows they don't distinguish between asylum seekers and people just coming here for a better life to get a job and make it in this country. who doesn't want that? he understands the issue, but he

has the hispanic community he has to deal with. he has to keep them at least tranquil. whatever deal he strikes in the next couple weeks is going to be very difficult for him. all the he's trying to keep the center together with the moderates and the liberals and it's a real challenge for him. he's trying to do it right so far. >> it is a real challenge. not a lot of tranquility in the democratic party right now. the reason why his numbers are so low is because you have a lot of democrats right now a year removed from going into the ballot box and deciding whether donald trump has four more years, you have a lot of democrats expressing their frustration to pollsters. we'll see if they do that a year from now. i'm skeptical. susan, i want to add to that list. alex reminded me that the supreme court is also going to

be ruling on the abortion pill coming up. here is a 70-30/80-20 issue that once again the supreme court may find itself in the extreme minority. you go back to dobbs and one of the reasons their approval rating is so low, is you can look at gallup polls through the years and wherever they fall on the issue, it's been pretty consistent over the years. you ask americans, do you want to overturn roe v wade, about 70% of americans would always say no. so you have a court now that reversed a 50-year right that 70% of americans opposed. their credibility has collapsed. and now, as claire was saying, into this political reality drops one of the most

contentious political cases since the gore v bush case in 2000. >> yeah. i agree with everyone saying i wouldn't want to be a supreme court justice having to decide on this case, because it is so volatile. i think no matter what the decision is, it's going to blow up within the political spectrum. it will either bring donald trump supporters in further, or it will have democrats really rallying in belief of democracy. you brought up the decision on the abortion pill. you add that to the one in colorado. basically the supreme court will dictate what the two issues are in 2024. it will be abortion and democracy. and those democrats who aren't necessarily ready to show up to

the ballot box right now for joe biden, this will get turnout. i can't think of an issue that will bring more turnout to the ballot box in 2024 than this issue on democracy in addition to abortion. >> and we're all so focused on how people supporting donald trump may respond in a certain way. it's not going to be a picnic for the democratic base. talk about a lack of tranquility. they believe merrick garland and the department of justice have been far too passive and allowed donald trump to get away with far too much over the past several years. if the supreme court rules the way most of us think, you're going to have some very angry democrats as well. there's always this hyper focus

on how will the trump right respond. well, progressives on the left will obviously be very disappointed and upset if they see donald trump getting away with insurrection. let's bring in the state attorney for palm beach county, florida, dave aronberg. i've said before in previous hours that i think if you privately ask each one of the supreme court justices to write a law review paper on whether the colorado supreme court decision was made correctly, i think you'd get a majority of supreme court justices saying, yes, it actually was. you read section three of the 14th amendment, they decided it correctly. they would also agree with the federalist society scholars who

actually came up with this working theory a year or so ago. but this isn't a law review paper. this is the real world. talk about how hard it's going to be for an institutionalist like john roberts to get from here to there and to actually take somebody's name off a ballot. >> good morning, joe. i thought the colorado supreme court decision was a tour de force. it was 133 pages of very convincing argument. but i believe the supreme court is going to overturn that decision. i think they're going to avoid the thorny and embarrassing issues of whether trump engaged in insurrection. all the judges who decided in colorado, they all said that trump engaged in insurrection. and yet, i think the supreme court is going to avoid it all

together. i think the supreme court and john roberts, i think they're going to find a procedural way out. they're going to perhaps focus on due process. say section five of the 14th amendment empowers congress to enforce the amendment and congress hasn't done so and they need to do so, because otherwise it will be chaos. there will be political retribution. 50 different secretaries of state across the country trying to go after their political opponent with no direction from the federal government. in this case, trump did seem to have due process, though. that was five-day trial. there were 96 exhibits. there was a 102-page district court opinion. i think there are grounds to uphold the colorado ruling, but don't expect the supreme court to do so. >> claire mccaskill, you agree with that, right?

as you said earlier, donald trump's attorneys are going to say he hasn't been found guilty of insurrection by the federal government. in fact, they haven't even brought those charges against him when they had the opportunity to do that in the d.c. case. >> yeah. i agree that the supreme court will take some kind of off ramp. there's a number of off ramps they can take and maybe not get to the ultimate question of whether or not the 14th amendment applies or whether or not donald trump engaged in insurrection. those are the two arguments going around. one is legal scholars saying, well, the 14th amendment doesn't apply to the president and the other is that he was the president and he facilitated it and the language was clear. when you read that opinion, you can tell the people who wrote that opinion were singing the

song the supreme court has been singing about originalism and textualism. they talk about the plain meaning of it and the context of the original framers of that language. that is what this supreme court worships around, is this idea that you don't legislate on the court. you just take the words around them and apply what the framers meant with the context of the time. that's why this opinion is written this way, and that's why it's going to be a little tricky for them. but i agree, i think they'll find some procedural off ramp and leave him on the ballot. >> the scholars who came up with this disqualification member

were federalist society members. when we come back, a judge says rudy must pay up now. we'll get legal reaction to that. also, i'm going to talk to chris matthews about the long, sad decline of a guy who was once called america's mayor. uy who w called america's mayor

liberty mutual customized my car insurance and i saved hundreds. with the money i saved, i started a dog walking business. i was a bit nervous at first but then i figured it's just walking, right? [dog barks] oh. no it's just a bunny! calm down taco. sit duchess. stop! sesame no no. archie! walter don't, no, ahhhh. ahhhhh! you're lucky you're so cute. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

welcome back to "morning joe." it is 6:24 on the west coast. this is a shot of san francisco. chris matthews, you were the d.c. bureau chief for the san francisco examiner for 16 or 17 years and then wrote for the chronicle for a couple more? >> yeah. i'm getting a retirement check from there. not much to live in san francisco with, but i get a retirement check. i wrote about rudy giuliani back then. you mentioned him before the break. i've had my fights with him, but i always looked up to him, like we all did, i believe, after

9/11. i felt that he really kept new york together and the country together. he was america's mayor. he answered the questions. he said, we've got this much information about anthrax and this much, exactly what people want to do. just be on the street corner telling people what's going on at that moment, no coverup, no slow delivery. give us the facts as you get them. i thought he was that guy. whether it's booze -- it's probably a combination of booze and this crazy donald trump affection that he has and trusting in trump and all the calculation he did with what he said about the election workers in georgia, it's a mess. he has to deal with the alcohol problem. it's not going to be a great future. all this money he owes, $150 million, how do you look in the

mirror and say i owe that money with no clear means of income coming in? i mean, it's tough. >> have you seen this, chris? it's shocking. i've never seen it to this degree. we've all seen people as they get older, they have their moment in politics. they leave politics and they get older and they start to -- and donald trump was saying back in 2016 that giuliani had slowed down. have you ever seen such a precipitous fall from grace? i know left wingers have always hated giuliani. so that's fine. they have their opinions. there are a lot of people, though, that saw new york in 1993 and saw it in 1996 and were stunned by the remarkable turnaround. >> absolutely. >> there's a reason why

democrats in new york kept voting for giuliani. but the precipitous fall from that to now is staggering. >> i remember being at a bookstore downtown near the angelica movie theater. i said this is the first time i felt safe in new york city. there's not the smell of pee in the subway. everything seemed to be better. people could walk the streets. young people in college could actually go out at night and not be fearful. the whole idea of stopping the small crimes to stop the big crimes theory was being tested. having the point where the hair color is dripping off the top of his head and this mystery of why a man has fallen -- i mean, it's a combination of factors. all the divorces, i don't know

if that's a factor. i do think it helps to have a great marriage, though. you'll want to be the other person's hero. that's just a fact of how people live. marriage is a good way to keep your act together. i just think so. that's my experience. >> it helps to be scared. mika keeps me on my toes. >> i think the idea of having somebody else care about you to the point where you care what they think of you, i think he doesn't have that person. he's had a lot of mess. i had my mixed experiences with him. we all know about the wilding case where all those kids were convicted on that crime and then they went on appeal. those kids were innocent of that

crime. he was telling me at that time on the record that we had to bring in capital punishment for these kids who were mid teens at the time. he's always been a little rough edge with crime, but he's also been very good on crime. a mixed bag. >> there are so many stories like that you'll hear from so many people that will say that he's been ruthless his entire career, as a prosecutor, ruthless as a mayor. we'll talk about a very, very rough side of him. it was always a mixed record. it's not so mixed now. it's just bad. the federal judge yesterday also ruled that federal election workers ruby freeman and shaye moss, whose lives were endangered by his lies, can immediately push for the $148 million rudy giuliani owes them

following their victory. the judge lifted the typical waiting period because of concerns from plaintiffs that giuliani might try to hide his assets. speaking of my wife, she constantly wants to know when people are going to face justice and asks every day, is he actually going to have to pay that money, is he going to get away with this. looks like the judge is doing all he can do to make sure giuliani pays whatever he has. >> it's frustrating, because rudy claims he's dead broke. but the civil lawyers think there is still some blood in that stone. they're good at chasing assets. hopefully they'll find something. here in palm beach, rudy has a home and the irs has a lien on it. i've seen rudy out in palm beach

living the highlight. does that mean his assets are hidden? maybe not. he wouldn't be the first poser to hit palm beach island. even if he is destitute, he recently signed onto host a show on a network. it looks like he'll have income. future earnings could be subject to seizure. either way, rudy giuliani looks like he's falling in the footsteps of donald trump's favorite lawyer roy cohen, who died penny -- peniless and alone. >> let's bring in andrew ross sorkin. why don't we talk about how the houthi rebels will impact people's ikea shipments this

holiday season. what is it, $80 billion getting redirected? >> it's about $80 billion so far. i know we talked about this yesterday, but it's worth putting a fine point on it. this is going to go on for weeks. it is not demonstrably going to impact this holiday season per se. but i think you're going to start to see some of the supply chain issues start to hit folks. yesterday we talked about is there going to be inflationary pressure or not on a relative basis to what it costs to push things around the world during the pandemic, this is nothing. on a marginal basis you're going to see an increase in prices. depending on how long this goes on for and how serious, there's another piece to this, which is, it's going to become harder and harder to actually staff these

ships. some of these ships there are literally rockets being shot at these ships. most of the folks in this business working on ships never thought this was part of the job description. there could become a moment where it gets complicated and there are going to be certain items where there's going to be an impact. the biggest impact is not in the united states right now. it's actually in europe for the most part, but it's worth watching. >> front page of the "new york times" business section, bottom of the page, season's hottest shopping trend, falling prices. you are right. what's going on in the red sea right now is going to cause prices to rise. it's not going to impact this holiday season. toys are 3% cheaper this christmas and eggs are down 22%.

>> it's an amazing thing. i don't know the answer. clearly presidents, politicians, elected officials get blamed when prices go up. the question is whether presidents, elected officials and others get credit when prices go down. i'm actually curious given your experience, joe, about that. do you think that the american public says, oh my goodness, i can buy the toys for cheaper, my gas costs less and good for the guy in the white house or that's somebody else's job. it's the fed who did that, it's this, it's the supply chain, it's whatever. >> yeah. claire, let me ask you. you know far better than any of us here. you have obviously people looking back to 2019 prices.

so the question is will a decline from last year make a difference, or is it going to take inflation to continue going down to where it looks more like pre-covid prices before joe biden feels a positive impact politically? >> well, i think what's going to make the difference is what is the trend between now and about next september. you're seeing the stock market, people's iras look better all know yesterday was a little bumpy. and gas prices are huge. you know, people want to complain about the fact that joe biden is overseeing a record amount of oil being pumped in united states of america. our production is higher than

it's ever been. but that's because gas prices are such a predictor in terms of the electorate's mood. if you continue to see this decline in consumer goods, particularly at the grocery store, rent coming down would make a difference. it depends which things are moving and which things aren't. some of the things moving in the right direction people don't feel directly. it's those things they feel directly that will put them in a better mood about the status quo, and the status quo is joe biden. >> on the stock market front, we've had what they're calling a santa claus rally. historically worth noting that typically from here to the end of the year statistically and history is no gauge of the future here, but worth knowing, more than 70% of the time the stock market continues to go up

from here. usually on average, about 1.5 or 2%. right now the s&p 500 is up about 8.5% on a six-month basis. again, do people say this is great, or are people obsessed with other feelings and being told that things are terrible? the data is very, very impressive. for reasons i have found inexplicable, the polls don't seem to suggest people feel the same way. >> there are an awful lot of people driving their maseratis and convertible mercedes to country clubs making millions of dollars every day staring at their stocks talking about how joe biden is a socialist and

america is going to hell in a handbasket. some allies of president biden are saying he has yet to layout a clear second term agenda. they see that as a driver of the president's low support. let's bring in sahil kapur. what are you hearing? >> president biden's poll numbers are alarming to many democratic allies. at this time he appears in real danger of losing the next election to donald trump. what's unique is he's significantly underperforming his 2020 margins with young voters and non-white voters. why? his allies say it's because he hasn't laid out an agenda for four more years. the risk is they could stay home or vote third party.

congressman maxwell frost, a biden ally, is young, progressive, black and latino. he has some advice for the president on how tour this around. take a listen. >> obviously it was a great progressive agenda b it's not enough. we have to talk about 2025 and beyond. the third thing isow does this fit into this future we're fighting for? i think that's the key. >> he is not alone. a number of other democrats say it's not enough to beat donald trump. he has to inspire these low propensity voters and oer a plan for thefuture. thatncludes bernie sanders who told me that biden has to lay out an agenda tha addresses health care, climatechange, the

housing crisis. there is no policy page on the biden campaign's website. an advisor i spoke to pointed out to a billionaire minimum tax to fund child care. progressive activists have shown polling that shows biden's general ideas are popular, but hardly anyone has heard of them. the campaign says they'll roll out the agenda at the right time a spokesmanells me the campaignas already idn outreach t black and lato communities and still11 months awayrom the election, we look forward t scaling our efforts across the board next year to mobilize a coalition, including how a second biden/harris term will deliver at the right moment to maximize impact. the biden campaign overall is expressing confidence about the

2024 election that a lot of democrats don't share today. >> thank you so much. it's so true that you look at the issues, joe biden on the issues. you look at the legislation he's passed. it's extremely popular with the american people. there's still a disconnect between the president that signed all that legislation into law and what voters think, especially younger voters think. we'll see how they close that gap over the next 11 months. ben smith's latest piece is out this morning titled "cover the republican primary." ben, we've been hearing for years critiques about horse race coverage. let's stay away from horse race coverage. let's talk policy and issues. you're saying when it comes to

this republican primary, the media needs to do a better job of covering that race. explain why. >> if you watch this network, if you read the "new york times," there's a lot of focus appropriately on the stakes of the general election on biden versus trump. you barely notice there is a primary going on in which nikki haley looks like she's on track to have a one-on-one face-off with donald trump. donald trump's strategy is to skip the debates, ignore his rivals and pretend the primary doesn't exist. he's the favorite. he may win. but we've all been surprised by elections in our lives. it's crazy the media isn't covering the day to day drama of a competitive primary election before we move onto a

high-stakes general election. >> but, ben, it hasn't really been that competitive. the press did cover ron desantis in the early months before he announced his candidacy as someone who was viable. the polls showed it. they really gave him a lot of attention. it was there. but as donald trump's poll numbers increased and his attitude was really that of incouple -- incumbent and he does have a democratic primary and there are other candidates talking about being in the race. he's not engaging it, and frankly, the press isn't either. there's only so much political coverage you're going to do. so you have to balance what is important to the viewer. if i was one of those candidates, i would be singing your praises and say absolutely,

we need to be hearing about these issues. but the candidates right now are not deciding to take on donald trump. at that point, what are you left with? >> i think you're right. the press, which loves drama and is torn between covering this tried to make ron desantis happen and try sod hard and obviously failed and is feeling a little burned by that. it's just a fact that the iowa caucuses are next month. donald trump will probably win. it strikes me as strange that that is not the biggest political story in america. the core of donald trump's strategy is pretending it's not happening. >> ben, i've got to tell you, i'm about to jump out of my chair here. the reason we are not covering the primary more is because they don't want us to.

if you're going to beat somebody, you have to go after them. i have never seen an election in my life, especially if they're behaving like an incumbent, you don't beat somebody by ignoring them. so clearly these candidates aren't trying to beat donald trump. they're trying to position themselves to be the after donald trump. there's no way any of these people are dumb enough to think they're going to win by ignoring this guy. i think the reason they're not getting covered is they don't want to be covered. all they would have had to do when he said immigrants are poisoning the blood of america is have a preference and talk about her family and talk about immigrants in this country and how incredibly disgusting it is that a former president and candidate would say this. >> they're not running for the

democratic nomination. they're trying to do a very strange thing, which is, win a primary against donald trump amongst people who really like donald trump. it's a strange thing. who cares if they want us to cover them? it is an interesting story. >> i have run against incumbents. i can assure you i wouldn't have won that primary if i acted like he wasn't there. it's bizarre to me these guys are fading the way they're fading. i get it that the majority of their party thinks donald trump is great, but that's because the majority of their party won't stand up to him. >> his hope is he would come into january with three or four really strong contenders who weren't a threat to him. now it's narrowing to one person running against him, haley,

who's the one who's moving forward, not backward. >> editor in chief of semafor, ben smith. thank you very much. you got into the ring with claire mccaskill. >> i'm going to go lick my wounds. >> you're just fine. thank you so much. coming up, a brand new movie driving viewers to the theaters this holiday season. "ferrari" tells the story of the man behind the iconic car brand. .

two objects cannot occupy

the same point in space. the corner race, you have perhaps a crisis of identity. am i sportsman or a competitor? if you get into one of my cars, you get in to win. >> from the acclaimed director of "the last of the mohicans" comes a high octane ride into the world of the famed enzo ferrari. ferrari fights to save his racing empire amid personal

tragedy, with adam driver, penelope cruz, ferrari takes audiences through the life and legacy of the legendary automotive icon. the film's celebrated director and producer, michael mann joins us now. thank you so much for being with us. there's so much i want to talk to you about. but reading through the notes, and i was fascinated by how long these ideas take to come to life, but in this case, this actually started as a possible pip between you and sydney pollock. >> that's right, i said we're friends, sydney and i started with troy county martin, back in the 1990s, and it was -- it took a lot to get this finally to be able to start shooting it. there was something ironic about that because everything you're doing with your planning is all theory, but what's it going to be like to direct the film. when you're actually directing the film, it really is day one

and everything is brand new and fresh. >> yeah, you know, the thing i love, there's so many things i love about this movie, but the thing that you explore is what i've often said before about artists. i've talked to parents of artists before who talk about the chaos in their lives, and i said they're artists, i don't know if i'd want to meet mozart and beethoven but i still listen to them centuries later. ferrari was like that, you have a man who was so precise, so exact in the factory while his personal life is absolute chaos. talk about that contrast. >> it's fascinating. it is the torrid passionate personal life that really is the -- was the hook for me. he has one son who's died. he has another son by a second family with his lover, who's

asking ferrari. he has the factories on the edge of insolvency. he's competing against maserati. racing is horrendously dangerous in that period, so the deaths of drivers. death is all around, world war ii just ended. so it is a tempestuous four mnts behind that facade. primarily what god sydney and i going initially, and then ultimately, is a story about passion. it's a very torrid italian op erratic story behind the scenes. >> let me ask -- >> chris matthews with us. go ahead. >> michael mann, it's an honor to meet you. you have one of the greatest directors ever, and i'll go back to what joe said about last of

the mohicans. i've never seen passion in that movie like that one. the passion in that film, the love story, the guts of the lead character and the heroism of the guy that gives himself up for the girl to save her life, he gives up his life. it was right out of a sydney cart. it was a great story about heroism and guts and the beauty of north carolina and the way you showed that as this background of that period. let me ask you about this, the character, is your hero as great as the hero in "the last of the mohicans". >> do you have a hero story here? i always like hero stories. >> what's fascinating about ferrari is the duality that joe was just talking about. he's an engineer with great precision, when he's asked to do with racing in his personal life, it's almost as if a vessel -- there's a vessel with

no rudder, and he has a marriage with lara, the phenomenal penelope cruz that's on the -- absolutely on the edge all the time. they can't be apart. they can't be together. she's kind of a maria callus figure, and we -- everything we did was very intimate to the reality of their world, when we shoot in the family mausoleum. it's the mausoleum. everything was shot in enzo's neighborhood. there's really a dive into intimacy. that was the great attraction to me of doing this. >> michael, let's take another look at a clip from the film. >> so what do you think? >> there is no ashtray. >> are you a premadonna.

>> 200 kilometers an hour. >> i'm offering you a brand new car, which has the edge of maserati. >> the maserati is faster and it has an ashtray. >> if i put in an ashtray, will you drive it? >> so michael, talk about -- talk about adam driver, and just the remarkable transformation. he really becomes ferrari. >> that was phenomenal. he -- i mean, it started with -- i cast from the inside, i direct from the inside. adam acts and works as a great artist from the inside. it's that ferocious -- it's that ferocious of salt on achieving something artistically or achieving a vision, and that's at the -- that's at the heart of it. enzo wanted to be a race car driver in 1918 when he had lost

his father and his brother and was alone and bereft in a moment of despair. it was a very romantic idea at the time, and that terrible joy as he puts it with his typical kind of whip, that's the heart that motivates him, and that's something that adam connected to right from the beginning. >> yeah, a terrible joy. it's just a beautiful movie. ferrari opens in theaters on christmas day. i know so many people are going to love this movie. director michael mann, thank you so much. we greatly appreciate you being here. >> thank you, really appreciate it. >> all right, that does it for us this morning, ana cabrera picks up the coverage in two minute thes. s. s.

right now on "ana cabrera reports", an nbc news exclusive, justices on the colorado supreme court are now facing alarming