Morning Joe - Israel monitoring Iran’s nuclear sites closely

Episode Date: July 11, 2025

Trump heads to Texas as recovery efforts from deadly flood continue

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday July 11th. It is Friday and we have a lot to get to this morning including President Trump and the First Lady traveling today to Central Texas a week after the devastating flooding across six counties as the search continues for more than 160 people who are still missing right now. Also ahead we'll go through yesterday's meeting between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his Russian counterpart and whether those talks made any progress toward a peace deal with Ukraine. Plus the president is escalating tensions with a major trading partner and teasing more

across the board taxes on imports. And there was a major upset at the All England Club yesterday. That's it! Amanda Anisimova has done it! Her sweetest win. Second phase of her career. She's bound for the Wimbledon final. Wow. American Amanda Anisimova knocked off the world's number one women's player, Irina Sabalenka, to advance to tomorrow's championship match. What a game. What a story. Well, what a story indeed. You know, last year she was, this time last year, she was getting over the fact

she didn't even qualify for the main event, but her story goes much deeper than that. It does. This woman took off time back in 2019. It was a week before her 18th birthday. And I believe she was about to enter the US Open to have a match days before her father, who was also her coach, passed away. She withdrew from the US Open and she took a bunch of time off to grieve and recover with her family and she ultimately decided to

come back to tennis thinking that would make her father happy. Yeah. And she's back. She's back, Willie, and in the biggest of ways, Center Court, just extraordinary comeback story. Yeah, she was a teen phenom for people who don't remember, an American phenom. She won the US Open junior title when she was 17 years old. And then as Mika said, her father, who was also her coach, died.

That hit her hard. Then COVID came. There were all these things. And she really ultimately wasn't living up to the potential or the expectations at least that so many people had placed upon her over the years. And about a year ago, as you said, she stepped away from tennis and was like, I've got to sort of reset everything. She stopped playing tennis. She was home, she lives in Miami. She said she's hung out with her dogs and had a normal life and then kind of regained the love for tennis. And so

she's been back for a little while now, but this is an extraordinary mountain she's climbed now to get all the way to the final Wimbledon. And now it's, you know, it's kind of a nice story that what, who she thought she was going to be at 17 or 18 or other people expected her to be at that age. She is now on her own terms, become, and got a chance now to win a Wimbledon title. Amazing. Yeah.

It is amazing, and, you know, we also really have some great possible final lining up on the men's side as well. I mean, just big names, last two days here. And we'll see how it ends up, but of course, center is number one in the world, but that's quite a lineup there for who will possibly be in Sunday's men's finals. Yeah, including another American, Taylor Fritz, who plays Carlos Alcara,

is a great player. They get started in just a little while here this morning But yeah, those are basically the marquee names of tennis including Djokovic who's just still doing it every time you think all right This is his swan song. He can't keep doing this at his age. He's unbelievable Yeah, he really is. Yeah, I look forward to watching. You know, Willie was a Yeah, he really is. Okay, I look forward to watching. You know, Willie was a teenage tennis phenom. Did you know that?

Yeah, something like that. He won, I think he won Wimbledon in 82 after, the year after McEnroe beat Bjorn Borg. Yeah, I don't remember. I had the wooden racket a little short. The wooden racket? I did have a wooden racket. That's how old we are.

All right. Yeah, he had the Royal Tenenbaum shorts. Short, short, and the ball in the headband. I've got the vision. Yeah, I can see it. All right. Let's get to our top story this morning. This morning we have new information on last month's operation in Iran targeting the country's

nuclear facilities, citing a senior Israeli government official. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports Israel believes at least some of Iran's highly enriched uranium at one of its sites was not destroyed in the US airstrikes targeting the base. However, that official tells NBC News that uranium is buried deep beneath the facility and is effectively

unreachable. The official says Israel is monitoring activity closely, and if Iran is seen trying to recover the material, Israel will not hesitate to carry out new strikes. Let's bring it around. The president of the United States of America and the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, he's the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, on Substack. Also, Morning Joe's official golf analyst. Maybe we'll see if he wants to talk about tennis.

Also, managing editor at the Bulwark, Sam Stein, who's going to be stepping in, talking about all things Red Sox in the middle of a seven game winning streak. Amazing. It is amazing. Richard, so it's very interesting details Amazing. Amazing. It is amazing. Richard, so it's very interesting details coming out of this Israeli intelligence.

That is that not all the uranium was destroyed, but it is rendered ineffective right now because it's buried. And if the Iranians go after it, well, that may be the last thing they do. Tell us what you know. Yeah, I think there's two takeaways in this. One is the strikes were pretty effective in terms of knocking out thousands of centrifuges and probably making it difficult, if not impossible,

to reach all this enriched uranium. That's the good news. Obliteration is the president's favorite word, is probably a step too far, in part because some things may have survived. And more important, there's parts of the program that were never there to begin with. And I think what we're looking at is a future, Joe, and I think this is the bottom line, where this is a problem that's been diminished, its program was set back, but not eliminated.

And one has to assume that the big takeaway in Iran will be, hey, we need nuclear weapons in order to deter the Americans and the Israelis from ever doing anything like this again. So my guess is we're looking at a future where the Iranians slowly, in all sorts of decentralized ways, try to rebuild a program. Easier said than done, it will take more time. But my guess is this is not the last time we will have used military force, either we or the Israelis, will have used military force against Iran's nuclear program. I can imagine six

months from now, six years from now, there'll be new intelligence about some equipment or material in some location and if it can't be resolved diplomatically, I think once again you'll see military action called in against Iran. So Richard, let's talk about that potential diplomacy here. We're talking about the specifics of how effective that attack was, but let's talk geopolitically about the aims of that attack to try to bring Iran to the negotiating table, to bring Iran to heal in some ways. How effective was it there? What do you expect to see now?

Well, it's tough because Iran has stopped cooperation with the international weapons inspectors. So that obviously works against diplomacy. We'd have to be willing to relieve sanctions. I think that's probably the big Iranian ask at this point because their economy is in rough shape and the regime is focused right now. Priority number one for this regime is shoring itself up. Among other things getting economic sanctions relief would help there. So I think there's a possibility

for some diplomacy. I think you'd call it a long shot either to reach an agreement and then also to implement an agreement and stay true to it over time rather than have, say, the Iranians trying to work around it. So I think it's fine to pursue the diplomatic approach, and we will. But I just think it's unrealistic to think that it's going to solve the problem for all time going forward. So the Wall Street Journal editorial board is writing about this with a new piece entitled

What's Trump's Next Move on Iran? It reads in part, quote, the aftermath of the 12-day war with Iran looks mixed more than two weeks later. Iran's nuclear program was badly damaged and likely set back for years. But the Ayatollah's government isn't admitting defeat and shows no signs of dropping its revolutionary or nuclear designs. There's no sign Iran will surrender the remains of its enrichment program. Iran has driven out United Nations weapons inspectors who left the country last week.

It may drop out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That will make it impossible for inspectors to make a ground-level estimate of the damage done and track or collect any nuclear material that remains. Iran isn't hankering for normal relations with the West either. The successful US military operation has the regime more vulnerable than at any time since the Islamic Revolution. Now is the moment to capitalize for a safer Middle East. The question is how, when?

Well, the question also is what is the, what, Sam, what's, what's the political possibility of doing this and having, you know, the majority of people in Congress or in America supporting you? And I will just say, I think the Iranian sites should have been struck. I actually agree with the president and with those that he succeeded over the past 25 years. Iran can't have a nuclear program. That said, I may be in the minority when it comes to American voters on what they're willing to have the United States do that stop that from happening. And part of that is, it used to be, Democrats would be against, most Democrats would be against a

military operation, most Republicans would support that military operation. I guess this is the old Republican in me coming out. But it is so mixed, isn't it, Sam? It is really, it's hard to follow exactly the ebb and the flow of the MAGA base, people on the left who support Israel, some of those who support, it's really hard to tell how much support there'd be for the president going back and striking Iran again.

Yeah, I actually don't think you'd be in the minority. I think people view this through a nuanced lens, but I do think, if I'm understanding it correctly, that there's a lot of hesitation for over engagement in the country. And look, at the bulwark, we wrote about this with a varying degree of opinions. But I think generally we were supportive of the strikes for the purposes of getting rid of or at least setting back the nuclear program.

But the question I suppose now is at what cost, right? Did we set back diplomatic efforts with Iran as well? And then I think Richard really hit on the more important question is, did we lose visibility into what Iranian nuclear program objectives were and what's happening on the ground going forward? Because frankly, Iran's going to try to reconstitute their program. Obviously, we know that they've said so. If they do it in secret, if they pop up in three or four months and say, hey, we've actually accelerated, did we actually accomplish what we set out to do with these strikes? This is all by way of saying this is an incredibly nuanced, difficult geopolitical question to

tackle. My sense is that the Trump administration actually does at this point want to find some sort of diplomatic path forward. Trump has hinted at it. They've had negotiations. They've want to get them back. They've actually dangled the idea of sanction relief on Iranian oil. It hasn't come to fruition yet, but I wouldn't be totally surprised if the Trump administration starts pursuing more aggressively a diplomatic resolution to maybe stabilize the region a little bit.

And I do agree with you, I think there's a lot of hesitation in the MAGA base out there about more and more military engagement. And so it might not be, it might have worked this time in terms of politically striking Iran. I'm not totally sure how much more he can go back to that well. Yeah, you know, Richard, it's very interesting. We were talking yesterday about interpreting what the president said when he seems to say things that are either conflicting or ambiguous regarding his Secretary of Defense. If you sort through it, it's actually not too ambiguous at all what he was saying. Here the same thing with Iran Iran where he said several things. But I'm wondering if your read on President Trump on this issue is the same as mine.

He said two weeks and then he attacked. And that was clearly a fake afterwards. He said, oh, I'm not going to even think about this after this week, something along those lines. Didn't really mean that though. He's had some statements afterwards basically pushing the Iranians saying, you know, you need to play this smart. You need to deal with this. I'm curious, what you think the president's current...and by the way, that's the take of most Arab leaders right now is,

yeah, the president is not going to let Iran off the hook, at least the Arab leaders I talked to. I'm curious though, where you believe the president is not going to let Iran off the hook, at least the Arab leaders I talked to. I'm curious, though, where you believe the president is right now on deterring this nuclear risk moving forward. One, and two, what you would advise this president or any other president in this position to do? I would probably do a two-prong policy, Joe. I would explore it diplomatically, and I think that will be the president's inclination. He always likes, he's attracted to the big diplomatic deal.

So I would put on the table a grand bargain, if you will, with Iran and lay it out in terms of support for proxies, put the priority on not reconstituting their nuclear program. It would require getting international weapons inspectors back in, offer them sanctions relief. And I think there's a chance, I don't think that's far-fetched, because again, the Iranian regime is something on the ropes. Think about it, they've had a terrible year and a half, two years since October 7th. It has been economically and strategically a fiasco for the Iranian regime. A lot of their senior people have been assassinated. So

I don't think it's out of the question that they would accept a deal. And then on the back burner you have the military option. And it's not going to war with Iran. Again it would be discrete strikes kind of like Israel and the United States did. So I think if the president combines the two, a good faith diplomatic approach that's demanding but not inconceivable puts aside regime change and has in his back pocket the possibility of renewed military force. I think that's worth pursuing and I hope he goes for it. Alright, we've got more news to get to.

President Trump made another major tariff announcement yesterday declaring a 35% rate on most Canadian imports, effective August 1st. The president posted a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney on Truth Social, warning of even higher tariffs if Canada retaliates with levies of their own. Trump also wrote, if Canada works with me to stop the flow of fentanyl, we will perhaps consider an adjustment to this letter. Prime Minister Carney responded in a post on X, writing in part, quote,

Canada has made vital progress to stop the scourge of fentanyl in North America. And we are committed to continuing to work with the United States to save lives and protect communities in both our countries. Willie. Meanwhile, President Trump says higher blanket tariffs on most American trade partners also are on the way.

In an exclusive phone interview yesterday with NBC's Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker, the president dismissed concerns that additional tariffs could negatively affect the stock market or drive up inflation. The president telling Kristen, quote, we're just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay, whether it's 20% or 15%, we'll work that out now. Blanket tariffs are currently set at 10%. It's unclear exactly when the higher blanket tariffs

would take effect and at which rates. Let's bring the anchor of CNBC's worldwide exchange, Frank Holland. Frank, so good morning. We're back to talking about tariffs on our allies, including Canada. The rationale for those new tariffs are that the Canadians aren't doing enough to stop the flow of fentanyl.

It's worth pointing out here that a vanishingly small amount of the fentanyl that comes into the United States comes through Canada. 99% of it comes up through Mexico. So how are markets, how's the economy going to react to these new tariffs? And then the idea that there are going to be blanket tariffs on everybody else. Well, Willie, good morning to you. Maybe it's irony, maybe it's a jinx, but as you mentioned, just a day after the president

told Kristen Welker, the markets seem to be absorbing these tariffs fairly well. We see a big reaction with the S&P and the NASDAQ both falling about a half a percent in the pre-market. So I think the question is, why now? Why are we seeing this market reaction now? Well, we spoke to a number of analysts on my show, Worldwide Exchange, earlier. They say it's because Canada is a major trade partner,

and they're very concerned about the broader reacceleration of tariffs. So the president, again, as you mentioned, threatening blanket tariffs of 15 to 20 percent that also could possibly further delay federal reserve cuts that would be another catalyst for the U.S. markets. Now, we've heard some Fed officials say they would be another catalyst for the US markets. Now we've heard some Fed officials say

they would be okay with cuts. And we also saw the Fed minutes this week show there was an appetite for cuts. We also know that Jay Powell said the Fed more than likely would have already cut if not for tariffs. I was speaking to a CEO in the transport space where broad exposure to most US industries,

they told me the passing of that one big beautiful bill has strengthened corporate confidence, but that could be shaken by more shifts in tariff policy, and also they still do want to see Fed cuts. So some of this shaken corporate confidence, that could potentially impact hiring and maybe even Wall Street. I want to turn back to Wall Street. All right. Excuse me, Main Street.

All right. CNBC's Frank Holland. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Today, one week after fatal floodwater sur surged through the Texas Hill Country an urgent search continues for 166 people still missing. Rescue teams are using cadaver dogs to try and locate people as they comb through the

mountains of debris left behind by last Friday's torrential storm that killed at least 121 people, nearly 40 of them children. And at this hour, many questions remain about whether enough was done to warn residents and to prepare them for the rapidly rising waters. According to new reporting, Texas officials inspected Camp Mystic and noted that there was a disaster plan in place just two days before the storm swept through the camp, killing at least 27 campers and staff members. New reporting also revealed that local officials have long been aware of the risks. last year, quote, it is likely that Kerr County will experience a flood event in the next year and noting that one solution would be a flood warning system to alert residents to surging waters. All right.

I think everyone agrees that's a good idea. Yeah, in flash flood alley. President Trump and First Lady Melania Trump will travel to Texas later this morning to visit those areas devastated by last week's floods. In that same phone conversation we mentioned with Kristen Welker, the president said in part, after having seen this horrible event, I would imagine you'd put alarms up in some form. But the president did not blame local officials for the lack of those alarms, saying, quote, nobody ever saw a thing like this coming.

This is a once in every 200 year deal. The president also defended Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FEMA's response, adding, he does not know anything about recent reporting that the disaster agency's response to the flood has been slowed by Noem's cost controls in the department. So Joe Meek, President of the United States, will be there on the ground just one week after this. Just horrific, the more stories you hear about it, event in Texas.

Yeah. And of course, we keep hearing that this was actually foreseeable. We, of course, New York Times reported this morning that Kerr County said, we're going to have another flood event, most likely in the next year. And they said that over the past year and that they needed a warning system. I mean, it's the negligence is just horrific and there's no getting around that.

We'll be following the President and First lady's visit to Kerr County throughout the day here on MSNBC and still ahead on Morning Joe, President Trump is reportedly interested in new Russia sanctions, but there's a catch. We'll explain that. Plus, MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin will explain the trove of internal communications turned over by a whistleblower against the Trump administration. And a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast is available each weekday featuring our full

conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. At 23 past the hour, a live look at Capitol Hill for you this morning as the sun comes up over Washington. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with China's foreign minister during the second day of a summit in Malaysia earlier this morning.

It follows Rubio's meeting yesterday with Russia's foreign minister, which focused on the war in Ukraine. Afterward, the secretary spoke to reporters about the gathering and what the Trump administration wants to see. Our strategy is to continue to engage all the parties that are involved in finding an outcome to this conflict. We will engage any time that we have an opportunity to do so, like we did today.

I echoed what the president has said, both disappointment and frustration at the lack of progress in peace talks are in a path forward. So we'll continue to engage. We shared some ideas and comments, which I'll take back to Washington as early as this evening in terms of calls and reflected, and perhaps there's something to build on there. I expressed what the president has said publicly, which is that we feel as if we've dedicated a lot of time and energy to this matter and just not enough progress

has been made. We need to see a roadmap moving forward about how this conflict can conclude. And then we shared some ideas about what that might look like. Meanwhile, Russia has escalated its attacks on Ukrainian territory this week, launching a combined total of well over 1,000 missiles and drones around the country. President Trump said in that phone interview with NBC's Kristen Welker, he will have a major statement to release on Monday regarding the conflict. He did not provide further details. With us, we have the co-host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at the Atlantic,

Jonathan Lemire. And senior Washington columnist for Politico, Rachel Bade, joins us. Good to have you, Rachel and Jonathan Lemire. Any more to add about these plans on Monday that the president will be announcing? Jonathan Lemire. Yeah, the president has been weighing some time now what to do with Russia. We have as been discussed his public frustration with Vladimir Putin has increased. Ukraine long ago agreed to a ceasefire.

The U.S. put forth Moscow not only has not done that, but rather has escalated its attacks on Ukraine. The president, as we know, has at times has blustered against Putin, but not followed through with action. There's a sense that maybe, just maybe, that that may be on the verge of changing. We know that in the Senate, Lindsey Graham for Republicans,

Senator Blumenthal for Democrats have put forth a pretty tough sanctions bill, including secondary sanctions, has 80-odd supporters there in the upper chamber. Graham, earlier this week, said that he believed President Trump was ready to sign on. secondary sanctions has 80 odd supporters there in the upper chamber. Graham earlier this week said that he believed President Trump was ready to sign on. I was told and reported yesterday that the president not quite there yet, but it's a fluid situation.

He does seem willing to support something perhaps not as significant or as severe as that sanctions package, but we simply it's still being worked out. And as he teased this in his interview yesterday with NBC, an announcement on Monday, but it's not quite clear what that is. But there is a sense, guys, that this is a moment where something needs to change, that Russia is with its fleet of drones only escalating its targets on civilians in Ukraine.

It's a frozen conflict at the front lines. They're striking civilians. Horrible images come forth, some of which the president has seen, I am told. But it's not quite clear yet what that follow through will be. There's still hopes of talks for a diplomatic solution. But will the president pressure Moscow to get there? We'll find out. Rachel, as John says, Putin is operating right now

with near impunity attacking civilian targets. And you write this morning that the president is sort of sanctions curious when it comes to Russia, that he understands that Senator Lindsey Graham, Speaker Mike Johnson support this sanctions package, but you say he's willing to go along with it with a catch. What's the catch? Yeah, look, he wants total authority.

He wants to be able to turn on these sanctions and turn them off, depending on how his conversations with Putin go. I mean, typically Congress has authority to slap sanctions on other countries. And this current bill, I believe the draft allows for the president to waive those sanctions for about 180 days, potentially another 180 days. Graham has been sort of negotiating with him on that second round of waiver, but he wants complete authority here. And this sort of goes back to how the White House

views foreign policy, right? They sort of ignore the fact that the Constitution does talk about the war powers and authority over tariffs and trade that the Congress has. They view him as this sort of end all be all when it comes to foreign policy. And I think a lot of this, you know, the discussion about this centers on, you know,

what is the end game here? I think for a lot of these Republican senators, they do not think Putin is ever gonna come to the table. They just don't. They think that he wants to take over Ukraine, that he's not gonna back down, and that no sort of force of personality that Donald Trump may have is going to change that.

But I'm told from people in the White House that the president used this sanctions bill specifically as a way to get Putin back to the table. I mean, he's angry. You can see it in his tone change. He wants this to end. He wants this war to end. And he is putting a lot of his reputation on the line saying that he wants this war to end and not being able to close.

So he wants to see a change and this could potentially be it. But again, he needs he's saying he needs that waiver authority before he fully signs on. And there's no question that we've seen this since day one of his administration, this president trying to find ways to expand executive power. This would be another way potentially to do that as they debate what exactly to do, Richard. So, as the White House sorts out the sanctions bill or perhaps other measures here, you know, and we should remind viewers, of course, President Trump has blustered against Putin before and threatened action and has never followed through.

So if he passes prologue, maybe he won't hear either. Perhaps this time will be different. Is this sanctions bill, though? What do you make of it? Do you think something like this, whether it's this precise bill or something close to it, will that be enough to get Putin to the table to get the violence to stop? In a word, no. The sanctions bill isn't all that substantive.

These are what are called secondary or indirect sanctions. They don't sanction Russia so much as the countries that buy oil and gas from Russia, China, India, Turkey. Well, if we introduce new Russia, China, India, Turkey. Well, if we introduce new sanctions against China, guess what? They're going to stop exporting rare earth minerals to us. Not clear we can sustain that. India, we're trying to cultivate in part to push back against China.

So again, I understand the desire to penalize Russia. I'm not sure this has much teeth to it. If this president and this administration wants to get Putin to the table, I only know one way, Jonathan, significant military and intelligence help for Ukraine, enough so Putin concludes, however reluctantly, that time is not going to win this war for him. That's what the president needs to do. Sanctions are a third best approach, particularly secondary sanctions. They're really on the margins.

The real issue is the duration and scale of American support for Ukraine. What we saw in the last few days is, you know, a slight reversal, or appears to be, in terms of allowing the provision, one way or another, of defensive arms, quote unquote, to Ukraine. But what we really need to do is expand that and send a signal, we're going to do that for as long as it takes until and even after Putin comes to the table. Rachel, I want to talk a little domestic politics with you as well because you're writing about Joni Ernst and some concerns among her Senate colleagues that she may step away and retire joining Tom Tillis of North Carolina, of course Mitch McConnell as well, opening up a seat

there in the state of Iowa. What is going in, do you think, to her decision here to stay or to go? Yeah, look, I mean, she has sort of gone through some of the motions suggesting that she could run again. She just hired a campaign manager. She's raised about a million dollars for her potential reelection effort,

which is not super impressive, but it's also not nothing. But behind the scenes, I'm hearing from Senate Republicans that they just don't see the fight in her anymore. And she has told people recently that she hasn't even decided whether she wants to run again. And the reason for that, well, there's a few, actually. Number one is that she previously was in leadership.

Tom Cotton, who is actually a close friend of hers, ran against her and totally ousted her from that position. I'm told that she actually felt rather betrayed. And that was a huge sore point for her for a while. And then remember back in January, she totally got dragged by MAGA influencers online when she was sort of holding out her support for Pete Hegseth.

Obviously had a lot of concerns about him. Ultimately she voted for him, but that was after this really ugly campaign where she was basically made an example of by the White House and White House allies. They even suggested that she wanted the job herself, which I was told at the time was totally false, a smear campaign against her. And that has sort of stuck with her.

I mean, even her Senate Republican colleagues saw that and were like, wow, okay, we don't want that to happen to us. We're going to get in line. And so between both of those things, you know, it hasn't been exactly a great year for her. She had this quote just a few months ago where she, you know, in that town hall, you guys talked about it on your show where she said, you know, everybody's going to die when a constituent suggested that these Medicaid cuts they just passed would actually kill people.

And that was obviously very tone-deaf, politically insensitive, but you know it's interesting she would still win this race. Republicans think she would easily win this race. This is not exactly a state that Democrats have high hopes of picking up, although that could change if Trump's poll numbers, you know, tank and Republicans really face a huge backlash for this bill, but in theory she she would easily be reelected. It's just, Republicans say, her heart might not actually be in it.

Well, you know, Rachel, it's so interesting. As you write in your piece, she was always seen as an up-and-comer, somebody, you know, future of the Republican Party from the time she got elected in 2014. But, boy, it has been a very rough year. And I think a lot of members of Congress find out that actually sometimes it's easier to be in Congress when the president in the other party is sitting in the White House and when

the president in your own party is sitting in the White House. But yeah, there was, we're all going to die comment. There was that bizarre attempt at humor in a graveyard soon after that. But I want you to go back to the Hegseth nomination. She obviously, for many reasons that you cited your piece, she obviously had a lot of reasons to be deeply concerned about Pete Hegseth. And to be a no. And to be a no.

Straight up. We heard an awful lot, I'm sure you heard an awful lot, about the level of abuse that she took, not just from people directly related to the White House, but also from MAGA supporters and threats, just sort of things that she found at the time to be overwhelming. Talk about that and how that may actually at the end of the day be driving this more than anything else where, and I've seen other members say this before, it's just not worth

it. It's not worth it for my family, it's not worth it for me. Yeah, my understanding is those threats on her reached the level of death threats at the time and it wasn't just her. I was told by people close to her that it was members of her family. I mean, she has a daughter who is serving in the armed forces, and she also has staff she loves,

and I know her staff. They were also being harassed. Now, whether or not that was why she made her decision, ultimately, I cannot speak to that. Obviously, she has said that she did the research and looked into these women who had these allegations against Hagsteth and ultimately decided that there was no proof, and she supported him. But you're right.

I mean, there was a lot of reason to think that she wouldn't ultimately be there. And I certainly didn't think she was going to vote for him for confirmation. Part of that is because she has this sort of long history of supporting women in the military who said they have been sexually harassed, sexually abused. You know, she has legislation with Kirsten Gillibrand. Like I did an event with them one time as something she's very passionate about.

She's a survivor of sexual abuse herself. She served in the military as well. And so, yeah, I was obviously very skeptical that she would ever get there. But ultimately, if you remember back, it was actually Tom Tillis, who was the one who came this close to voting against Hegseth and did his own investigation, spoke to a lot of people involved. I never heard about any of that with Joni Ernst and whether she actually did that. And in fact, there was reporting indicating that reporters had actually, I'm sorry, not

reporters, some of the victims, survivors, I should say, or people who had alleged abuse against Hegseth had actually reached out through intermediaries to her, and she never just took the conversations. So here we are. Wow. Politico's Rachel Bade, thank you so much for coming on this morning with your reporting. Please come back. Great to have you.

And President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, thank you as well as always. Joe Redsoft. Coming up, why Elon Musk's push to start a third party may actually succeed, where others fall flat. That conversation straight ahead on Morning Joe. Beautiful live picture on a beautiful morning in Washington. That's the White House, 641 on this Friday. A former Justice Department attorney who was dismissed from his position

has handed over emails and text messages to the Senate Judiciary Committee supporting his whistleblower complaint against Emile Beauvais, a top department official who is currently being considered for a seat on the federal bench. Erez Rouvini's initial complaint was filed last month and included the allegation that Beauvais told Justice Department lawyers they, quote, would need to consider telling the courts F.U. and ignore any such court order blocking efforts to remove immigrants to El Salvador. Join us now. MSNBC legal correspondent, former litigator Lisa Rubin, her new piece on MSNBC.com is titled, Forget the F-bomb, One Email Really Stands Out in Emile Beauvais Whistleblowers' Records.

Lisa, good morning. Good to see you. Before we get to that email that stands out to you, I think it's worth taking a step back, reminding people who Emile Beauvais is exactly and why there is this whistleblower complaint against him. So, Willie, Emile Beauvais is now the principal assistant deputy attorney general. That's a nice way of saying he is the second in command to deputy attorney general Todd Blanch.

But more importantly for these purposes, he is also a nominee to a lifetime tenured position on the U.S. court of appeals for the third circuit. That's the federal appeals court that oversees Delaware and New Jersey and Pennsylvania. And Emil Bovi has found himself in a bunch of controversies already in the very short time since the Trump administration has been back in power. Most importantly, he was the chief lawyer who helped architect the deal with Eric Adams.

He defended that deal in court and got the Eric Adams indictment dismissed, leading to the resignation or firings of multiple Justice Department lawyers. Amal Bovi is also at the center, according to a former immigration lawyer at the Department of Justice named Erez Raveni, who you just discussed. Amal Bovi, according to him, is at the center of the administration's legal strategy with respect to its immigration agenda. Everything from that Alien Enemies Act case that resulted from the administration flying over a hundred Venezuelan men under the Alien Enemies Act

to El Salvador, imprisoning them there, to the case of Kimar Abrego Garcia, the El Salvadoran man, who was also on one of those flights and was wrongfully imprisoned at CCOT for several months before he was ultimately returned to the United States on a criminal indictment. So Lisa, let's talk about that email that jumped out to you. And also just this bigger picture here, the idea that if he can't be trusted to follow through on a court order on this particular case, what does that say about him having a Senate-confirmed position? It's really scary, right?

Because the Senate is being asked to confirm Emil Bovi as a judge to a federal appeals court where his responsibilities are going to be reviewing lower court orders and where appropriate, upholding them. If you can't follow a court order, the idea that you would then be put in a position to uphold the orders of lower courts themselves is very scary. And let's talk about that email, Jonathan, if we can, because the email that jumps out to me, and there's been a lot of press coverage of Emil Bovi convening a meeting according to Erez Raveni before the Alien Enemies Act flights took off and telling people at the Department of Justice

in a small meeting that they should be prepared to tell the courts, F you, if the courts were to issue a contrary order blocking them. Put that aside for a second. To me, what's far more pernicious is an email from another department lawyer named Yaakov Rath, where he is telling Erez Ravini and a couple of other people that he had been told by Todd Blanche's office that Emil Bovi advised the Department of Homeland Security that it was okay to take people off of those flights in El Salvador after they had landed even though the federal judge here, Judge Jim

Boasberg, had told the Department of Justice in no uncertain terms on a call that was transcribed, you must turn these planes around. And nonetheless, what does Emil Bovi do, according to a colleague of his? He tells the Department of Homeland Security, not only is it safe for the plans to land, go ahead and deplane those people.

What happens after you deplane them? Those guys go to Seacot and the footage that we all saw. Lisa, it's Sam Stein here. I have two questions. One is what is the actual correct pronunciation of M above? No, that's not my real question. Although I am confused about the actual pronunciation. My question is just to step back a little bit. He's nominated for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Even before this whistleblower complaint and these emails were produced, there was real questions about the

nomination in legal circles because he is such a loyalist, because of the work that he did dropping the charges into Eric Adams, because of the fact that he had fired some of the prosecutors who were handling J6 cases. Putting aside the politics, if we can, just talk a little bit about how shocking this has been in legal circles, where you have even Federalist society type saying, we cannot have people on the judiciary who are just mere loyalists to the president.

Well, first of all, his name is pronounced Amal Bovi. He is perhaps the best known figure in Trump world with the worst pronounced name. But let's go back to the question that you asked about how shocking is it that Amo Bovi has been nominated to this position? Not shocking at all, because what the president really prioritizes, Sam, over winning is fidelity to him at all costs. Performance is totally secondary to are you willing to execute on

his orders? We should not be surprised that that is the litmus test for Trump nominations. It's not ideological purity. It is, are you full in with this administration? So by that stretch of the imagination, this isn't shocking. However, you are right to say that for legal observers, the sort of thumbing your nose at the rule of law that you can see from Emil Bovi, and more importantly, from a host of other people in the Trump administration across these emails, I hope we'll have an opportunity to talk about what else is in Erez Raveni's texts and emails. Because across the board, you are seeing a group of people that are thinking first and foremost about their policy objectives and secondarily about how to evade

sort of discipline by the court. There's one point at which someone asks, Eris Rouvaini is a state department official says, what would be the consequences of ignoring a court order? And Rouvaini is sort of flummoxed by that. And one of the things he says in response that I think puts the lie to the accusation that he is just a disgruntled partisan who

wants to take Imel Bovee down is what he says in response, which is, if we were to ignore a court order that comes down, one of the consequences here is that we would make bad law that would put a whole host of other immigration priorities this administration has at risk. That's not the statement of somebody who's looking to take the Trump administration, much less Emil Bovi down.

That's somebody who's being pragmatic and saying, you have lots of things that you want to do. And if you flout a court order with respect to a particular individual, here he's referring to Kim Larriego Garcia. You're putting your entire agenda at risk. That's not what somebody says when they're, you know, a radical progressive. Right. Right.

And just speaking, truth to power there. I mean, I remember at the beginning of the first term when President Trump then in 2017 attacked a judge on the West Coast. I think he was out of Washington state. And I spoke with somebody close to a federal judge who's very conservative, a federal society judge. And they said then.

And the truth then still holds now as Lisa was just basically suggesting. An attack against one federal judge is seen as an attack against all federal judges, regardless of ideology. You ignore one order, you have just put yourself in line for a lot more problems than immigration cases and other cases as well. It's just that simple. That's a reality. And yeah, nobody's like a left-wing ideologue for suggesting that.

That's just the truth. You just make your job much harder. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, thank you very much for coming on this morning. And you can check out Lisa's show. Can they do that on MSNBC's YouTube channel? I love the title. Managing editor at the Bulwark, Sam Stein. Thank you as well.

Sam Red Sox, seven game winning streak. Here we are. I mean, their their rookies are really coming through like crazy. And Sedan Raffaella, just I mean, how good has he been over this run? Well, Sedan's been amazing. Roman Anthony has lived up to the hype. Marcel Amir, I was worried they were going to send him back down, but he's been great. Oh, look at that sweet swing. Just this thing of beauty. But really, it's the pitching Joe, right? I mean, like the pitching had been just a disappointment all year long.

Suddenly, the people, our rotation looks decent. Even Walker Bueller was like serviceable last night. So, seven-row, not getting my hopes up, not gonna get hooked in, but I'm feeling pretty good. Well, I mean, it's important to remember, I mean, this Red Sox team, Jonathan Lemire was extremely hot last year at this time and then collapsed after the All-Star break, collapsed after the trade deadline as they have for the past

two or three years in part because front office didn't pick up anything. I do want to say something though because the front office has been knocked around a lot this year. If you were to name the three or four best players that the Red Sox have this year, of course Let's just move sit on to the side. I'm talking the whole year. You talk about Garrett crochet You certainly would talk about Chapman. Holy cow. You talk about norvayas I mean those three right there and before he got hurt you talk about pregnant And those three right there, and before he got hurt, you talk about Bregman. All four of those players, all four of those players, we got in the off season.

And I know Walker Bueller has had some problems, but he's had two servicable starts. He had a quality start last night. You add what the front office has done with the farm system. And I agree with Sam. I mean, sending down Meyer would have been a colossal mistake. I love David Hamilton, but he needed to go down. Meyer needs to play every day, play at second base every day. I think Lou was saying this last night.

He plays at second base every day. You have Trevor at shortstop every day. You have Bregman at third base every day. You have Trevor at shortstop every day. You have Bregman at third base every day. You don't do all of this platooning. You're going to have an incredible defense for the first time in a long time in Boston. Yeah, first of all, yes, you're right. The ownership group, which has received fair criticism for not spending a lot of money in recent years, they did this past offseason. It's paid dividends. Bregman back tonight huge lift for the Sox there they miss his bat and his glove we could also add Lucas G Alito being a

revelation in the last like a much to a year from injuries so great big picture Joe you're right the last couple years the team has not invented made a move they've not been buyers at the deadline and the team is kind of soon almost immediately

afterwards every year this year Look the schedule gets a lot harder after the all-star break. Oh the deadline approaching, but they're close They're there right now. They're they are the third wild card right now. They're only a handful of games out of the division They can make some sort of run here be buyers if they're gonna be trades here And there's some big names being mentioned now, but make sure it's a trade to make them better this season. Don't let me get towards next year. Just quickly. Yeah, is there a way that we could play the Rockies every series like can we make that deal that would be awesome.

I would absolutely love that. I really do think that what's swirling around right now one of my favorite players if not my favorite player Durand. I think that they're looking at trading him to get a great pitcher. If they can get a great pitcher to go along with Crochet, they'll do it. Willie, we have to talk about the Yankees. They have had... Yeah, we do have to talk about the Yankees. It's rude.

We have Willie here, and all we're doing is talking about the Red Sox. Yankees obviously have had a very rough run run. But man a big come from behind victory last night for the Yankees and you know this is baseball. Everything balances out. My prediction remains the same Willie. If the Yankees don't win the World Series in five I got to consider this year a failure for the team from the Bronx. What's that you're all we're all living in the Blue Jays world is hoping to get a nibble on some wild card.

This was we were down. The Yankees were down five nothing being no hit into the seventh inning. If you went to bed and turned it off they came all the way back tied the game in the ninth inning and then this was the scene in the 10th inning bases loaded sack fly really shallow ball actually by Judge but look at the slide by Volpe should have been out if not for a great slide he avoids the tag gets his right

hand in there they reviewed it he was clearly in safely big win now the Yankees have won four in a row after a truly dreadful dreadful last month or so starting to play a little bit better but man the Blue Jays finally lost the other night they're playing so well with all that said both of our teams guys Yankees and Red Sox at the season ended today and I'd be very surprised if it did both in the playoffs both wild card teams right now so we're setting ourselves up for a fun late summer fall run for all of us right now. It is got it is going to be a lot of fun. And breaking news right here I'm

getting from our sports desk. Yeah, it's a shot. There are baseball teams in the central time zone and the mountain time zone and also out west. Cubs are coming in the Bronx tonight. Can you check and see? I don't know. I don't know if that's the case or not. Let's let's we'll do some more research over the break.