Morning Joe - ‘Just beyond bizarre’: Joe puzzled by first lady’s impromptu Epstein statement

Episode Date: April 10, 2026

‘Just beyond bizarre’: Joe puzzled by first lady’s impromptu Epstein statement To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I think it's really time for the country to get onto something else, really. Now that nothing came out about me, other than it was a conspiracy against me, literally by Epstein and other people. But I think it's time now for the country to maybe get onto something else. Now is the time for Congress to act. Epstein was not alone. I call on Congress to provide the women who have been victimized. by Epstein with a public hearing specifically centered around the survivors.

Give these victims their opportunity to testify under oath in front of Congress with the power of sworn testimony. The First Lady yesterday delivering a very different message yesterday from what we heard from President Trump back in February when he told reporters it's time to move on from the Epstein files. That sort of came out of nowhere, didn't it? It seemed to. The surprise, seemingly impromptu, appearance by the First Lady, was just part of a barrage of bad news for the president throughout the day. Iran says the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, and it is demanding tolls for ships that pass through. That move is in response to Israel, launching deadly strikes on

Lebanon, which Iran maintains violated terms of the ceasefire agreement. And those deadly strikes continued through the night. Here at home, new data released yesterday showed the U.S. economy grew at a slower pace in the fourth quarter than previously estimated. And there is more. Let's though start with the Melania News. Let's bring in the co-host of the weekend and a Washington reporter for MS now, Jackie Alamini, who did way too early for us.

But Jackie, you were working overtime. You spoke with the president right after the first lady's statement yesterday. What did he tell you? Yeah, Mika, I gave him a ring quickly before my hit. Not sure if he would pick up or not because he was in the middle of meetings. He did, in fact, pick up. I asked him if he was aware of the substance of Melania Trump's statement prior to her delivering it. He said he didn't know anything about it. It was on the schedule the day before, but it was very cryptically noted. There wasn't any information about what she would be saying. The president, though, did obviously catch what she said after the fact. And before he hung up, he said he was in the middle of a meeting on the war in Iran. He added that she didn't know him referring to Jeffrey Epstein. Well, here's more of the First Lady's Rare Public Statement yesterday.

And I mean, as we go into this statement, the idea that she did not know him. And that Trump did not know she was doing this press conference? And that she had no relation, it was just beyond bizarre. And all of the reporting is that the people that were in the White House briefing room yesterday were just absolutely stunned and stunned in part that it came out of nowhere. And secondly, that she would actually pretend that she didn't know who he was or that she had no relationship with him or they had no close relationship with him. Here's more of what she said yesterday.

The lies linking me with the disgraceful Jeffrey Epstein need to end today. I never been friends with Epstein. Donald and I were invited to the same parties as Epstein from time to time, since overlapping in social circles is common in New York City and Palm Beach. To be clear, I never had a relationship with Epstein or his accomplice, Maxwell. Melania addressed a 2002 email exchange with Maxwell, included in the Epstein files, which she praised a magazine story about Epstein, complimented Maxwell's photo, and signed off, quote, love Melania. The first lady said her email, quote, cannot be categorized as anything more.

than a casual correspondence? That is quite casual. Actually, it's not, doesn't sound casual. And again, it's, again, everybody's waiting for another shoe to drop. I don't know if it will or not. But again, the timing of that was so strange, especially bringing up something that obviously the president doesn't want brought up and calling for hearings.

That's just the opposite of what the president has been talking about for much. Now, a few hours after those comments, the president went on what needy I described as a truth social posting bender. It was a lot. Our EP said it was like war in peace without the peace. It was very long, which began with the president lashing out at right-wing podcasters who had criticized him this week over threats to wipe out the Iranian civilization. And a 485 word post, the president went after Tucker. Carlson, Megan Kelly, Candace Owen, and Alex Jones. The president called them low IQ, nut jobs and troublemakers. He also called them losers who were just trying to latch on Demaga for publicity.

And the social media rant comes after both Owens and Jones called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked. Marjorie Taylor Green, who also called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked, defended those podcasters on social media, writing that they all helped to get the president elected and adding that they didn't change? He did. All right, so let's bring in senior writer at the dispatch and a columnist at Bloomberg opinion, David Drucker. David, we've heard, I mean,

I think the, from the far right, there's a call for the 25th Amendment. Some Democrats as well have been messaging that. Also with us, we have Politics Bureau Chief, or maybe we don't, because it just went away. It looks like Jay Mart might be. We have Jay Mart on the road.

Jay Mart is on the road. You know Drucker, when Jay Mart's on the road, you never know what's going to happen. There he is. Oh, he's got fireworks going on there. It is a fire alarm issue. Well, I think he's actually, it's a late, it's a late night disco ball. He takes it around with him wherever he goes.

So, Jay Mark, we'll go back to you in one second. He's got, he's got Casey and the Sunshine Band going on behind him. We'll get back to him one second. David Drucker, you know, we do talk an awful lot about the fact that, oh, well, you've got to look at the Maga Base and you've got to look at these podcasters. I've got to say that with with podcasters that have millions and millions of followers and a lot of them, most of them voted for Donald Trump. I'd say especially Megan Kelly's continued. Forceful and really spot on. Compeling concerns about what the president has done regarding

Iran, especially the threats. I'm wondering if you're starting to hear any concern from Republicans. If we're still where we were a couple of weeks ago, where you have the right-wing podcasters, and then you've got everybody else in Maga World. Where are you right now, now that this seems to have a certain crescendo quality to it? Yeah, a lot to unpack there, Joe. And, by the way, I thought the technical difficulties with J-M-R was that he was at some breakfast joint. I really didn't know what he was eating.

Look, I think that what's very interesting about the president's tirade, and of course, you know, how many times has he gone on one of these benders is that it's all personal, right? He didn't criticize Owens or Tucker Carlson or Megan Kelly for stoking anti-Semitism for being anti-Semitic in Owen's case for sure. It's all because they're angry at him. It's all because they're criticizing him. He's brought figures like this along with him, and he's accommodated. There's sometimes very outlandish, wacky views, and never said that it wasn't welcome within the party. But when they turn on him, now they're idiots who are not welcome in the party.

And I think that's a real important distinction to make. And then you're dealing with the podcasters and their content, which in many cases has been anti-submendation. has been conspiratorial. But they clearly do speak for a, you know, for a subset of voters who supported the president because they didn't think that he would get the U.S. involved in a conflict like this in the Middle East. And so then we look at the politics of this and we wonder, you know, after a month plus, right, we're in week, we're just about to close out week six, have things begun to change it all politically? And I don't think that things have really changed politically vis-a-vis support for the war among Republican voters, right?

I still think the president has the broad support of Republican voters, and particularly voters who self-identify as MAGA. But I think one of the things we're learning is that voters that self-identify as MAGA aren't necessarily the podcast listener that were so crucial to the president's reelection in 2024. These are people that really sort of joined up with the right because they, you know, took issue with the Biden administration. They took issue with how COVID was handled and all sorts of reasons. And these are the people that are a little bit that have, you know, become skeptical of the president's leadership. Ultimately, Republicans are in trouble in 2026 because of underlying economic discontent. And the focus and the investment in the Iran war is just another. big example that they're not getting what they want from the president on that front.

J-Mart elections are one of the margins. We're in a 50-50 country usually. But man, that margin's getting a lot bigger when you look at the numbers of people that listen to Joe Rogan, who's definitely been harshly critical of the president's immigration policies in Iran, Megan Kelly, who day after day after day, not only questions what Donald Trump is doing, but what Fox News is doing. You look at Tucker Carlson, obviously, they all have massive audiences. And again, it's not just when they go live, it's those YouTube views. You look at the numbers of YouTube views of Megan Kelly, are Joe Rogan, or Tucker Carlson. Those things are massive, and they live out there forever. Talk about the impact this is having.

Joe, the clips move on social media across platforms, and people who otherwise aren't listeners or viewers of those shows do catch 30-second snippets on social, whether it's TikTok, Twitter, Instagram. I know this for a fact from my own family. They're not listening to Rogan, Tucker, or Megan, but they get fed some of those clips via the algorithm on social media. So their impact is even more outsized because of the nature of today's information ecosystem. Your point about the margins is critical.

Both parties in this country, because we have a two-party system. So they got to fold everybody into, you know, below those two tents. So both parties are coalition parties. Well, here's what's happening in the Republican Party. The sort of factions on the either extreme of the party, so the Alex Jones on one front, the real, you know, a winner, as they would say, conspiratorial types are dissatisfied with Trump because of the Iran decision. All right.

Then you've got the other extreme of the party, which is the pre-Trump party, never liked him in the first place, kind of finds his conduct, not kind of, finds his conduct really embarrassing, but basically has sort of grinned embarrassed because they couldn't vote for Democrats

every four years in the general. I think he's at risk, Joe, of losing those two factions this fall, in part because they will stay home on one hand, and also some of them we'll just vote for a Democrat to send a message this fault. And that's a big challenge for the Republican Party.

They always have a hard time in midterms these days anyways, getting their folks out when Trump's not on top of the ticket. And when you add to that, this dissatisfaction with those two wings, polar opposite wings of the party, boy, that leaves a lot of people that they need, Joe, to your point, because the margins are what drives these elections. And if you take out out of those two factions, Katie Bar the Door.

Yeah, and you talk about mainstream media. We're going to be reading Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal column in a bit. I just want to, though, to your point, I want to read a line or two from Peggy's latest, talking about Donald Trump's posts over the Holy Weekend. She said, I want to talk about why they were so horrifying. They constituted hitting a new bottom, a new and infernal face lit by flames bottom, in world communications. The posts were sinister.

You destabilize the world when as an American president, you say such things. And she goes on and on. And she says at the end, all these people, they're saying, oh, it's just Trump being Trump, and you don't understand how he negotiates. She said, no, no, no, no, please. These things matter. And you're being childish and babyish if you're suggesting that they don't. David Ignatius, why don't we go from what's going on inside the Republican Party to what's going on across the Middle East?

Of course, more attacks by Israel overnight in Lebanon. The straits not opened, more accusations back and forth between Iran and the president. Where do we sit this morning? So, Joe, we sit awaiting the beginning of negotiations in Pakistan to resolve this war. They're fascinating up, not least because Vice President J.D. Vance is going to be representing the United States. I think in these negotiations, which are going to be muddled even by the standards of diplomacy in this region, Iran starts with three big advantages. First, It survived the toughest shots that the United States and Israel could lay on it.

The regime is still essentially intact. It's been degraded, but it's still capable of fighting back. It still has its highly enriched uranium. The U.S. never figure a way to get that out of Iran safely, so they control that, which gives them the ability to move quickly toward nuclear weapons, at least in theory. And they retain other nuclear expertise. And then finally, and most important, they control the straight-of-war moves. I don't care what anybody says.

They stand astride this crucial international waterway, exerting a kind of control they never did before the war. And that sense situation is significantly worse than it was before. So the U.S. has to start by removing those Iranian advantages. It's going to be a difficult negotiation. It seems clear to me that neither the United States nor Iran wants to go back to full-scale war. There's a final interesting couple of wildcards here. One is that there's growing tension between the U.S. and Israel, like what you saw towards the end of the Gaza war, Like what you saw toward the end of the 12-day war against Iran back in June of last year.

Donald Trump's ready to stop these wars. Israel's not so sure. And you just see kind of a metal-on-metal scraping. The Israelis have done something, I think, quite positive in encouraging discussion, peace talks with Lebanon. Poor Lebanon has been shattered as a country now for so many decades since I first went there in 1980. But Israel and Lebanon will now talk directly for the first time, we think, about making peace. And the reason is the Lebanese bravely have decided to crack down on Hezbollah themselves, to say, you know, we will not allow Hezbollah power in the center of Beirut. Bravo to Lebanese Prime Minister Noafzalah.

So that's another area where there's tension in the background. And I think, Joe, finally, as I stand back and look at the situation, there are two overwhelming lessons. One is we've seen again, as in Venezuela, a demonstration of just how powerful the U.S. military is. There's no way to gain say that. It's an extraordinary military, never more visible in the amazing rescue effort that was put together in very adverse conditions last weekend. Second, more important, we've learned yet again the limits of military power in achieving the kind of political change that the U.S. not unreasonably sought in Iran, this dreadful regime, like by at best, 20% of its people.

All of our military power couldn't change that. So we now have a negotiation. The U.S., as I said, starts with some problems that's got to reverse. I think the negotiates will take a long time, and I'll be fascinated to see just how J.D. Vance plays what arguably is the most important political hand he's had since becoming vice president. Well, you know, Mika, David, at the end, summed up basically what most people have been saying over the past several days, which is the United States has hit all of its military targets are almost all of its military targets and none of its political targets. So again, as we've been saying for the beginning, you can have a great military operation, but can you translate that into the political goals achieved? So far, no, not at all.

If you look at the straits, if you look at nuclear, if you look at all of the other issues, if you look at, again, regime change, which is what Israel was pushing Donald Trump to. And right now we find Israel and the United States, Donald Trump wanting this to end, and Benjamin Netanyahu not wanting the warning. So so far, let's take stock here. What has this gotten us? Whether it's strong and effective and military power at its greatest level, whatever, the straight? Where are we that?

Where are we with NATO? Where are we with Israel? It seems like a bigger mess for the president. And in just a moment, we'll have more with David Ignatius, Mark Polymorapolis, and Hagarsia Mali, and all the different moving parts here in this war. and what exactly is happening with Iran. We'll be right back. We have to have energy independence. I'm fed up with the fact that families across the country

see their bills go up and down on energy. Businesses bills go up and down on energy because of the actions of Putin or Trump across the world. And saying to families across the country, saying to businesses across the country, we've just got to be, we've got to push. up with being on the international market. We need energy independence.

The UK Prime Minister, Kirstarmer, speaking to ITV news yesterday, lumping together Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump for their actions, causing energy prices to go up globally. He also criticized Israel for continuing to strike Lebanon yesterday, despite the call for a ceasefire. It's fascinating, Kier Starrmer, putting Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin together. Ignatius, of course, the continued attacks in Lebanon and Israel's Netanyahu's continued attacks, of course, causing strains among the very countries, Pakistan and others who were trying to bring

this in for a landing. Talk about that. Joe, something I've noticed over many years is that the U.S. will decide it's time to end a war in the Middle East. And Israel, thinking the window on its ability to act is closing, we'll want to keep fighting. We'll want to keep fighting for the last set of targets, last bit of advantage. We saw that certainly in the June war against Iran last year, Donald Trump decided enough. Time to end it, 12 days, that's it. And there was some unhappiness in Israel. We saw it with the Gaza War.

Donald Trump decided time to end the war. that's it, Board of Peace coming in, a lot of unhappiness in Netanyahu's circle, because they still didn't really have control of Gaza, hadn't defeated Hamas. So this is a recurring theme. The one thing that I take some hope from is that the actions to destroy Hezbollah, led by Israel, have made it possible for Lebanon's own political leadership to say, say, hey, this is our country. We want to control it. We don't want to be under the thumb of Israel or Hezbollah or anybody. So our Lebanese army is going to take control of Central Beirut. And we'd like to begin peace talks with Israel for some kind of lasting peace agreement. That used to be unsayable in Lebanon for all the time that I spent there. So the tensions are there. They're not new. And it's going to be up to Trump. And I think he's going to be prepared to do this. If he, if he, if he, He thinks this Levin issue is getting in the way of the settlement he wants with Iran. He's going to say to BB, knock it off because that's what he's done in the past. All right.

Let's bring in former spokesperson for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, Hagar Shemali. She's also worked at the National Security Council and the Treasury Department. And retired CIA officer Mark Pollymoropoulos, he's an MS now National Security and Intelligence analyst. And Mark, the outcomes so far for this operation in Iran are pretty much antithetical to what the president said they were about. They haven't yielded the outcome that he seemed to promise. It's also set up a whole host of new consequences that we're on the brink of. And given the track record so far of not taking advice from experts around him and going his own way, where do you think this is headed? Well, you know, I think you do have this notion of, you know, tactical brilliance,

the U.S. military campaign that, you know, are brave men and women of U.S. Enforces have performed admirably, but with total strategic incoherence. And I go back to the line, I think Richard Haas used it several days ago, you know, we have lions who are being led by donkeys. And I really do believe that because, you know, there doesn't seem to be any expertise, whether it's at the White House or even within the U.S. National Security establishment, you know, I talked to my friends of the State Department, a quarter of the State Department. has been removed. You know, there used to be an Iran mission center at CIA with really brilliant operations officers, analysts, spoke Farsi. Where are they in advising the president? Because we keep

getting down into a situation in which, you know, Iran has the upper hand. There essentially is a toll booth at the Strait of Hormuz. The nuclear file has not been action. They still have that, you know, whether the enriched uranium is buried underneath. Doesn't matter. It's still there. And so we're at a place now in which I'm not sure we're any better off than when this whole thing started. Sure, the Iranian military has been attrited. There's no doubt about it. But are we really any further along in terms of the key war objectives, which were, and let's just say very clearly, what the president said was the Iranian nuclear program. We're not there. Dan, you're right. I mean, the institutions that they have been so focused on gutting,

they're now paying a price for it, whether you're talking about the State Department, whether you're talking about some of the Iranian experts at the FBI, whether you talk about the DOJ, whether you talk about the DOD, you can go down the list. They've intentionally gutted the institutions that have sustained the United States, especially during times like this. And they're gutted and they're now paying the price. I want Mark really quickly because we talked offline. I know that you talked to Katty K.

and Mr. Scaramucci on their podcast yesterday. And you were talking about a concern that I've had for a very long time. And that is Benjamin Netanyahu is going to cause not only military blowback for decades to come for Israel. But politically, he's going to cause a devastating blowback in the United States. And I've been a warning about it on this show repeatedly. And you look at these pictures in Lebanon. They look like the pictures in Gaza. They look like the picture.

You know, it's been an endless war. We've talked about it nonstop. An endless war with no plan for the day after, as David Ignatius said, years ago. And here we look at polling from Pew and other polls and the numbers of Americans who support Israel now

have plummeted to record lows. Talk about the long-term negative consequences of that for the people of Israel. Well, Joe, like you, I've been a strong supporter of the Alliance. I mean, I was a practitioner. I worked very closely with the Israeli security services. I remember one former

Israeli chief of counterterrorism said there would always be a spot for Mark. It's me, you know, at the Jewish holidays, a seat at the table. So I was very close to them. I still maintain ties with Israeli former national security officials. And I've warned them repeatedly on this. And look, there is a cratering of support in the United States. That pew poll was shocking. This is from the right and the left. This is particularly from the youth on both sides of the aisle as well. And this matters for the simple reason that in two years, the memorandum of understanding that the U.S. and Israel have together in terms of the $3.8 billion in assistance, that's up for renewal. That means Congress is going to vote on it, and I think there's huge questions. And a lot of this blame

goes right on Benjamin Netanyahu. It's the Gaza War with the horrific civilian casualties. They went a little completely out-hand, in my view on that. It's the idea of continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank, violence from settlers on Palestinians. It's the notion that Bibi couldn't even mention two-state solution, which could have gotten Muhammad bin Salman on board. Abraham Accords. And then finally, it's this kind of what's baked in now is this notion that Bibi pushed Trump to war, which the right wing kind of ecosystem, the Megan Kelly's, the Candice Owens, Tucker Carlson's all are really pushing. And that is actually almost accepted now. And so this is a break class moment. If you care about the alliance, it's in real trouble.

Well, I mean, it's accepted in part also because the Secretary of State when asked, why did we go to war said because Netanyahu was going to go to war. I mean, that's what, that was the first explanation. Yeah, and depending on where you're getting information, there are questions about who's in charge in Iran. So how do you have ceasefire talks if you don't know who you're talking to? Hagar, I'm curious about what's going to happen in Pakistan. The negotiations continue.

Who are the players? And what are you looking at? Well, one of the things I'll be looking for is to see how different Iran's public position is from where these talks are. were to be going because we don't have really the public side on the United States, which is normal. We're not, U.S. negotiators don't share their proposals or where they're headed. We know we only know that President Trump has said that there is more agreement on elements of the original 15-point plan than, and so for that reason, he has hope.

Meanwhile, the Iranians put out a 10-point plan that is a non-starter. I mean, almost everything in that list is a non-starter, things like the U.S. military presence leaving the region entirely, things like. a withdrawal of all sanctions that the Iranian regime controls the Strait of Hormuz, something that's frankly laughable. That's not Iranian territory. It never was. It has nothing to do with Egypt, which built the canal and, or partly built the canal and maintains it and is in Egyptian territory. So a lot of things that are completely off. But that said, they're also posturing. There's a reason they did that publicly. They're posturing to their public. The thing that

I would note is that the Iranian regime said that it would never agree to a temporary ceasefire. And they did. They also said they would never open the Strait of Hormuz. And they've partially opened it, right? It's not perfect. So there are elements there that highlight room for negotiating. So as you mentioned earlier, we know that J.D. Vance is leading these negotiations. On the Iranian side, you have a mix of people. It's Ralebaaf is one of the most important. He's the national security advisor. Arachi is also the foreign minister. He's still also heavily involved and the president as well. So, you know, these are. are the ones leading. Sometimes we see statements from allegedly Mosheba Khamei. Mosheba is also rumored to be incapacitated completely. So, but my point is that I'm going to be seeing how are they able to close this gap further? I believe that what's, even if we don't return to significant military operations, this approach toward Iran, this is going to last a while. And the regime is still standing on a cliff. And it cannot pay its soldiers unless they're able to. able to get sanctions relief or tolls through the strait. So this is still a very tenuous situation.

And I wouldn't walk away saying that the regime is winning or has survived this whatsoever. Hagar, I want to pick up, though, on something you just mentioned, which is the idea of tolls. Because in conversations I've been having with diplomats this week, the concern that they still have is this idea that Trump and the administration, they're so eager to get out of the war that they're going to get out at a cost that is unacceptable to the regional allies. And primarily the idea that they're going to have to, as part of these concessions and negotiations, have to work with the Iranian National Guard in order to get through the Strait of Hormuz and pay some sort of fee, a condition that did not exist prior to the start of this war. How do you take into consideration

the fact that at the end of the day, this maximalist position still exists, which is with regards to Iran's ability to enrich uranium to potentially create a nuclear weapon. And what do you think ultimately changes the calculus here? Sure. So you've highlighted a lot of important pieces here because the fact is that now you're seeing everybody in the Middle East, all my contacts, all my friends, they keep saying Trump is tacoing, right? He's chickening out. So this is he's chickening out. He doesn't want to be in this anymore. And what you could have left for the vestiges of this regime could be way worse. certainly on top of it to have this new found power over the strait that never existed.

The fact is that if the United States wants to control the strait, it can. It could absolutely do that. It's not like we don't have the military capability to do that. The question is whether we want to do that. And Trump's calculation and the White House's calculation is, well, do we want to go seize all those islands within the strait, within the Persian Gulf in general, so that we make sure that we have controlled? Do we want to build the partnerships to make sure that we are demining? And the way the White House views things is, well, we could do it, but should we be doing that if the majority of our trade is not going through this waterway where it's the majority is for Europe and Asia?

And that's why the White House, for better or worse, by the way, I'm not trying to argue. I'm just trying to explain how they view things, which is we could invest this. We could make this investment, but we shouldn't do this alone. We shouldn't have to do this alone. And so the issue there is how much will Trump be able to threaten and say, you know what? I could do this if I wanted to. I could take control of this. Don't make me unleash my Marines.

Don't make me invade an island. I'm not sure he's going to, I'm not confident he's going to be going that far. But this is why I say, don't think that this is over at all. It may not be large-scale military operations, but I think we're going to see this instability between the United States and Iran for a while.

Right. Well, somewhere Colin Powell is saying something about pottery barn, David Ignatius, and chuckling because Donald Trump being angry at his NATO allies for not helping him fix a problem that the United States started. I mean, he owns it. I want to ask you, because it's just so much ground noise out there. I think we all, most all of us say that the United States has achieved most of its military goals, hit most of its military targets.

but none of its political targets. I want to fix on two specific things that looking down the road, I think will determine whether Donald Trump is considered a success or a failure in this. One of it, one of them has to do with Iran's nuclear program. And the second one has to do with keeping the straits open. In both of those cases, boots on the ground will be required. American lives will be lost. The war will be prolonged.

And the price of oil and gas at the pump will go up. That said, if he leaves with a nuclear program still intact, with their ability to launch dirty bombs or set off dirty bombs, are set off dirty bombs across Europe and America, and with the straits less open, less free than it was before the war, seems to me this will be seen as a catastrophe geopolitically for Donald Trump in the United States. So how do we come home with those two problems still lingering for years, possibly decades to come.

I think you've put your finger on Trump's problem. He had political success in part because he told the country that he understood that wars in the Middle East that were fought without clear gains for the United States,

as was certainly the case with Iraq and Afghanistan were a mistake and he wouldn't do it again. And people say now, he's done it again. In some ways, the dangers of the United States are worse. I think, Joe, on the nuclear issue, I would expect, given where Iran was before the war started,

that they're prepared to make a bargain that will look acceptable. There won't be all that different from what the JCPOA, that Trump hated so much and shocked said. But it will put limits, probably IAEA inspections on the program. Iran, I would think, will dilute in some way, detoxify the highly enriched uranium that it's holding. So I think that one probably will get resolved. The problem here is that Iran has realized that holding the Strait of Hormuz is a better deterrent against the West. The nuclear weapons even might have been. I mean, they've seen that all they have to do is show they can stop traffic.

and the West pays attention. Oil prices shoot up. Financial markets fall out of bed, and they don't need nukes. They got the straight of hormones. Getting control of that back for the international community is going to be

job one. Only something we haven't mentioned that I find very interesting and perhaps encouraging on that is the invisible co-producer, co-guarant, of these negotiations has been China. It's China that working with Pakistan got this diplomatic show on the road at the end of

March in a joint statement that nobody paid any attention to, but it was from China and Pakistan. I'm told it came after President Trump had talked to President Xi Jinping in China about what's delay our summit meeting. And oh, yes, if you're going to get involved in the Iran war, we think that's just. just fine. Thank you very much. And so now we have negotiations in Islamabad that the Chinese help get rolling. So we do have an international coalition that would like to see this war ended. And that's, you know, it's hard to find positive elements in the situation now. But that's a small one.

And to David's point, it's like Iran has discovered a new power, the straight, which is equal almost to nuclear, that's an incredible consequence to this action that many are questioning. And that point seems pretty basic, like somebody could have gamed that out. David Ignatius. Your father actually gained that out decades ago. Haggars Jamali, Mark Polymeropolis. Thank you all very much for coming on this point. Wait, hold on a second.

I've got to ask Mark a quick question. Mark. Mark, when Mark's on way too early or this show, if he talks about it, the Red Sox we do well. Mark, go ahead. Complain about the Red Sox so we can win tonight. Go. I'm still okay. 95% of the seasons left. You and Barnacle and Lemire are my therapy. So I thank you, Joe. This is what gets me through. Sorry for the 3,000 texts every night, but it's going to keep going because we have a two-game winning streak. So let's go. Yes, they are. He sends 3,000 texts a night, and I send one. It says, Mark, it's April.

All right, still ahead on morning, Joe. We're going to be joined by two rumored 28 Democratic candidates, Governor Westmore of Maryland and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. Plus, Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn is our guest today. We'll talk to him about the state of the party as we head into the midterms. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Accuethers Bernie Rayno. Bernie, how's it looking? It's a warmer fry, yay, a long eastern seaboard, Mika, your exclusive vacuum weather forecast, 62 Boston, some sun.

How about 77 Washington, D.C., 63, New York City. Here comes cool front and some cooler air with showers, mostly this morning in Chicago and Detroit. Spotty thunderstorms, Houston and Dallas this afternoon, strong thunderstorms, and some severe weather, Oklahoma in the southern parts of Kansas here. And even in Florida, generally dry today? And travel delays, I don't think we'll see them, not weather-wise. To make their best decisions and be more in the know, make sure you download the Accuether app today. Have a good weekend. Welcome back earlier. Joe mentioned Peggy Noonan's latest piece for the Wall Street Journal.

It's titled, In Gut, We Trust. And Peggy writes this about the president's social media threats against Iran, quote, Donald Trump's posts left his friends and foes slack-jawed. I want to talk about why they were so horrifying. They constituted hitting a new bottom, a new and infernal, face-lip-by-flames bottom in world communications. The posts weren't showbiz. They were sinister. You deep-stabilize the world when, as the American president, you say such things.

you make all the babies in this delicately, poised, always knockdownable world less safe. You rob your own nation of a claim to moral seriousness in the military action in which it's engaged. You are saying, we're not trying to protect life, but plan to attack and in the attacking kill, non-combatants who are members of the targeted civilization. The moral high ground is relinquished.

You lower the bar for all potential response. You encourage violent action by trumpeting your readiness for it. He operates as if he honestly believes we don't need allies, as if the concept is antique. But having and holding allies is simple prudence. allies add legitimacy and moral authority. Having allies means that when something bad happens, you don't stand alone. It is not sentimental to care about this. It is babyish to think it means nothing.

I want to repeat that last line. It is not sentimental to care about this. It is babyish to think it means nothing. And I repeat that line for everybody that says, Oh, you just don't understand what Donald Trump's doing with Greenland. Oh, you just don't understand what he's doing with his tweets. Oh, you just don't understand. We're smarter than you are.

We understand what's coming around. No, now. Now, Peggy's exactly right. It's something I've been saying to these people who tell me, oh, you're just not wise to the new world. No, I am. I'm old, but I understand the consequences like Peggy. What I think is so fascinating, David Drucker, earlier, we were talking about the MAGA element and also the mainstream element.

And here's Peggy from the mainstream element. I just wrote down some of the words. His actions horrifying. A new bottom. Sinister. Trump robs his own nation of the moral high ground. killing civilizations. The violent language encourages violent actions.

And of course, talking about how babyish it is to think you can go it along in this very dangerous world. You know, you mix Megan Kelly and Tucker Carlson and then on another wing further out, Candice Owen and Alec Jones, and then Peggy, who represents the middle of the Republican Party and has since Ronald Reagan, Peggy's words, it seems the president has challenges coming from all sides inside the Republican Party. Well, look, there's no doubt that the president has issues within the party. I think the issue is to what extent and where are we right now? I just spent a few days in Indiana this week for a story, and I'm talking to Republican voters out there and Republican insiders. And most of the discussion is not about the war in Iran. It's not about the president's rhetoric. And I think for so many Republicans, whether they like it or not, and many don't, they've sort of chalked this up to the price of admission for the president.

And I think there's a sort of psychological block where you either need to believe that the president is playing, you know, ninth level chess, or you need to confront the fact that this is a huge problem and will be for years to come. And it's easier to believe that he knows more than us and he's going to get us places by acting this way that doing things, the conventional normal way, will not. and I think we see where that's leading us, right? Because you look at the president's political standing overall, and it's greatly diminished from where it was a year ago. The political opportunity for him to get things done is incredibly diminished from where it was a year ago. But this is who Trump has always been.

I feel, Joe, I feel like a broken record here. We've been having this discussion about Donald Trump for a decade, and it always leads to the same place. And look, I think the Republican Party, when you're in a situation where midterm elections are looming and you're in deep trouble, you're just trying to get by from day to day because there is no stopping him. There's no influencing him. There's no getting him to be who he doesn't want to be. And so I think the real crash is going to come at some point after Trump, right, particularly in 2028. That's when

the party is going to have to grapple with this. And the real impact of it is going to be felt. I think for now, he holds on to the party and we're seeing that because, nobody wants to cross him in the middle of primary season. It's just as simple as that. Well, the crossing that has come from right-wing influencers, some with huge followings and some who are reaching people beyond their regular audiences now, definitely hit him hard. That post was so long.

He spent a long time writing it. But back to the politics of this, we have this huge problem of Iran and all the different consequences that could be coming our way. And then you have a president who has a tweet on Easter Sunday, followed up by a tweet about decimating a civilization and committing war crimes. Both posts would get any other president in significant risk of whether it be impeachment or something, questions about whether or not he's fit for the job. Right. And yet here, Republicans, except for maybe one person, have said nothing. Well, yeah, a few have said things, but I do agree with David here.

I talk about the blowback from this war, the blowback from Donald Trump for the Republican Party. He won't hit on Donald Trump. I mean, Donald Trump will be building libraries and golden statues, and he'll be off flying across the world. But for the Republicans that he leaves behind in Washington, D.C., as Aristotle would say, it's going to be a real shit show. and it's going to be ugly. And this, did Aristotle say that? No, he did not.

Oh, I thought he did. Watch your language. Maybe in Socrates. But, Jamar, you know, the problem is, again, I don't expect my friends who have voted for Donald Trump three times to run out and say, we must support every Democrat in the next, you know, the next election. But I do expect a lot of them to stay home. I mean, that's what's happening here. When you got Tucker, when you get Megan, when you get Peggy Noon, we had all these other people saying this is an absolute mess.

They're not going to suddenly, you know, put on AOC bumper stickers, but they're not going to go out and vote for this party either. Two things. One is, you know, speaking to a Republican strategist who's very involved in the primaries this spring, this person made a really astute point to me. He said the gap between our president. primary voters and the fall general electorate has never been faster. That, as David alluded to, look, a lot of the primary voters, whether Indiana or anywhere else, they're just dug in and they're going to rationalize whatever Trump says and does. But that's part of the challenge for the party because that's who's electing or renominating

or nominating a lot of lawmakers on the ballot in primaries. And as you know, Joe, that's the game in 90% of House districts. is what in the primary. And that share of the electorate is still very much with Trump. So it's distorting that that gap between the electorate and the primary and that in the general election of the fall. You know, the other thing I'd say is, Joe, history does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. And you mentioned Trump not being around to suffer the consequences. And boy, I can't help but think of 20 years ago. when there was another president who ended his presidency had a fairly low ebb in 2006 and 2008. And George W. Bush didn't suffer from those two back-to-back difficult elections.

But you know who did? People like Mike DeWine in Ohio who lost his reelection as senator, a host of other Republicans in good standing because they got swept out because of George W. Bush's real and perceived missteps. And so this is not going to hurt Trump, but it's going to do grave damage to his party and wait. is that today are awfully reminiscent of 06 and 08 20 years ago, which were really two cycles and one, right? Those were two cycles and one, both about the same thing, backlash to George W. Bush over the Iraq War and Bush's broader handling in the presidency. And it's hard to sit here today and not see the obvious comparisons to that moment.

I've got to say this reminds me so much of 2006, the election leading up to 2006. And I remember a lot of Republicans that year just saying, forget it. Forget these guys. We're just not going to vote. So Jonathan Martin, David Drucker, thank you both very much for being on this morning.