Morning Joe - Kremlin says Putin-Trump meeting agreed, will happen in 'coming days'

Episode Date: August 7, 2025

The Kremlin said Thursday that a meeting between presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin has been agreed in principle and will happen in the “coming days.”

Mr. President, have Putin and Zelensky agreed to a summit yet, and where and when would that be? Well, there's a very good prospect that they will, and we haven't determined where, but we had some very good talks with President Putin today, and there's a very good chance that we could be ending the round, ending the end of that road. That road was long and continues to be long, but there's a good chance that there will be a meeting very soon. So you think you are to a deal? Excuse me? How close do you think you are to some kind of deal? Well, look, I don't want to say. I've been disappointed before with this one. President Trump yesterday talking about a possible face-to-face meeting with Vladimir Putin this morning. There are new developments with that story, and we'll get to that in just a moment.

Also ahead, President Trump's higher tariffs on dozens of countries are now in effect. We'll look at the impact, the import taxes. could have on businesses and consumers. Plus, a former worker at the so-called Alligator Alcatraz facility in Florida is describing the inhumane conditions there. We'll go through their claims and descriptions. And we'll dig into National Intelligence Director Tulsa Gabbard going against CIA officials with approval from President Trump. A lot going on this morning. Good morning. And welcome to morning, Joe. It is Thursday, August 7th. And with us, we have the managing editor at the bulwark, Sam Stein, the host of way too early,

Allie Vitale with us, senior writer for the dispatch and a columnist for Bloomberg opinion. David Drucker is here, White House correspondent for Reuters, Jeff Mason, and former Secretary of Homeland Security in the Obama administration, Jay Johnson, back with us. So we're going to dive right back into the top story, Joe, where a Kremlin aide says Russian president, Vladimir Putin and President Trump have agreed to meet in the coming days and a venue has even been selected. The announcement comes just one day after Trump's envoy to the Middle East, Steve Whitkoff met with Putin in Moscow. Trump called that meeting highly productive, adding that great progress was made. Whitkoff has visited Moscow a handful of times in the past

few months as the Trump administration pushes for an end to the war in Ukraine. Now, it's not known exactly when Trump and Putin will meet, but yesterday a White House official told NBC News the discussion could happen as soon as next week if Putin also agrees to meet with Ukrainian President Volomir Zelensky. It's not clear if Putin has agreed to that yet with the Kremlin aid saying their focus is on preparing for the bilateral meeting with Trump. So still a few steps, Joe. Yeah, a few steps to go. This obviously is moving in a more positive direction

and setting up the type of meeting that you would want between an American president and Vladimir Putin, certainly setting up much differently than when they first met in Helsinki. Also, even at the beginning of Donald Trump's first term, the president and AIDS close to him wanted a meeting with Putin just to get things started that way. And there's always been a belief that personal diplomacy can overcome all other obstacles. It seems the president has moved strongly against that over the past few months, understanding Vladimir Putin has other interests in mind, like the complete domination of

Ukraine. Let's bring it right now NBC News, Chief International Course, correspondent, Kier Simmons, live from London. Kier, this is fascinating news, especially coming off the hills of Donald Trump, deciding to raise tariffs on India for even taking oil from the Russians. It seems this may be more of an arm's-length meeting and a possible arms-length agreement if it does come to fruition. What are you hearing? Yeah, you're right to point out the tariffs on India. It's notable that President Trump didn't remove those, didn't remove that threat, doubled down on that threat, actually, adding an extra 25%, 50% for India if there isn't a deal.

And risking relations with India in the process of trying to put pressure on Russia, President Zelensky saying that what happened yesterday shows that the pressure on Russia is working. That being said, we have been hearing this morning from Yuri Ushikov, a long-time aid to President Putin. He was at one point the ambassador for Russia in Washington. And he's a bruiser. I mean, I've tried to question him on a number of occasions. He just stands, stony-faced and refuses to answer.

And what he's saying this morning is quite expansive, and it's really interesting. One of the things he says is that the Kremlin is looking for a meeting in the coming days, and that a location, a venue has been agreed, and that that will be announced and suggesting that it could be next week, though equally with a caveat that there are still preparations underway. He says something else too this morning, though, and it's really important. He's really dismissive of the idea of a trilateral meeting between President Trump, President Putin and President Zelenskyy saying, well, I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but saying, well, it was mentioned by Steve Witkoff in the meeting yesterday with President Putin.

We don't really know where that came from. And that, on the other hand, according to a White House official speaking to NBC news yesterday, was portrayed as crucial to there being a meeting between President Trump and President Putin. So I think there is a lot yet to happen here. How does President Trump respond when he sees what Yuriushkoff has said and gets the message, if you like, that the Kremlin is not rushing to do

this trilateral meeting. Another aspect of all this, I mean, look, bluntly, it was chaos yesterday. My understanding is that members of the Trump administration, European leaders, some of them, took them completely by surprise. There was a call with European leaders yesterday, between, with President Trump. Not every European leader that should have been on it was on it. and so I think that this is kind of being put together it's in motion. It's much like as ever with President Trump, it's kind of happening in real time.

And I think that does again raise the question about whether or not this meeting will happen at all and certainly whether or not it will happen next week. We shall see. We, of course, know that the Trump administration is capable of moving very fast. Another point here, too, just to add, is that for the Kremlin,

there are real advantages to a meeting with President Trump because, of course, there hasn't been a meeting between the Russian leader and a US leader since Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine and the Kremlin will see it as an opportunity to look less isolated. President Trump did say yesterday this is not a breakthrough and I don't think it is a breakthrough

if you're in the wider context of the potential for a ceasefire. But as Joe, as you rightly suggest, if you talk, maybe you get to a compromise. Right. Let's talk about Vladimir Putin and what may be driving him to this meeting. Could it simply be, is there a feeling for those like yourself who, you know, Moscow is your beat, is what you cover regularly? Is there a feeling that perhaps this is just about being seen with the American president? So we, so Vladimir Putin and Russia is less isolated on the world stage. are all of the casualties on the battlefield, the fact that they're now reaching a million casualties

on the battlefield, economic concerns, is there a belief that he may have more incentive today to meet with Donald Trump and strike some kind of deal to end this conflict more so than six months ago? I think there is a belief in that, in the Trump administration, at least. President Trump last week said, wrote on social media that Russia had lost 112,000 soldiers this year, 20,000 in July. I think there's a belief in the Trump administration, among some in the Trump administration, that the Kremlin will be looking at that and thinking that that is an unsustainable casualty rate. I also think that President Trump has been ramping up the pressure. The economic implications of

tariffs on countries that trade with Russia, like India, like potentially China, they are real from Moscow. Another thing that President Trump has said in recent days was that if you can get the oil price down, substantially down, then that will cut off the supply of money for President Putin. And the Ukrainians themselves have been saying what you need to do is impact the funding for Russia, the funding of the war effectively. So that deadline, which would be tomorrow, and it's not clear quite. Now, whether President Trump's deadline still stands tomorrow, but that deadline for a ceasefire

or substantial economic action by the White House, I think that will have been a concern for the Kremlin. What's happened is that they've walked into a meeting with Steve Wittkoff and this suggestion of a meeting between President Trump and President Putin has emerged. By the way, yesterday we got the impression that that was a proposal made by the Kremlin. Yuriushikov, Putin's aid today, seems to be suggesting that that was a proposal made by the White House. That just gives you a picture of some of the games that are likely to be played in the coming days, I think. And again, the Kremlin, if they are going to get this meeting, as well as potentially not looking as isolated as they might have, they also potentially are managing to find a way through around,

choose your language, the deadline that President Trump had set for tomorrow. Again, though, just to reiterate the point, President Trump hasn't lifted, for example, those tariff threats against India. So it's not as if he is kind of, you know, retreating from any kind of stick as well as leaning into this potential carrot of a meeting. All right, NBC's Keir Simmons. Thank you so much for your reporting. appreciate as always. And we'll see what happens with that deadline. I know as you do that Iran

allowed a 60-day deadline to blow past. And there were real consequences for that. We'll see if he holds Vladimir Putin to those same consequences. Jeff Mason, you were in the room in Helsinki when Jonathan Lemire asked the question that still sort of rings around conversations regarding Donald Trump's close relationship with Vladimir Putin. Things seem to have changed a good bit, though, over the past seven summers between the two. Donald Trump, again, offering threats of sorts, deadlines, punishing India for continuing to trade with Russia when it comes to oil. I'm wondering, what's your reporting on their current relationship and the possibility of a breakthrough in this meeting? Yeah, I was indeed, Joe, and I asked him a question, too, as you'll recall.

I asked President Putin back then if he had wanted. then President Trump to win the election in 2016, and he said, yes, I think that summit and that relationship at the time was much different from the relationship we see now. President Trump said then, and really has maintained for a good chunk of this second term, that he had a good relationship with President Putin, and it was one that he valued. But President Putin has not been giving him what he wanted or what he wants over the last several weeks and months, which was and is an end to the war. President Trump, I think it's also worth reminding everyone promised as a presidential candidate that he would end this war within 24 hours. Hasn't been able

to do that, and that's a big promise not kept. The big question, I think, about a potential new summit is what this progress is that he's referring to that must have happened or may have happened during the meeting with Woodcoff. And they just haven't given details on that. As Keir rightly pointed out, giving a meeting to President Putin is certainly a carrot and really a gift for a leader who has otherwise been seen as a pariah on the world stage. If they meet and they don't come up with something that leads to a ceasefire, it would be very embarrassing to President Trump and to this administration. And if they were to meet without Zelensky, which is something that the U.S. does not want to do, that would also raise a question of whether or not this is all worth it. So to your broad question, Joe, I think that their relationship has certainly changed since that Helsinki moment. But one piece that hasn't changed is President Trump still really wants a positive relationship with Putin.

And that's why they're putting this on the table. All right, Jeff Mason, White House correspondent for Reuters. Thank you for being on this morning and for being on way too early. Sam Stein, what do you make of Trump's position on Ukraine? is it squarely in support of, or could there be holes poked into that? Yes. I mean, it's impossible to know what his position on Ukraine is because it changes so dramatically week by week.

It wasn't all that long ago that we had the blow up in the Oval Office, and now we find ourselves here. I mean, I think contextually, it's notable that this meeting, whoever called it, we don't know. Whoever wanted it, we don't know. It is coming during this period of anger or animus, I guess, that Trump has, or growing animus towards Russia. It's not just the sanctions. I mean, if you recall, there was a late-night bleat, which he said something about putting nuclear submarines and sending them towards Russia. And this weird sort of social media exchange with Dimitri Medeadev.

So I don't really know what to make with it. I don't think Keir Simmons knows what to make with it. And I guess Secretary Johnson, it's worth sort of step. stepping back, and you would know this better than anyone at the table, just how abnormal is this process, this diplomat against? Obviously, it's very normal for Trump, but in terms of organizing a meeting, having the principles there, setting out an agenda, and even agreeing to the meeting, it seems this is unconditional. Just can you talk about sort of the context here and how atypical this is? In a normal world, before the head of state,

meets with his or her counterpart. There are discussions at numerous levels of government, numerous levels at the State Department, the embassy, as a precursor to the two principals sitting down together to hopefully sign some agreement of some sort. Having the two principles, the two heads of state, meet in the first instance like this, is very unorthodox. It's apparent to me that this president still believes that he can treat Ukraine or the Middle East like a real estate deal, swoop in with the force of personality, demand a certain price, and then move on. And it's far, far more complicated. What's been going on in Russia, Ukraine has been going on for years. What's been going on in the Middle East has been going on for decades. And I suspect that

Vladimir Putin wants this meeting. in the hope that he can perhaps lure President Trump back into his camp. And if I were in the current administration, the current government, I'd be very concerned about that. Well, we've also seen the way that President Trump has leaned on the personal politics of this in Russia and hasn't led them anywhere. I also wonder, David Drucker, as the administration looks towards the potential for this meeting face-to-face with Trump and Putin, if they recognize, I'm sure they do, the stakes of walking away without a solution and a ceasefire here. They would have legitimized Putin and then ultimately walked away with nothing.

That's one piece of it. But they have shown a willingness, at least in the last 24 hours or so, to ramp up the economic ramifications of doing business with Russia, specifically through the proxy of India and increasing tariffs there. Talk about what the White House is hoping to accomplish there in the broader sense. Is that supposed to jar something free ahead of these potential tete-a-tete with Putin and Trump? Right. So I think this is the first time we've really seen Trump approach Russia and Vladimir Putin the way he's approached so many other countries, which is to attempt to strongarm them and use economic pressure to get out of them a policy outcome that he wants. And I think that's notable, right? Because for so much of the past eight, nine years, Russia and Putin seemed to get this broad.

exception to how Trump talked about and treated so many other countries. And we even saw on that clip at the beginning of the show where, you know, the president said he didn't want to get ahead of his skis because he's been disappointed before. So if you care about U.S. support for Ukraine and the foreign policy implications of that versus where we thought Trump was headed or where he was headed earlier in this second term and throughout the campaign last year, you have to feel good about that. I think the question here is how much does Trump understand Putin the way we've now, the way we've always understood him. Normally, as Mr. Johnson just sort of referenced here,

when you're going to have a meeting of world leaders, the deal, in a sense, has already been worked out, and the principals meet, and they sort of negotiate their way to agree on what's already been agreed to. And Trump likes to do things differently. So if he's aware that there's a really good chance, Putin is simply suing for time here,

because pulling back from Ukraine has so many domestic implications for him, because he's a dictator and not democratically elected, and if he's prepared to walk away, the way he's walked away from so many trade deals or almost trade deals with other countries, then to the extent that the war is not going to end anytime soon, that works out for the United States and works out for Ukraine. If the president is dazzled by Vladimir Putin and concludes that now is a great time to pressure Ukraine to basically accept the invasion and deal with some sort of bifurcated border giving Putin a victory, then it's a problem.

And I just don't think we're going to know the answer to this big question until it happens if this meeting proceeds. All right. We're going to return to this, but we want to get to some other news. We're following the latest out of Georgia, where you are you. U.S. Army sergeant has been accused of opening fire at the Fort Stewart military base. Five soldiers were wounded after the shooter allegedly used his personal handgun in the attack. Let's bring in NBC News correspondent Priya Schreeder, who joins us live from Fort Stewart. Priya, what's the latest?

Good morning. Well, remarkably and most importantly, all five of those soldiers who were shot are expected to make a full recovery. were transported to a local hospital for further treatment as far as that alleged gunman. He is in custody, and now officials here at Fort Stewart are working to determine exactly what prompted him to open fire here. Five soldiers shot and rushed to the hospital after gunfire erupted at Fort Stewart in Georgia. They have an active shooter on Fort Stewart. Authorities say 28-year-old U.S. Army Sergeant Cornelius Radford opened fire with a personal handgun shortly before 11 o'clock.

The shooting occurred at the soldier's place of work. It did involve his coworkers. The shooting prompting a one-hour lockdown on the 60,000 person base that spans up to 280,000 acres. There's possibly five patients. They have both of their EMS trucks on scene. The Army says the sergeant was apprehended by law enforcement 40 minutes after they were dispatched.

I would also like to thank the brave soldiers who immediately intervened and subdued the shooting. these soldiers, without a doubt, prevented further casualties. Brigadier General John Lubis from Fort Stewart says the motive is still unknown. He says Sergeant Radford had never previously been deployed to combat or had any known disciplinary issues in his seven and a half years of service. Army officials say they found out he had been arrested for a DUI in May. That was unknown to his chain of command until the event occurred,

and we started looking into the law enforcement databases. The five injured soldiers are all. all expected to make a full recovery. Three underwent surgery. President Trump saying the suspect will be prosecuted to the fullest extent. The entire nation is praying for the victims and their families, and hopefully they'll fully recover, and we can put this chapter behind. Fort Stewart is the largest U.S. military base east of the Mississippi River,

home to the 3rd Infantry Division that is rapidly deployed to war zones around the World. Truck driver Ron Peavy says he was about to leave the base when the chaos ensued. If you were inside, you were locked in. If you were trying to get in, you were locked out, and it became a ghost town. Now the Brigadier General says that Sergeant Radford has been questioned by Army investigators. He is being held in pretrial confinement here on the base. We do know that he joined the Army back in 2018 and was stationed here at Fort Stewart since 2020. at this time, his motivations are still unclear. Mika.

NBC news correspondent Priya Shreder, thank you very much for your reporting this morning. And still ahead on morning, Joe. The House Oversight Committee is not subpoenaing the prosecutor who negotiated that sweetheart deal with Jeffrey Epstein years ago in Florida. We'll dig into that omission, decision, as some abuse survivors also raised concerns. Plus, the Attorney General, of Texas is launching an investigation into the group that funded Democratic lawmakers

travel out of the state. We'll bring you the latest on the battle as it continues over plans to redraw congressional lines. And a reminder of the Morning Joe podcast available each weekday featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts, of course. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. 25 past the hour. Welcome back. Time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Officials in China are deploying drones to fight a new mosquito-borne virus that has infected

more than 7,000 people so far. Authorities there are using the drones to try to find standing water where mosquitoes lay eggs. In addition, they are threatening to find people up to $1,400 and cut their electricity if they do not empty water from outdoor receptacles. Hundreds of United Airlines flights are still facing delays this morning and cancellations after the company experienced a technical outage. It happened last night. Officials say there was an issue with the system that stores information about other flights. The FAA then ordered a third. full stop for United flights at several airports, including Chicago, Denver, Houston, Newark,

and San Francisco. United resumed to operations late last night. And the NFL is banning the use of smelling salts during games, saying the products aren't proven to be safe and could mask signs of a concussion. But last night, the League's Players Union clarified the new rules, saying players can still use them as long as the products don't come from the team. Smelling salts have been a staple on NFL sidelines for years with many players believing they can provide a sudden jolt of energy or alertness. Yeah, well, you know, that's something that Willie and I do all the time. I've seen Sam, I've seen Sam Stein at times take some swelling salts out of his pocket.

Is that what you do before the show? Could use some right now? You could use some right now. It's early, man. It's 626 in August. It's so early. Who could be against smelling salts? On morning, Joe.

Yeah, baby. Need those smelling salts. So, Mika, so the next story we're going to do, it's really crazy. We talked yesterday just about how stupid the subpoenas and the Epstein cases are, how incomplete they are. I think it's Comey once again. and maybe he's talking to Arnold the Pig, his chief legal counsel on this. It's Comer.

Orn Pig, of course, formerly of Green Acres fame. Did I say Comey? I meant Comer. Anyway, so Alex Acosta was the guy that struck a sweetheart deal with Jeffrey Epstein back in what, 2005, 2006. He allowed him, the deal allowed. him to plead to much lesser charges, despite all the horrific things that he did, allowed him to walk in and out of jail. This is like Otis having the jail key in Mayberry RFD, the Andy Griffiths show,

except we're dealing with a serial sex abuser here of young kids, allowed him to go to work in his office. It was the biggest, sweetheart deal, and the most offensive thing, actually, to those victims and the victim's parents, was the fact that he did the deal and hit it from the young victims. He had a legal requirement to tell the young victims this, and he refused to do it. You go back, I've even, I've talked to members of the administration. who have said, you want to know who's at the center of all of this. You want to know if there were like sex tapes of the rich and powerful with minors. That's the guy you need to talk to.

These are people in the Trump administration told me a couple weeks ago. That's who you need to talk to because he didn't make Epstein turn any evidence over. He didn't make him turn over any sex tapes. He didn't make him turn over any incriminating evidence of the rich and the powerful. It was a sweetheart deal done that allowed Epstein to walk in and out of jail whenever he wanted to, allowed him to go to work. And again, most damningly, a plea deal that shut out the minors, the young girls who had been sexually abused by him and Galane Maxwell for a year. Right. Galane Maxwell, who has been moved to a more comfortable prison after meeting.

Yeah. Hotel Fed. That doesn't look bad. Mika, that doesn't look bad at all, does it? She meets with Donald Trump's personal lawyer, a guy who's basically said, I'm Donald Trump's personal lawyer, who's now in government. She meets, right? And she gets a sweeter. You knew, you knew before they walked in, okay, they're going to go talk to her, and she's going to say, oh, Donald Trump had nothing to do with this. And in return, she was going to be treated better, maybe even, maybe even have her sentence commuted. Well, the first part of that's already taken place. She's gotten a sweetheart deal herself as far as where she is staying and maybe staying for the rest of her life. Well, I'll be interested here what Dave Ehrenberg has to say about this.

the House Oversight Committee has issued subpoenas for several former government officials, including attorneys general, FBI directors, former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss matters related to Jeffrey Epstein. But as Joe detailed, the committee has not subpoenaed Alex Acosta. The former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida behind the secret non-prosecution agreement that was reached with Epstein in 2000. Acosta also served as President Trump's Labor Secretary during his first term, but left the role in 2019 after he faced scrutiny over the Epstein plea agreement. Under that deal, Epstein pleaded guilty to procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and felony solicitation of prostitution, which required him to register as a sex offender and serve about a year.

in a Florida County jail. He was then able to leave the jail almost daily for work and was allowed to have his own private security detail behind bars. NBC News asked an oversight committee spokesperson why Acosta was not included in the subpoenas and was told via text message that members of the federal law enforcement subcommittee approved the list of those subpoenaed with a voice vote in July. It's not really an answer. Joining us now, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave, So many questions. I'll let you take it where you think it should go and what stands out to you here. But I also wonder how much control can the Oversight Committee or Pam Bondi's office or Todd Blanche have over the information surrounding Jeffrey Epstein? It seems to me that if you

subpoena some people, they certainly can make comments that are very interesting to the Oversight Committee. Good to be with you, Mika. And I think Joe made a good point that he said that this list came from the legal advisor called Arnold DePig. I don't think that anyone, though, gave Comer legal advice. I think this list was developed by political advisor. It just looks like Comer threw darts at a list of Trump's enemies from both sides of the aisle. Like, why is Hillary Clinton on the list? What does she have to do with this? Bob Mueller?

Bob Mueller, who Trump hates, it was the FBI director at the time, but he had nothing to do with the non-prosecution agreement. You know who did, Alice Acosta, but he's not on the list, as you correctly noted. Of course, Trump's not on the list either. And as far as what kind of effect it could have upon testimony and evidence, I don't think this list has any effect at all. I wouldn't expect Bill Clinton or anyone else to testify anytime soon. They're going to fight it out in court or ignore the subpoenas altogether like Jim Jordan ignored his subpoena from the January 6th committee and got away with it. A strategy of delay here working things to the court would probably work because the Democrats are expected to take over the House next November and that would shut this whole thing down. So it all seems like political theater here by politicians who badly want to change the subject. Yeah, Dave, I was just going to ask you, it seems almost impossible to imagine Bill Clinton sitting for a subpoena in the situation.

I mean, there is zero upside and there's probably zero that Congress can do to compel him to do so. So what is the objective here just really to run out the clock? Because that seems foolish too, right? I mean, at some point, you do need to produce something tangible to satiate the people who say, hey, there's this boatload of records that you promised. Where are they? Right. And this base is not going to be satisfied by just hearing testimony or getting redacted grand jury records. And that's where the administration is going. The administration is trying to placate their base, which is up in arms, because the base had been promised the

Epstein list. And there is no Epstein list. But there is an Epstein file. And now the administration is saying, we're not going to release the Epstein file. And as far as the grand jury records, those are unlikely to get released as well. Trump's strategy may be to win by losing. His strategy may be to deflect the blame onto the judiciary, because if there's one group that the MAGA base hates as much as the media, it's the group of unelected federal judges who wear the black robes and get a lifetime appointment. And so he's going to try to redirect the energy of the base towards them.

I don't think it's going to work because this base has been promised things that the administration is refusing to deliver. And even if the judges grant the motion to release the grand jury transcripts, they're only going to release the redacted version in the government's motion. And I read it. It says that they promised to redact the identifying information of third parties who have not been charged. So the MAGOR world who already feels betrayed is not going to stand for this. So either way, they're going to lose. These are people who feasted on conspiracy theories. And EFstein has been the main course.

So if they think that the grand jury records will tide them over, it will be the latest miscalculation in this unending controversy. It has seemed, Dave, that there's been one miscalculation after another miscalculation after another miscalculation. And Dave Drucker, let's talk about the MAGA base for a second. They are the base that has been driving this story more than any other division in American politics. And it just seems to me, if you listen to what Joe Rogan's saying, if you listen to what so many MAG influencers are saying on their podcasts, it just seems to me that the House deciding to subpoena Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and James Comey and all of these other people when it was Donald Trump's former Labor Secretary and it was Donald Trump's Justice Department that. that arrested him the second time, that arrested Epstein the second time, that he died in prison and a lot of questions continuing to be asked about the security footage and what happened that night. All of that happened under the Trump administration as well. It seems to me the

MAGA base has been willing to blindly follow Donald Trump over the cliff time and time again. And it doesn't, though, seem like they're willing to sort of follow this, this very clumsy head fake by Comer. What are you hearing? Well, look, I wouldn't, I think the issue here is Trump versus Comer in this way, right? And as we've discussed before, the president's base is going to give him a lot of deference and often redirects their frustration to other members of the Republican Party, right? I mean, you know, issues that we would think or that have really their genesis with an action Trump has taken or not taken, instead of getting upset with him, they'll blame it on Republican members of Congress. They're acutely aware of this. And I think the Comer subpoenas are an effort to try and mitigate that frustration.

You know, I think the issue here is where they're going to give the president a lot of leash. I don't think they're going to give House Republicans or Senate Republicans the same deference. And so if they're going to tackle this at all, if they're going to issue subpoenas at all, I'm sure the president will be happy to see his political adversary subpoenaed. That'll make him feel good, especially after what he believes he went through while he was out of office. But it's not going to make voters who are fixated on this happy. It's not going to satiate them. They're going to say, what about this one?

And why didn't she subpoena that one? So if they want to clear the decks and get this off the table, Joe, all this does is stretch it out and elongate it. And they're going to come back from their August recess. And they're going to be stuck in the same place, except they're not going to be able to disband for another recess. Right. I completely agree.

This is a terrible, terrible idea. All it does is draw more attention back. and when you put Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton and Comey and all of these other people's name on this list, it immediately begs the question. Why not Donald Trump? Why not Alex Acosta? Why not the, why not Barr? Why not Donald Trump's attorney generals that charged him?

They've created a list that raises so many questions that it actually draws more attention. attention to this, not only from the media, but also the base. Senior writer for the dispatch, David Drucker. Thank you so much. His new piece is available to read online right now. And Dave Ehrenberg, I mean, just, again, let's talk about that list very briefly one more time. Everybody who is relevant to the second prosecution and the imprisonment of Jeffrey Epstein is excluded from this list. Everyone. Oh, they do have bar on there. They have bar in sessions.

But outside of that, no Alex Acosta here, even the administration says that was the original sin. The plea deal that Acosta did was the original sin that allowed all of this to happen, that allowed him to destroy, possibly destroy video, of the most powerful men in the world abusing young women. I mean, and they're not on the list. Because it's all political, Joe.

This is an attempt by Congress to help Trump deflect onto others, saying, look, we are for transparency. We're going to pursue grand jury records, and we're going to subpoena the people who the base wants to hear from. Bill Clinton. Remember, this is all about a Democratic cabal like Pizza Gate, where Bill and Hillary Clinton lead a group of Democrats and worldwide. elites in a child sex trafficking ring. Let's just say what it is. And that's why Bill Clinton and Hillary are on the list. But this is not going to work because the base wants either the Epstein list or they want the Epstein files and they're going to get neither. And as far as the grand jury files, you know, Galane Maxwell is opposing the release of the grand jury records. And I

think her argument is going to sway the court because her case is pending. Her case is before the Supreme Court right now. So this affects her. And if those records are released, then her interest down the road if she wins her appeal could be undermined. So don't expect even a redacted grand jury record to be released there. So this is all just going to lead to an implosion with the base. The base is not going to be happy unless they get the grand, excuse me, unless they get the Epstein files, which they're not going to. I think, Dave, that you're exactly right, talking about something tangible having to be produced here. But I think the other open question around why Congress hasn't yet subpoenaed Alex Acosta is over the non-prosecution agreement, also.

including the ability to not prosecute potential co-conspirators that would very much include Maxwell and Secretary Johnson. That is what she is leaning on in some of her appeals here as they try to get her either a lesser or no sentence. And that I think is really important as well. The other thing that I see in these subpoenas, and you've testified before Congress so many times, so I'm interested in your take on this. You've had that pleasure, yes. You've had that pleasure. The thing that I see in this list of subpoenas as someone who knows this committee is Republicans needed Democrats to get on board in order to actually issue these subpoenas. And so I partly imagine the fact that they knew they would have needed to subpoena Republicans

like sessions like Barr, but then also that they have these Democratic names on there in some way to placate Trump, even as they do exactly the opposite of what he wants them to do, which is continue talking about this story. Yeah, this is how our Congress is conducting the people's business these days with everything that's going on in the world. one of the reasons why so many people are frustrated with Washington. Yeah, Jay, we've got one more item for you. We're also following the latest with the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts,

including new questions around one detention center. A former employee at the ICE detention facility known as Alligator Alcatraz is speaking out about the conditions they are calling them inhumane. in an interview with NBC News South Florida, the former corrections officer, only identified as Lindsay, compares the areas where detainees are kept, to a, quote, oversized kennel. She told reporters, each tent at the facility has eight large cages that hold close to 300 people, saying the inmates have no sunlight or accessed daily showers, and that on rainy days, water, pours into the tents describing a constant battle against mosquitoes. Lindsay went on to express sympathy for the detainees, claiming many of them are not criminals. Jay, your reaction to this reporting. You know, I try to imagine if I were still secretary and somebody from mice came to me and said,

we've got this thing called alligator alcatraz that we've set up. for undocumented, I'd ask, okay, how many people does it hold? Well, it holds 300. Okay, there are in excess of 10 million undocumented in this country. What are we doing? 300 people? It's obvious that this is somebody's idea to create a really horrible deterrent. But at the same time, crossings at the southern border are at historic record lows right now. So what are we doing? And the focus needs to be on the criminals. This administration started out on that, but all they've done, frankly, is turbocharged the sanctuary cities movement, such that you have undocumented, arrested people who actually here in Manhattan shot an off-duty CBP officer. I want to know why

there was no detainer on that person as soon as he was arrested and sent to Rikers or wherever he was sent. If the system is working properly, then any unduly... documented who commits a crime, goes into pre-trial detention. Ice puts a detainer on him. The moment he's released, he goes into immigration detention. And that's obviously not happening. Former Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson, thank you very much for coming on this morning. It's good to see you. And coming up on morning, Joe, we're going to dig into new reporting on the New York City suburb that was able to bring down the cost of rent as it was surging at a double digit right across the country. Morning Joe is back in just a moment. Ten minutes before the top of the

hour live look at New York City as the sun tries to come up over the Big Apple. So let's talk about housing, especially in the New York area. With the U.S. housing shortage intensifying and home prices rising to all-time highs, one suburb of New York City has made rent more affordable. The Wall Street Journal has new reporting on the city of New Rochelle, New York, and how it has sliced through the red tape to build thousands of new apartments. Joining us now, Wall Street Journal reporter, the one behind that piece, Rebecca Pichotto. So Rebecca, I know knew Rochelle well. How did they do it?

Yeah, I mean, in a sentence, they built more housing, and that might sound simple, but nowadays, that is getting harder and harder. And it's easier said than done in many cities across the country, you know, as red tape makes it more difficult. And it has historically derailed new development. It's helped create this national housing shortage that has now become a political liability for a lot of public officials across the country. Meanwhile, in New Rochelle, they are, yeah, as you said, slicing through the red tape and making it faster, easier, cheaper for developers to build. Slicing through the red tape by just getting rid of it in some cases. As a Westchester County native, I'm happy to see one of the other towns there getting the spotlight. So you write in the piece, Rebecca.

Finally, Westchester County are getting the attention it deserves. But I will say you write in the piece, and this was interesting, the developer-friendly politics of Neurochelle are in contrast with the way city officials sometimes respond to voter-friendly. frustration over housing. That includes New York City's Democratic mayoral nominee, Zohran Mamdani, who's rattling some real estate professionals with his promise to freeze rents on rent-stabilized units. Still with the U.S. housing shortage intensifying and home prices rising to all-time highs, more elected officials are starting to adopt New Rochelle's mindset. California Governor Gavin Newsom recently loosened a stringent environmental law that had stalled decades of projects. Oregon last month enacted new laws to make it easier for developers to build

duplexes, townhomes, and modular homes over on Capitol Hill, a bipartisan housing package, which includes developer tax incentives and expedited environmental reviews, is advancing to a Senate vote. It feels like you're looking at a microcosm where policy is working to help people find more affordable housing, and this is an issue where it seems it's taken on national resonance, and some places are catching on and doing similar policymaking. Yeah, I mean, there's no cookie cutter blueprint to build more housing in. every city is a little bit different. But I do think the kind of new Rochelle mindset of prioritizing supply as a way to boost affordability, you're starting to see that replicate

itself across the country. As you noted, California, Oregon, Capitol Hill, one of the rare bipartisan legislative packages we're seeing right now is a huge housing bill that's moving through the Senate. And so, yeah, I think the idea of building more supply to boost affordability, the political tides are starting to shift in that direction. I wanted to ask you about the Toledo housing market, because you wrote an article about that back in April, but we're going to avoid that one. It's fine. I'm not against Toledo. No, it's okay. We really need to focus

on Westchester. Thank you. Priorities. There's a big internal Democratic Party debate, as you're aware, over abundance and building houses and regulations. Can you talk a little bit about how regulation specifically on the environmental side may have not hampered New Rochel in ways that they are hampering other

cities and municipalities when they comes to housing? Yeah, I mean, I think New Rochelle is still doing these environmental reviews, but they are expediting them. And, you know, a lot of what sort of derails new development is these regulatory, complex regulatory webs that extend development timelines, drive up costs, and ultimately disincentivized developers from doing business in some of these markets. So over time, you know, that's how you see this housing shortage start to, you know, pop up. I think what New Rochelle has focused on

is giving developers predictability. So they created this form-based zoning program, which basically gives developers, you know, a set of criteria that they have to meet rather than leaving it up to the discretion of a city council that can debate it over a number of years. If a developer meets a certain set of criteria, they are assured a 90-day approval process. And that is significantly faster than, you know, the 10 to 15 years that some developers say they're waiting elsewhere. Sure. Rebecca Pichodo, thank you so much for your reporting. Her new story for The Wall Street Journal is available to read online.

right now.