Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/2/23

Episode Date: May 2, 2023

Hollywood writers go on strike after contract negotiations fail

You know, the president and I had a very close working relationship for four years. It didn't end well. We thought about peace in the Middle East. But obviously it didn't end well. For four years, we had a close working relationship. It did not end well. Our administration didn't end well. It didn't end well.

And our administration did not end well. Obviously the administration did not end well. I mean, obviously the administration did not end well. The administration didn't end well. It obviously didn not end well. Obviously, the administration did not end well. I mean, obviously, the administration did not end well. The administration didn't end well. It obviously didn't end well. It didn't end well. It didn't end well. It did not end well.

I think I'm very clear in saying that the administration did not end well. Yeah, that's not the fairytale ending that you kind of hope for. Tend to agree. It could be a while before we see new material from the late night talk shows. They're expected to go dark during the Hollywood writers strike, which started at midnight on the West Coast. It's the first major labor related work stoppage in 15 years. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill this morning, there is more pressure on lawmakers and the White House to reach a deal on the debt ceiling following a new warning from the Treasury Department. We'll also have the latest on the first Republic banking collapse, the third financial

institution to go bust since March. What does that mean moving forward? Also ahead, an update on the civil rape trial against Donald Trump as his accuser takes the stand for the third day. We're learning more also about the staggering toll out of Eastern Europe with new reports that Russia may have suffered as many as 100,000 casualties since December. And a Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential race is doubling down on attacks about President Biden's age. We're going to have those comments for you and more about that. Is that all they have? Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, May 2nd. What does that mean? I don't know. It's Mika's birthday, ladies and gentlemen. Happy birthday, Mika. Yes. I know. I'm still here.

I can't believe it, actually. I walked into 30 Rock and I was like, I was wrong about everything. Everything, including this. Here we are, 16 years later. So I started this show at 40 and 56. 50 over 50, man. We're still here. I think that's a good model for all of us.

Your birthday tomorrow. We're still here. man. We're still here. I think that's a good model for all of us. Your birthday tomorrow. We're still here. Why? We're still here. What? So Joe's on assignment, and we'll celebrate your birthday tomorrow. Yeah, we go back to back. He's a little younger than me.

Cupcakes? Where are the cupcakes? No cupcakes? That's okay. I didn't get a cupcake. Warm yogurt over here. What am I going to get? I got a smoothie coming at 9.

Am I getting any presents or anything? Yeah, we've got a big in in our nine o'clock hour. Yeah, big reveal. We're still on the planet stage. Plenty of time. Alex just told me the show is a gift enough. Four hours. Four hours.

It's a big, long. You know it is, actually. This is such a blessing, and we're so blessed. Yes. Not to, like, get, but this is really, we're so blessed. This is a really true honor. It is. All right. So along with Willie and me, we have the host of way too early White House bureau chief at Politico,

Jonathan Lemire. I won't make fun of you today. Really? Is that your birthday gift to me? Yeah. You know what? I can't help it. Actually, today you get a free pass. Go ahead. He's always here every day. Former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department Elise Jordan is here and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson joins us. Happy birthday. Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. So we have a lot to talk about. I just want to jump ahead to our B block for a second. Did you see Kevin McCarthy on Ukraine? Yes. Very strong. A Russian reporter sort of challenged him on the American support for Ukraine. And Speaker McCarthy went back hard at this. He went back. It was really actually best moment as speaker of the House. And nothing bad to say about that. It was a really we'll get to it, have a bigger conversation about

the state of the war in Ukraine, but the Speaker of the House really planting a flag on what needed to be said from that side. He did. It was the strongest comments yet on Ukraine in particular. We'll play that in just a moment. But we do begin this morning with the latest in that deadly mass shooting in Texas. The suspect still on the run this morning as more than 250 now officers from local, state and federal agencies continue the search for the man accused of fatally shooting five of his neighbors, including a nine year old child. Authorities investigated two possible sightings of the gunman yesterday, one of which prompted a lockdown of several schools, but neither tip panned out. Over the weekend, the sheriff's

office and the FBI said searchers had recovered the gunman's rifle, cell phone and some clothing, but they believe he may still have another weapon with him. Right now, there is an $80,000 reward for information leading to his arrest. Joining us now from Cleveland, Texas, NBC News correspondent Sam Brock. Sam, good morning. What's the state of the search here? Willie, good morning. Right now, there is a thick fog surrounding Cleveland, Texas, to the point where you can barely see about five or 10 feet in front of you. Those are the conditions right now that investigators are trying to find Francisco Oropesa, who, of course, is accused of murdering five people. And Willie, it is improbable,

to put it mildly, if not completely implausible, that someone would have been asked to not fire their rifle on their lawn and turn around and murder five people next door. It is equally as improbable that that same person would be cornered by investigators within roughly a two-mile search field and somehow be able to elude them. This was on Saturday. As you mentioned, Willie, his cell phone was being tracked. His clothes, there was a scent there. Somehow investigators found both, but not Oropeso.

And so right now I'm standing in Cleveland over my shoulder. You see behind me the sign that says wanted for murder in Spanish. This man, all those mailboxes just next to it, Willie. This is a residential area. There are homes back there, but highly wooded mud roads leading to places where it's really hard to see where you're going. These are the sorts of topographical challenges that investigators, 250 plus of them, are still going for right now. We are going to be rubbing up against 96 hours with no answers. As you talk to people here, they are frightened, some of them, to leave their homes because they have absolutely no idea where this guy is. He could be somewhere in Texas.

He could have left the country. Investigators have not provided an update. At least there was nothing yesterday other than the multiple false alarms that you had just specified, one of them at a local landfill, another near about five or six schools where there were sightings of someone who looked like Guadapesa. There were incredible amounts of resources marshaled there to investigate. Turns out it was absolutely nothing. Now, Willie, it is also important to note that we've learned some devastating details from the father, Wilson Garcia, of that nine-year-old boy, Daniel, who was murdered. He says that he had contacted police, he and his family, five times over the course of about 30

minutes and that it took that amount of time for police to come. Now, I believe he specifically said 20. His brother-in-law said 30 in another report that he was inside of his closet. This is his brother-in-law calling police with his wife and child, telling them that there was an immediate need to get there and the dispatcher said there's already folks on the ground. Of course, that was not the case. We've reached out to San Jacinto County to find out how long did it take them to get there and how many calls were actually placed. They have not been able to provide that information, but said they have 10 days with which to respond. But that's sort of what's going to happen in the aftermath. Right now, there's an immediate need, really, to find where this individual is.

And as far as more of that background information comes into play, we also learned about the fact there was a pre-existing relationship between Wilson's wife, he says, and the wife of the suspect, that they were friends and that the suspect himself, Oropeso, had come over to his house, he says, and helped him cut down a tree. So how do we get from that to what actually transpired on Friday at about 1130, where there is a mass murder? And there are just so many questions that need to be pieced together with all of this. But Wilson Garcia also saying that his son saw his mother fall to the ground and tried to help her. And that's when the nine-year-old boy was shot. So

inhumanity in every possible way, as this urgent search continues now in day four, and right now, no idea, at least no word from investigators as to where they stand in tracking down a murderer. And in terms of that response time, Sam, we did hear, although the Sheriff's Department hasn't responded directly, that they only have about three sheriffs and sheriff's deputies that cover about 700 square miles. That could play into it.

But a lot more questions to be answered there. What more do we know about the suspect, the man that police still now all these days later are looking for, Sam? Authorities say he was an undocumented immigrant from Mexico, had been deported at least four times. Questions there about how he got his hands on the guns. And then you touched on it a bit, but the relationship with the neighbors, as you say, it is unconscionable. What motive could there possibly be for such a horrific crime here? Yeah, a lot of good questions there in terms of just the relationship. You know, one of the neighbors of this family said we sent our kids to school together, parties together. That had done work for him. He said I'd never heard him

raise his voice, create any sort of consternation. And to think that he could commit this level of violence is without outside the realm of possibility. So that was from someone who lived right next door to the murder suspect. With respect to your other question on the background of Oropezo, you're exactly right. We'll have that ICE yesterday confirming there were four examples of him being physically removed, deported from the country twice in 2009, again in 2012, again in 2016. And there was also a DWI on his record dating all the way back to 2009. But that's, of course, small compared to the rest of the landscape of what we're talking about right now. But four deportations. Politicians, of course, jumped right in. Governor Abbott here

in Texas discussing the illegal status, not just of the suspect in this case, but also of the family that was slaughtered. A lot of criticism after that as to why that was relevant in any way. John Cornyn, senator from Texas, also weighing in saying that the actions of a criminal should not reflect tens or millions of law-abiding immigrants. But he also said that this is an example of how there are devastating impacts for not enforcing laws at our border. So you're seeing the politicization of the situation already with some pushback, certainly. And then with respect to Oropezo's background, not just that, but also that there were calls to his house over the course of a certain period of time. The sheriff couldn't specify how many or when of him discharging his rifle on the lawn of the house. So there was a history there, but not so much a criminal history.

And again, just more of the mystery of how this one man could seemingly snap and commit this unconscionable act. The search continues across Texas this morning. NBC's Sam Brock. Sam, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Mika. So, Eugene, you have a new piece in The Washington Post entitled A Gun Transforms Another Commonplace Interaction Into Carnage. And we've been coming put the governor's callous description of the immigrants, of the immigrants, calling them illegal immigrants in his statement aside the victims. Yeah, there is this growing sense of unease about not just our schools, about not just our churches, about not just our dance halls, about not just our country music festivals, but now commonplace interactions between going to the wrong house, going into the wrong driveway. And now a new level has been reached.

And you write about it. Tell us about it. No, it was a noise complaint, right? He was making too much noise next door, firing his gun unsafely. I mean, they didn't like that either, but there were relatives staying over at the house. There was a baby in the house. They were trying to get

the baby to sleep. And so it's a noise complaint. How many times have you had problems with a neighbor who was making too much noise? How many times has a neighbor had problems with you when you were making too much noise, running a leaf blower or something like that.

And so these things get settled normally. It's a common everyday interaction in every community, in every country in the world. The difference is that in other countries, people don't all have guns. They don't have AR-15s. And then these things, these normal disputes don't end up in this sort of tragedy. This was committed with an AR-style rifle, which

is an assault weapon. It's a weapon of war. Why is it in anyone's hands, let alone this man, Oropesa, any civilian? Why? Why do we do this? You know, take any poll. There's a new poll from Fox News out last week that says 61 percent of Americans want a ban on assault weapons.

And that's in addition to the 80, 85, 90 percent who want other gun control measures like universal background checks, red flag laws, all the things that we've talked about year after year after year as the death toll mounts. Yet these things don't happen. And it's just it's horrific. And calling out some hypocrisy here. I mean, you know, I know we talked a lot here about the governor yesterday, but, you know, I know we talked a lot here about the governor yesterday, but, you know, every time one of these happens, Elise, there'll be Republicans who say this is not the time to politicize guns. This is the wrong. How dare you politicize guns at a time like this when people are in mourning? And yet, you know, they immediately want to jump to the politics of immigration and the politics of using words like that.

And again, in this case, an AR-15 is used. The common denominator in all of these events is the guns. And yet there's just no movement, barely any. And it's just a human tragedy over and over and over. And I can just so relate to wanting a fussy baby to go to sleep and someone shooting an AR-15 next door. I would be livid. That's legit. I would say I would go over there yelling.

I don't know how they did it, but I would have been yelling. Stop shooting your damn gun. Yeah. So my baby can go to sleep. And you wouldn't expect this kind of just psychotic response because the guy had an AR-15. The country's against it. Eugene just quoted the polling. This is just an area where Republican lawmakers are extremists compared to where their voters are, even Republican voters. And the tragedy, this tragedy just adds to the list of people who are getting shot and killed for everyday occurrences. Someone who pulls into the wrong driveway, someone who knocks on the wrong door, someone who touches the wrong door of a car. And the response is to be shot to death.

And here, a noise complaint. Hey, keep it down. My baby's trying to sleep. And he walks in there and lays waste to a family, including a child who was trying to help his mother. And he's shot. And it's because of the access to guns. It's because of the access to guns.

And Willie, there is, to the points that Eugene and Elise just made, there is no momentum in Congress right now. We, of course, heard the same statements we always do from the White House. We know they have tried their best. They have said that they've exhausted their list of executive orders. Nothing more substantial can get done without Congress. We saw modest legislation passed last year. There seems to be no appetite for even that this time around.

Yeah, that legislation came in the wake of the Uvalde shooting almost a year ago. And you get the sense Republicans say, hey, we gave you something after that. We're not going much further here. We'll be back to this story a little bit later in the show. In the meantime, for the first time in 15 years, Hollywood writers are going on strike this morning. The union representing thousands of movie and television writers says members, quote, voted unanimously to go on strike in a dispute over pay and staffing after their three year contract expired at midnight Pacific time. Screenwriters are planning to begin walking the picket lines this afternoon. That means production on many broadcast shows, streaming series and some movies will come to a halt.

Late night talk shows expected to be among the first to go dark this week. The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which bargains on behalf of Hollywood companies, released a statement that its offer included, quote, generous increases in compensation for writers. The organization added it remained willing to continue negotiating. Joining us now, anchor of CNBC's Worldwide Exchange, Frank Holland. Frank, good morning. So what specifically is at issue here? What is there's obviously an entirely new world of streaming. There's artificial intelligence and, of course, the question of pay. So what is the debate here? Well, first and foremost, the rescue of America calling for its members to hit

that picking line starting today, as you mentioned, after they failed to reach that contract. So the writers really argue they've suffered financially as streaming has boomed in part due to shorter seasons and also smaller residual payments. So we've got to keep in mind the last writer strike happened about 15 years ago. It was a very different landscape when it came to television, movies. There was no really streaming platforms or anything out there. And while we saw a disruption in our entertainment options, it had a bigger impact to California's economy. It lasted 100 days and it cost the California economy two billion dollars. So there's some serious financial ramifications in addition to ramifications for these different entertainment companies.

So President Biden is promising continued action to keep Americans America's banking system, quote, safe and sound. The comments come after First Republic became the third major bank to collapse in less than two months when it was taken over by the FDIC and sold to JPMorgan Chase. The president held a small business event at the White House yesterday and said the move protects depositors and small businesses. Let me be very clear. While depositors are being protected, shareholders are losing their investments.

And critically, taxpayers are not the ones that are on the hook. Now, going forward, I've called on Congress to give regulators the tools to hold bank executives accountable. And I've called on regulators to strengthen regulations and supervision of large and regional banks. And folks, we have to make sure that we're not back in this position again. And I think we're well on our way to be able to make that assurance. So, Frank, the president sounding confident there, but this is the second largest bank failure in American history and the largest since the 2008 financial crisis. How confident is Wall Street and others about this being the end of the line? You know, Wall Street's really continue to digest this acquisition of First Republic by J.P. Morgan Chase. So first and foremost, as widely seen as a big win for J.P. Morgan, the deal given that big bank that already has more than 10 percent of all U.S. deposits, more than 90 billion dollars

in deposits. One kind of interesting wrinkle here is that 30 billion dollars of those deposits are from a March cash infusion by J.P. Morgan and 10 other large banks to try to keep this bank solvent. The bottom line for J.P. Morgan, it's a one-time gain of about $2.6 billion and $500 million in new profit annually. That $2.6 billion is a one-time thing, excluding cost. But bigger for the United States, our economy, this just raises new questions about regional banking. And if we're creating too big to fail and too small to succeed, what does this mean going forward if we have so much deposit concentration in those big banks? Also tightening credit conditions. How is it going to change how you

and I get a mortgage, a car loan, how people start small businesses? So a lot of other ramifications as this unfolds. All right. We've got one more for you while we quickly turn to the fight over the debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warning the federal government could face default as early as June 1st, sooner than previously expected. The reduced timeline increases the urgency for the White House and Congress to get on the same page. Between now and June 1st, there are only eight legislative days in which both the Senate and the House are in session at the same time. President Biden briefly addressed Yellen's announcement yesterday.

Folks, we've got a lot to do. And the most immediate thing we can do is ensure the continued reliance of our economy and the financial system. The most important thing we have to do in that regard is to make sure the threat by the Speaker of the House to default on the national debt is off the table. For over 200 years, America has never, ever, ever failed to pay its debt. We pay our bills, and we should do so without reckless hostage-taking from some of the mega-Republicans in Congress. Frank, if you could explain the consequences if we do default. You know, I was looking at the Wall Street futures just now kind of fluctuating this

morning as we weigh that possible default. Also, the federalizing raising rates. So we don't want to understate how big of a deal this is. Janet Yellen's letter warning that we could hit that borrowing limit as early as June 1st. That is so much earlier than expected. Just last week, we saw a lot of estimates, the consensus estimates that we'd reach that limit sometime in mid-July, obviously giving lawmakers a lot more breathing room. So it's obviously a very big deal,

the potential for the U.S. to default. And as you mentioned, time is not on our side when it comes to these congressional negotiations. The House is off this week and as of this morning, has a limited amount of working days on the calendar. Same story for the Senate. So Democrats are also insisting on a, quote, clean debt limit, as the president just alluded to, a debt limit increase with no conditions at all. While Republicans are calling for spending cuts and passing a bill with about four point eight trillion dollars in deficit savings over the next decades. So the credit, the credit of the United States potentially becoming a political football, the president calling lawmakers to the White House one week from today on May 9th to try to hammer out this deal. But this morning we're hearing new things on my

show, actually, Worldwide Exchange, 5 a.m. Eastern. We heard an expert from D.C. saying the most likely outcome right now would be a short term extension that would give us a little bit more breathing room, very similar to what we saw back in 2021. All right. CNBC's Frank Holland. Wait, Mika, one more thing. Happy birthday. That's nice. Happy pre-birthday. I'm surprised you guys are working. Let's get it over with today. Happy birthday. We should just do a joint cake, you know? That would save some time. I want a carrot cake. Is carrot cake an option? Okay, Frank. I don't even know if I'm invited. Frank is inviting himself and wants a carrot cake. Okay.

It's his birthday. I like the way you roll. Happy birthday, Frank. All right, Frank. Thank you, Frank. CNBC is Frank Holland. Frank's setting the menu out here. I like it.

I like it. So back to the debt ceiling, John. So the White House posture has always been we're not negotiating over this. This is something that happens every couple of years. We do it. We get it done. But Speaker McCarthy's tact has been to use this as a negotiating tool. So how did those two things, as Mika said, there are only eight days left, even though it's a month off. Eight days where the Senate and the House are both around to get something done here.

How does this end? The calendar actually is even shorter than that. First of all, also, McCarthy's overseas right now and will be for another week or so. And the president's about to get overseas. In the middle of May, he's in Asia and Australia for more than a week. So there aren't many days where the players are all going to be in town to be able to talk about this. That meeting next week does loom large. I mean, right now, these sides are nowhere close.

They're not even talking. And their public statements are talking past each other. The White House is saying, look, the debt limit's about past spending. When it's come up with Republican presidents, we simply move it on. We lift it. We go to the next thing. And they say, hey, we'll talk spending cuts, but we do that separately in the budget process. And McCarthy is trying to have the two things happen at once. There are a few other variables here. There is some thought there could be a short-term solution. Maybe Mitch McConnell and Senator Schumer would step in and try to create a few months to kick the

can down the road a little bit. But there's been no momentum yet. And so far, McConnell is deferring to McCarthy, taking his tact. And the White House is simply saying, we're not budging. I have new reporting out this morning. They're saying, we know the calendar has gotten shorter, but we are now where we thought we'd be a few months from now. But we're not changing our tactics. We need to get this done and get it done now. But there's grave concern here. This won't. So at least, does Speaker McCarthy really think he's going to extract something from the White House that said, we're not playing this game with you? We'll talk about the budget in a separate conversation. Or is he signaling to some of those members of the base that made him speaker, the members of his own party, I should say, who said you got to do

something about the debt and the deficit if you want our vote? Well, he is he's playing a very risky game here. But I think that McCarthy has to do it just to placate those voters in his coalition. And whether he even would get that much from Biden, I don't know if that's that important at this phase, but it's just he needs to get something. He needs to have some face saving move. And unfortunately, it looks like Biden is holding firm. But if this actually happens and we default, it looks bad, worse for Biden than Republicans. Yeah.

Last point on that. The White House just thinks the other. They think that the politics of this are on their side, that Americans can understand this is something you just need to do. But to Elise's point, if we do default, it's bad for everyone, but it's certainly bad for a president who's running for reelection if the economy collapses. Maybe they bring in a carrot cake from Frank. Yeah.

That's how they do it. Just solve the whole thing. Exactly. That's what they need to do. The Holland cake. All right. Thank you, Frank. All right. We'll have to have him at the table. I guess he wants some cake. Still ahead on Morning Joe, the woman accusing Donald Trump of rape and defamation gets grilled by the former president's lawyers. We'll take a look at what happened during that

intense cross-examination. And as we mentioned at the top of the show, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy appears to change his tone when it comes to sending aid to Ukraine, what he had to say to a Russian reporter yesterday. Also this morning, we'll be joined by the U.S. Surgeon General, who is out with a new warning about what he calls a profound public health concern, loneliness. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. All right. Before we get to our next guest, we do have a little bit of breaking news from what we're just talking about. Jonathan Lemaire. Yeah, an update that Speaker McCarthy, who is still overseas, has said he will accept the invitation to the White House next week. So there will be the big four. The Speaker McCarthy, McConnell, Schumer, the president of the United States will all be there to start

having these discussions about raising the debt ceiling about the budget and on the wake of Secretary Yellen's announcement that we could default as soon as June 1st. So significant for sure. While we're on the topic of Speaker McCarthy, joining us now, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has been in Israel for the past few days, where yesterday he became the second speaker ever to address Israel's parliament. In his speech, McCarthy said his goal was to reaffirm the bipartisan support that Israel has in the U.S. Congress. But he also made headlines for something he said when speaking to the media after his address. Asked by a Russian reporter about future U.S. aid to Ukraine, McCarthy offered his strongest

words yet on the war in Europe. Listen. We know that you don't support the current unlimited and uncontrolled supplies of weaponry and aid to Ukraine. So can you comment, is it possible if in the near future the U.S. policy regarding sending weaponry to Ukraine will change? SECRETARY KERRY, Yeah, I'm not sure. The sound here is not good. Did he say, I don't support aid to Ukraine? No, I vote for aid for Ukraine. I support aid for Ukraine. I do not support what your country support aid to Ukraine? No, I vote for aid for Ukraine. I support aid for Ukraine.

I do not support what your country has done to Ukraine. I do not support your killing of the children either. And I think for one standpoint, you should pull out. And I don't think it's right. And we will continue to support because the rest of the world sees it just as it is. Wow. As a frequent critic of Kevin McCarthy, I just want to say that was amazing, Richard Haass, and also much needed in terms of how some Republicans were very carefully parsing their words about aid to Ukraine and that saying it mildly. This was resounding and in an incredible situation, too. Well, it was good for several reasons. One, it was a great message to Russia for them to hear because they're counting that the Republicans aren't going to

support aid. They're wrong. Indeed, the administration is confident it has the votes when this comes up again, probably the summer or fall. It was also good that he said it in Israel because Israel has been hedging its bets all along between Russia and Ukraine. So the fact that McCarthy was that clear, that black and white on this issue was actually good. It doesn't get rid of all the questions about whether we're going to have all the ammunition and equipment to send them. We can't sustain the race that the war is using up. Doesn't solve problems of manpower for Ukraine. But as a political signal, really, really good.

I really liked that. That was his message on foreign soil. We can debate spending to a Russian reporter aid. But when we when he is on foreign soil, he's united with the U.S. president. And it's just harkens back to that moment where there was so much more bipartisanship and foreign policy. And it was it was nice to see that. It also points out the fact, John, that while Kevin McCarthy hasn't ever been as strong as he was there, that most Republicans, Mitch McConnell, especially the leadership of the Republican Party, has supported Ukraine. There are those loud voices that we talk about all the time that have been talking about maybe pulling back entirely or at least not making it a blank check in their words. But this really is broadly the position of the party.

Yeah, no doubt. There's the strongest he has been in terms of supporting Ukraine and denouncing what Russia has done. I'll parse it a little bit, though. He's never said that we shouldn't support Ukraine. He just said it shouldn't be unlimited support. So and he didn't say differently here. So that's still a debate that could be coming this summer or fall, is whether or not that this, especially if the counteroffensive, Richard, as you and I have been talking about, if the counteroffensive doesn't go as well as Ukraine hopes it does, could that impact the calculations, the funding that comes? It also should be noted that his strong support of Ukraine comes after a very prominent voice on cable news, on Fox News,

is no longer on the air, a voice that was very skeptical of U.S. efforts to help Ukraine. You're so cynical. No, but you're right. There will be a big debate, this all depending upon how the offensive goes. If the battlefield kind of looks like it looks today, plus or minus a few miles, then I think there's going to be a major debate in Europe, in the United States. Is this worth it? Would another year of fighting change any of the basics? So that debate is coming. But it's important that this year be a test of the strategy. Give Ukraine the support. Give them perhaps aircraft. Give them more advanced munitions.

See what happens. See what the Russians do. See if the Chinese step in to help them and so forth. But I think still, I think it's close to inevitable. We're going to have a first order debate on Ukraine probably come late fall, early winter about where we're going there. Well, let's look at where it is right now. We're learning more about the casualty estimates for Russia. NSC spokesperson John Kirby said yesterday the United States estimates that Russia has suffered 100,000 casualties since December. Of that number, more than 20,000

Russian troops were killed in action. According to Kirby, half of those killed were working for the Wagner mercenary group, whose leader reportedly told a pro-war Russian blogger over the weekend that he would be forced to withdraw his troops from the key city of Bakhmut if they are not resupplied with ammunition soon. The Russians are there's a lot of tension about whether or not some of these troops are being forced into battle for for Russia because of casualties like this, because they're just taking so many losses that they need more. I'm not sure either country's on a sustainable trajectory here, to be perfectly, perfectly honest, in terms of manpower. This is World War One. The rate of carnage here is quite stunning. Not clear to me either side can sustain the manpower. This is World War I. The rate of carnage here is quite stunning. Not clear to me either side can sustain the manpower. Russians are throwing a lot of untrained young men into battle. Not can't sustain probably the rates of munitions use, of equipment getting

churned up. So I think another possibility is even if negotiations don't succeed, Mika, I can imagine a situation where in six months, simply the intensity of the battle goes down. The war continues, but it's not at these sort of rates. I don't think either side can keep this up for long. Let's bring Hal Brands into this conversation. He's senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and editor of the new book entitled The New Makers of Modern Strategy from the Ancient World to the Digital Age. And kind of an interesting touch point given what Richard just said, Hal. So we'll dive into your book and start with the state of the war in Ukraine today. And is it sustainable, these World War One levels of fighting in the modern age? And what is the U.S. strategy? What are the

potentials for U.S. strategy to kind of perhaps try and move this forward in terms of supporting Ukraine in a stronger way so this doesn't drag out in such a bloody way as it already has? So I think the cruel reality of this conflict is that it's actually going to take higher levels of support for Ukraine than it's received so far in order to allow it to make the breakthroughs that would let it liberate its territory and bring the conflict to an end. The Ukrainians have a good shot in the current offensive at moving the front lines somewhat, but it may not be likely that they're able to retake all of the territory that Russia has conquered since February 2014 when they took Crimea. And so I think we're able to retake all of the territory that Russia has conquered since February

2014 when they took Crimea. And so I think we're likely to see a war that drags on beyond this offensive, perhaps beyond this year. And so it's going to take a fairly long-term American commitment to ensure Ukrainian security. So, Hal, what does this war, what does this last year and change tell you about the modern strategy that you write a book write about in this book, which is to say the rallying of the West to the aid of Ukraine, the strengthening of NATO, the addition of a new member to NATO? What has this war done or at least told you about modern strategy? Well, I think one thing it's done is to puncture the myth of Putin as the master strategist. We spent about 15 years

thinking that Putin was the judo master who could simply hold all the reins of power in his own hands and deploy that power very skillfully to get what he wanted. He was able to do that in a few small conflicts, but he's fallen flat on his face in this one. He underestimated the degree of Ukrainian resistance. He underestimated the degree to which his aggression would unite the West and bring forth a very powerful response. And he surely underestimated the degree to which this conflict would drag down Russian power, not just in the present, but for years to come. How good morning. It's Richard Haass. The book you've just updated is one that several of us, you know, 30, 40 years ago as graduate students read in earlier editions. We're on the cusp of a new set

of technologies, AI, obviously, all sorts of advances in computing and the rest. What is your thinking about how the traditional, quote unquote, laws of war, the lessons we thought we learned, how do you think this plays out in an age of chat GPT, of AI, precision guidance, robotics, and the rest? Do the classic rules still apply, or are we entering a fundamentally different era? I think the basic principles of strategy don't change a whole lot over time. They're relatively timeless. But the practice of strategy changes enormously as we get new leaders, new countries rising and falling. And as you point out, Richard, new technologies that come to the fore.

And I can give just a couple examples of this. AI in particular, which has been on everyone's mind, is going to revolutionize the way that disinformation is done. It's going to make possible the creation very cheaply of very sophisticated disinformation that will put democracies like the United States on their back foot, at least initially. It's also going to really speed up the conduct of warfare and make possible some very complex operations like drone swarms and human machine teaming that would have been impossible to do even 10 years earlier. Richard, a question for you. We have this estimate of 100,000 Russian casualties. Do you have a sense

of what Ukraine's casualties are like in a comparable period? Obviously, the war is tough on both sides, but do we have a sense of what Ukraine is losing? We have a sense, but the Ukraine has been very, very careful and very guarded in letting the information out, obviously in terms of managing the domestic and international response. But in many of these situations, we've got to assume it's really high. When offenses try to dislodge dug-in troops, which is what Ukraine is doing in parts of the east, we've got to assume the manpower losses are high. It's also probably a lot of their best troops.

It's again, Gene, why a lot of military people in the Pentagon and elsewhere simply think Ukraine cannot sustain the sort of warfare they've been on indefinitely. Too many of their of their best, most trained troops have suffered casualties. All right. The new book is entitled The New Makers of Modern Strategy from the Ancient world to the digital age. Hal Brands, thank you very much for being on the show this morning. And coming up, the latest on the 2024 Republican primary field, including new comments from Nikki Haley doubling down on her criticism of President Biden's age. Plus, we'll be joined by two Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee amid concern over ethical lapses at the Supreme Court. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. So my hands get found I'm gonna... ...set a screen.

Harden works around it. Fires the defensive horford. Difference of two seconds. Game clock and shot clock. Harden sizing up Horford. It's a three. Goal! Vintage James Harden.

The 76ers star capped a 45-point night with that go-ahead three in the final seconds of regulation against the Boston Celtics. Harden matching a playoff career high with that offensive performance, leading Philadelphia without its injured star big man, Joel Embiid, an MVP candidate, to a 119-115 win in the second round opener. Game two is tomorrow night in Boston. So, John, I know you're a Celtics guy. I'm not going to rub this in. But Harden, I mean, that looked like Harden from 10 years ago last night.

Embiid's out. He knew what he had to do, and he scored 45. Harden was great. Credit to him. The Celtics were also incredibly sloppy. A bunch of turnovers down the stretch. Just a brutal loss at home when the Sixers don't have Embiid. Sixers can now probably rest Embiid in game two to give them another more time.

They've already mission accomplished. They got one on the road. But this is who the Celtics are this year. They make things hard for themselves each and every time. And this comes on the heels of a shell-shocked crowd still recovering from the Bruins getting knocked out the day before in the same building. So a tough moment here for these Boston sports. Bruins after having had the best regular season in NHL history.

Knicks tonight. Tonight. Not pretty in game one. We're banged up. Randall likely won't play. Brunson's a little beat up. Quinton Grimes has hurt his shoulder. Must win tonight, obviously.

Must win. They go down to zero at home going to Miami. That's the end of the series. So the season is on the line tonight. They made 20% of their three-pointers the other night. You cannot win in the NBA shooting bricks like that. They're going to be better tonight. I think they got woken up.

Yeah. I mean, and credit again to Jimmy Butler, who is so good down the stretch. But he's questionable tonight as well, with a bad ankle. Out West in Denver, the top-seeded Nuggets looking really good. Grabbed a 2-0 series lead over the Suns, beating Phoenix 97-87 behind 39 points from two-time MVP Nikola Djokic. The Suns lost not only the game, they also lost Chris Paul, the star point guard, future Hall of Famer who limped off the court into the locker room

with a groin injury late in the third quarter. Things not going well for Phoenix. The series does shift back to Phoenix, though, for Game 3 on Friday night. A little hockey for you last night. Rangers-Devils. Rangers had no answers for New Jersey and Newark last night. Jersey dominating on defense. Rookie goalie Akira Schmidt making 31 saves for his second shutout of the playoffs.

He took over as a Devils starter in Game 3 with his team trailing 2-0 in that series. They came all the way back to win the whole thing last night. Devils winning game seven, 4-0, advancing to play the Hurricanes in the second round. Game one tomorrow night in Raleigh, North Carolina. And the Devils trolled the Rangers a bit, their rival across the river on Twitter, after that series-clinching win last night. Playing off the Rangers' postseason hype video, which featured the great liam neeson

reprising his speech from the film taken listen to me very carefully i don't know who you are i don't know what you're looking for but i can tell you this you better start watching the new york rangers in the nhl stanley cup playoffs got it. Come on, that's great. Liam, a big Rangers fan. So the Devils released their own version of the ad after Game 7 with the help of actor Patrick Warburton. You remember, he is the Devils superfan David Putty on Seinfeld.

Listen to me very carefully. I don't know who you are. I don't know what you're looking for. But I can tell you this. Who is this? Oh, this is round two right now. So I think you're looking for the golf course. Yeah.

Yeah, bye-bye now. Devil's giving it to the Rangers. Before we let you go, Richard, how was the met gala last night the half shirt and the whole thing you really your tribute to carl lagerfeld was yeah incredible i thought he deserved it hang on he was the one in the cap he doesn't even know what i'm talking about bless you richard in the cat suit. He doesn't even know what I'm talking about. He's like, what? Bless you, Richard Haas. So cute. I was at home reading Foreign Affairs.

And that is our coverage of that gala. Oh, well. Richard Haas. I actually really found some of the, well, you guys, we can talk a little. Yes. Actually, some of the dresses I like you guys to wear. I thought the cat one was interesting. Here's a cat. And I love the vintage Chanel.

No, not that one. Jared Leto dressed up as Karl Lagerfeld's cat. No, that's not the one. I don't like those at all. Looks like the Masked Singer. It's like a whole cat outfit? No. There was a woman who had like a very elegant.

Oh, Dojo Cat. Yes. Does anybody wear any of those clothes a second time? No, no. It's just for that night. Just the one off. Yeah. Okay. Did anybody wear any of those clothes a second time? No, no. It's just for that night. Just the one off. Yeah. Okay.

Did he wear that? Did he wear that? Did he wear that? Just the one off. He's never going to wear it again. That's a furry thing. Oh, no. No giggling.

I can't do it. We have a history. I know. Last night, I was talking to the mascot of Georgetown, and it was really freaking me out. I have a picture. Richard even looks less certain of what's going on. You were talking to the Hoya?

Yeah. Is that what it is? Yeah. Stand up for Georgetown. I'm telling James Stockdale, who am I? Why am I here? It was the whole thing. Okay.

Richard, thank you very much for being on. Richard's out of here. I'm shook. Still ahead, we'll have a look at the stories making front page headlines across the country. Also ahead, we'll dig into a bipartisan bill that is returning to the Senate floor focused on protecting kids from the harms of social media. We'll be right back. All right. Live look at Reagan National Airport as the sun comes up over Washington. Time to get up, everybody. It is a few minutes before the top of the hour and time now for a look at the morning papers.

We begin in Wisconsin, where the journal Sentinel has a front page feature on a bill to lower the legal age to serve alcohol from 18 to 14 years old. Opponents, however, say this may put pressure on teenagers to illegally serve their friends who are below the drinking age or even drink themselves. West Virginia and Maine are the only states that allow minors to serve alcohol, Willie. I don't get it. We need to know more about that one. In Michigan, the Detroit Free Press reports General Motors has laid off several hundred contract employees. It comes almost a month after 5,000 workers voluntarily agreed to leave the company. GM is trying to shave about $2 billion from its budget by the end of next year.

OK, and The Washington Times in D.C. leads with a survey that finds more students are choosing colleges based on their political beliefs. According to a new Gallup poll, 72 percent of college students say abortion laws in their school's state influenced whether they wanted to stay at that school. Another survey found 25 percent of college bound high school seniors said they ruled out universities solely based on that state's politics or policies. These young people are getting involved in every way. In Massachusetts, the Boston Globe has a front page feature on Aerosmith's final tour. The legendary rock band announced it will hit the road for the last time this fall. Aerosmith will play 40 concerts across North America, with the first held in Philadelphia. The tour then will end in January in Canada, with the caveat, Jonathan Lemire, that every band for all time has said,

this is our last tour. Sell a bunch of tickets and then go on another one in a couple of years. Yeah, I'm planning to see them in 2025. There you go. Go to the next one. All right, coming up, Henry Winkler. Henry Winkler, the great Henry Winkler, will be our guest. He won an Emmy for his role in the hit HBO series Barry. He joins us with a look at the new season. Henry Winkler, a little bit later this morning. We're back in just 90 seconds.