Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/6/24

Episode Date: May 6, 2024

Biden leads Trump among likely voters in new 2024 polling

Well, it's the first show of spring, so we'll start tonight with puppy murder. In a new book, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem revealed that she once shot a dog that was untrainable. That's insane. If a dog is untrainable, you don't shoot it, you give it to President Biden. MAGA insiders are saying that Noem, seen here wearing the hair of that dog, now has zero chance of being Trump's running mate. But I don't know. Something tells me Trump would fully support killing disobedient pets. Oh, my gosh.

It keeps on going and she keeps doubling down. It's like clean up on aisle four and then she knocks down everything down. Another possible running mate for Donald Trump making headlines this morning. We're going to show you what Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina had to say about accepting the results of this year's election. More importantly, and more to the point, to show you where the Republican Party is in 2024, what he said about not or what he didn't say, actually, about accepting the will of the people. It's it's just disturbing. And I guess we should expect it at this point. But I will continue to be shocked. It's a sign of Trump's Republican Party where he the autocratic bent. They've taken him. We'll show you. We'll show you that in a little bit.

Also, we'll get you caught up on Donald Trump's hush money trial, the criminal trial, which resumes later this morning in New York City. It comes after emotional testimony on Friday from the former president's longtime aide, Hope Hicks. Plus, we'll have a live report from Jerusalem on the new developments in the ceasefire negotiation between Israel and Hamas. A lot going on. Good morning on this Monday morning, May 6th. Welcome to Morning Joe. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Beer Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, U.S. national editor at the Financial Times, Ed Luce is with us. Rogers chair and the American presidency at Vanderbilt University historian John Meacham. We met by the way. We're going to get into this in a second. We understand

that Meacham was a difficult student. That's what we were told yesterday by someone who taught him Shakespeare at University of the South. And it was a head shaking response to how difficult. Yes, difficult. Well, I think she she may have just been saying you already knew everything. Oh, and so exactly. Oh, or that's probably that's probably what it was. Yeah. Or thought you knew. That is definitely true. Yeah. Yeah. Also with us this morning, columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius, is with us. He's the author of the new thriller, which is out tomorrow. Oh, my gosh. Entitled Phantom Orbit. And we can't wait to talk about that. Telling you these are these are so exciting, David. And the amazing thing about your books is, and the few people who try to do this but can't quite do it as well as you do,

is there are often things that you can write in these books that you can't write in nonfiction books. It's an accumulation of a lot of things that you've learned through the years that you just can't write in nonfiction books. It's an accumulation of a lot of things that you've learned through the years that you just can't write because it's been, you know, off the record. It's been deep background. You've been, as we eat some places you shouldn't have gone. And you learn things that other people haven't learned. But you put it all together in these extraordinary books so joe i have a friend uh from syria who said to me once david you tell the truth more in your fiction than you're in your journalism i don't know how to i don't know how to respond to that but there there is a kind of truth in this book about what's coming at us, which is space warfare.

That's the future of warfare. We're seeing Ukraine as the first space war. So those are the kinds of things I'm trying to deal with in this new novel. Wonderful. We'll talk more about it, David. Thanks for being on this morning. And you talked about RIP from the headlines. I was reading an article yesterday specifically about the fear of Putin's war in space and what countries across the world are trying to do to catch up with it. Let's get to our top story this morning. Two new polls find

President Joe Biden narrowly leading Donald Trump in November's general election race. In the first from ABC News and Ipsos, Biden is up four points, 49 to 45 percent among likely voters nationwide. In the second from NPR, PBS and Marist College, Biden holds a five point lead, 52 to 47 percent among registered voters who say they definitely plan to vote in November. That is still within the margin of error. What do you make at this point? It's kind of hard to take any poll that seriously, but what is it telling you in terms of the state of the race and also the fact that it's tight given the options? Well, I mean, we're so many months out. So these polls in May just don't make a huge difference. But I will tell you, as a candidate myself, when I was a candidate myself, I would take a poll from time to time.

You just want to see you want to test the temperature. You want to. And again, as I've always said, you want to look at trends. We saw a couple of months ago, Joe Biden far behind in a lot of polls. These these show something quite different that he's that he's he's he's now moving ahead of Donald Trump. Again, among the likely voters, you know, polls and polls of adults, even polls of registered voters. This far out. You really you you you might as well be watching Housewives of Beverly Hills, which I hear is really heated up quickly this season. But but something something as you dig into these polls, I think makes this election actually unique, at least in America. But I think it's the way we're going. Ed Luce, I want to go to you really quickly. The Financial Times, I think a couple of months ago, talked about how the approval ratings of

candidates, presidential candidates, incumbents, just collapsed. And so if you're trying to predict how an election is going to turn out, don't look at that because you'll have as much luck as they did in France when they were seeing Macron in the low 30s and then ending up winning, you know, 50, you got 57, 58 percent of the vote. We see that here, especially the ABC poll, where Joe Biden's approval ratings are as low as they've been. And on issues, Donald Trump doing better than the president in many areas. But then you start asking about who has better character, who's a better person, who understands people like you and those sort of questions. And Joe Biden wins. And some of those, he wins by a great deal. And so those approval ratings, again, just as the Financial Times had reported several months ago, low approval ratings.

And yet he still prevails, especially against a candidate like Donald Trump. Is that just where we are now because of social media and everything else? You're just going to have presidential incumbents with low approval ratings that may end up like Macron winning comfortably. Yeah, I think that's that's well put, Joe. I mean, governments all around the democratic world have low approval ratings relative to most of the rest of the West. Other democracies. America is the fastest growing economy, is doing far better, in fact, than countries across the Atlantic. And yet Biden's ratings are as low as they are there. So there is a general just anti-incumbency feeling across the democratic world. A good economy doesn't seem to make that much difference. But we're not really at the choice stage where most voters are focusing like we do obsessionally here in the Beltway.

And I think, therefore, once once we do get those polls, I've always had after Labor Day, I've always had the hunch that this is going to be a referendum on Trump, not on Biden, because Trump will make it a referendum on Trump. He just can't help himself. So you might think I'm being a bit Panglossian, but I think ultimately Biden's got the edge here. I, you know, I hope I'm not going to live to regret those words. Right. Well, you know, while you were talking, I actually wrote a note to Mika. I said, I fear that is being a bit hand-glossing. I know. And I think it's a good word for Monday morning.

It's so weird. We almost said the same thing to each other. We did. It's really strange. We're kind of lined up. It's like we finished each other's sentences. But a great point, though. It does.

It's beautiful. And John Meacham, I think Ed is so right. 2016, we look back and that was not about Donald Trump. Actually, that was about Hillary Clinton. It was a referendum on the Clintons, on the Bushes, on the people who had run the country since 1980. And then 2020, obviously, a referendum on Donald Trump. And I just with all that he's saying, the fact that he has to say something shocking and new every day just to sort of amp up his base. 2024 will also be at the end of the day, a referendum on Donald Trump. Well, that makes it a referendum on the battle for our better angels, which is not Panglossian. That's that's I think that that's a discernible truth. And these darker instincts, these authoritarian instincts that the former president is articulating. He's saying it all. So for those of us who believe that this is about democracy, democratic norms,

a constitution that for all its imperfections continues to enable us to try to create a more perfect union, all of which shouldn't necessarily be on the ballot. Right. I mean, that's that, you know, we ordinarily we're voting on a role of the state in the marketplace. We're voting perhaps on the role of how we project force in the world. Those are the ordinary political choices. This is not that.

This is about do you believe in a we the people or you do you believe in I am your retribution? And so, yes, it's a referendum on Trump, but presidential politics, not but and and presidential politics is a choice. It's a binary choice, although and I don't know if this polling shows this, how the third party candidates are doing is going to matter enormously. And so, you know, I believe forty nine, forty five. That that makes some sense to me. But is when you introduce the other possibilities here, what who does who does that hurt is a really important question. And as you said, really in about seven or eight states. Yeah. And in this poll, at least in the ABC poll, even with all the other candidates introduced, Joe Biden still beats Donald Trump. It is, though,

still in the range of the margin of error. You know, Jonathan Lemire, I just wanted to follow up on what Ed Liu said offhandedly about the American economy being superior to all other economies across the globe. It's not even close. The Wall Street Journal said the United States is the envy of the world at the end of the year. One of its well, the editor emeritus of the opinion page said the great winner of 2023 was the American economy, the loser China's economy. You look at all the numbers and we can pick through the numbers. So it's a little bit we've been complaining for the past year that the economy is too strong, that it's too hot, that it's pushing up inflation because it's so strong. But, you know, people across the world are looking at our economy

and post-COVID and wondering how in the world we did it because it is so superior to other economies, both our friends and our enemies. No question. America's post-pandemic economy, the envy of the world. Some signs made at the end of last week that perhaps some of that heat was cooling off, which might allow the Fed to tweak interest rates. Unclear, though, whether that will happen between now and the November election. And let's be clear here.

National polls only mean so much, though, Joe, I agree. The trend lines have been pro Biden in recent weeks, except for that one outlier from CNN, maybe about a week back, which had Trump up five or six. Most seem to be going Biden's direction now. But as we well know, this is not a campaign that's going to run in a national election. It's about the battleground states. Those swing states polls very close. Trump up in more than Biden, but virtually every state within the margin of error. We heard over the weekend from some Republicans who think that Minnesota and Virginia could be in play. Consider me highly doubtful of that, particularly Virginia. Trump was close to Minnesota before, though.

We should note he actually came close to Minnesota previously. But David Ignatius, we know the Biden team, there's a couple pickups they're looking at, too. North Carolina, first and foremost. They feel good about where they are there. Florida, more of a reach. But at the very least, they think they'll have to they'll force the Republicans to spend some resources. I know you had a conversation with some senior Biden folks over the weekend. Give us their insights as to where they think the race stands. So, John, the interesting thing about my conversations with these Biden campaign officials is that their own polling shows that a lot of people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 aren't convinced yet that Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee. And once they become convinced of it, it happens.

He is he is a candidate. There's more of a chance of what we've all been talking about, which is that this election is not a referendum on Joe Biden with all of his weaknesses and gaffes. It's a referendum on the person who was president for four years, Donald Trump. And you remind people systematically what that was like. You bring back all the memories that people have. Let's not forget that in 2022, when the Republicans thought they'd have a red wave, they didn't. Why? Because people look back at the Trump years with a lot of distaste. So I think that's basically their idea. One interesting thing, Jonathan, is that we think that with Trump tied down in court in New York, scowling at everybody, looking like he's miserable, that's probably good for good for the campaign for Biden.

But actually, the Biden people, I think, would rather have him out of the country saying things that then get him in trouble. The Time magazine interview is a perfect example. But they feel like every time he's out there on the loose, he says something that reminds people this is how he would govern. And they think that's really the best thing they've got going. Well, and he's done that in his Time magazine interview. But David, so right. Nothing like seeing it. And the campaign's so right that the people that are the professionals, he actually Donald

Trump has professionals running his campaign. And for them, less is more. The less Donald Trump's out on the campaign trail, the less he's saying crazy things, the more they can say, oh, look back and look back at how great things were in 2019, 2018. That's what they want to do and pretend that that this explosive volcanic side of Donald Trump doesn't exist. So it is so interesting when you hear people saying, oh, this is Biden that wants him in court. No, Joe Biden and the campaign team would love him at rallies every night again because he he says he says just crazy things. He loses his train of thought sometimes he he looks like a

doddering old man they say and and and we've seen we could show the clips but in court all he has to do he can sleep he can he can do whatever he's doing salacious hideous things are being you know proposed about his activity i mean right i I don't know. I think it's a balance. We'll see how I've heard this many times that they'd rather have him out there. I'm not sure. But then he walks out and he has, you know, a little moment to talk for 30 seconds and they can contain that. That's very easy to contain. And then you can just play victim the rest of the time. Well, we'll we'll watch and see what happens. And court resumes today. So a lot to talk about moving forward in the next few hours with that in terms of Donald Trump's criminal trial

in New York City. Let's move, though, to the fast moving developments out of the Middle East. Now, NBC News and the Associated Press reports CIA Director Bill Burns may now have to travel to Israel to hold more talks about a potential ceasefire in an effort to free hostages from the Gaza Strip. Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel was not prepared to end the war permanently, saying such a move would leave Hamas in power. Meanwhile, an Israeli Defense Forces spokesman said around 100,000 Palestinian civilians have been told to evacuate the city of Rafah as Israel appears poised to launch a new operation there. A senior Arab negotiator directly involved in the talks with Israel and the United States

tells NBC News that the ceasefire negotiations are not over and have not collapsed. It is not yet clear when or whether a major Rafah operation could begin. Adding further complication to the ceasefire talks is an attack that happened yesterday near a southern border crossing into Gaza, which killed four Israeli soldiers and injured at least 10 others, according to the IDF. Hamas took responsibility for the assault that Israeli military officials say involved roughly 14 rockets and mortars. The IDF in turn destroyed the weapon involved in carrying out the attack, as well as other Hamas military

infrastructure. There's no indication whether the crossing itself was the target of the attack. Joining us now from Jerusalem is NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. Richard, what more can you tell us this morning? So it seems we are at a crossroads right now. There had been some progress over the last several days to try and reach a ceasefire. Those ceasefire talks fell apart over the weekend, and now there is an effort to try and cobble them back together. But there are real differences between Hamas's position and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's position and his government's position. So we either have a deal, and there's definitely an effort to try and reach a deal, or the deal is blown up and Israeli forces go into Rafah.

And both seem likely, and pressure is being put on both of these fronts right now. So let me start with, and they're absolutely interrelated. So let me start on the ceasefire front, and then the pressure that's being put on Rafah. And you mentioned those evacuation orders. First on the ceasefire, there was an attempt to reach in a ceasefire. There were Hamas negotiators, Qatari negotiators, Egyptian negotiators, all beating in various locations, Cairo primarily. And Hamas said it wants to make a deal. It's ready to make a deal. It received a document from Israel.

It said it was studying it positively. Israel didn't send a negotiator to that forum, and the talks fell apart. They fell apart because the two sides don't agree on what the deal is ultimately going to achieve. What Hamas says it wants is an end to this round of fighting, an end to this current conflict, not an end globally to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but an end to the Gaza fighting. And it wants Israeli troops to pull back.

That would leave, effectively, Hamas, some sort of Hamas government in charge. And in exchange for that, for Israel ending to, agreeing to end the conflict and pulling out, there would be hostage releases. The Israeli government says it will not accept that. It would only give a temporary ceasefire, days, weeks, in order to get some hostages out and then would continue to go after Hamas. And Palestinians, including Hamas representatives, say that doesn't make any sense. What incentive does Hamas have to release the only leverage that it's holding, these hostages, about 100 of them still believed to be alive, if Israel says, once you do release

them, then we're just going to go after you and try and eliminate you. The other focus here is the city of Rafah. That's where about a million Palestinians are taking shelter. It's right in the southern part of the country. There was an attack in that area yesterday carried out by Hamas that you just mentioned. That is also where to believe the Hamas leadership is holding out, is the last place still under Hamas effective control. Now, the Palestinians who are there don't want to see the Israelis move in in a major way. President Biden has said that he doesn't want to see the Israeli military move in in a major way. It would be a humanitarian catastrophe. But Israel says the only way to eliminate Hamas, take it from power in Gaza, is by going into Rafah. And today we saw the first concrete action signaling that Israel might, in fact, do that,

dropping leaflets, sending text messages to about 100,000 people in a corner of Rafah, telling them to leave because a major military action is coming. The major military action in Rafah hasn't started yet. It could be a warning. It could be a part of a negotiating tactic because, like I said earlier, these things are both related. It could be that the Israelis are just trying to put pressure on Hamas saying, not only are we prepared to come into Rafah, we're going to do it. We're already issuing leaflets for people to leave. So you better agree to the terms right now. Things are at a critical juncture, I think, right now.

And we will see if we either have a major invasion into Rafah or some sort of deal perhaps emerging in the next several days. All right. NBC's Richard Engel live in Jerusalem. Thank you so much. We really appreciate your report. David Ignatius. So the question is how to get to this deal for a ceasefire when Hamas is demanding an evacuation of the IDF from Gaza. And that'll never happen. I mean, Israel, the Israeli people, this is not about Benjamin Netanyahu. The Israeli people simply will never, ever, ever stand for Hamas running Gaza again. And I'm not so sure many Palestinian people in Gaza would like that as well. So how do you split that difference? How do you get the hostages home? And how do you make the ceasefire long enough to get buy-in from Hamas so these families can be reunited with their hostages and humanitarian aid

can go in unabated in Gaza. So, Joe, this is why we're at an impasse. And the way I would sum it up is that Hamas is still playing for a win. Hamas wants to come out of this so it can proclaim that it was victorious in the campaign that began October 7. And Israel, understandably, is determined to resist that. So we're at this moment where there is, I think, growing consensus in Israel that they have to do this last RAF operation. I was struck by the fact that the chief of, minister of defense, Yoav Galant, who's been the person the U.S. government has felt most comfortable talking with in these last weeks, came out yesterday in favor of the invasion of RAFA in a more forthright way than he has.

I found the fact that they were actually leafleting parts of RAFA saying, flee for your lives. The IDF is coming. Important. I can remember being in Beirut in 1982 when those leaflets came down from the sky saying the same thing. And they mean it. 11th hour efforts by Bill Burns to put some compromise on the table that allows each side to feel that it can say it's winning when it's in fact a compromise. Bill Burns is an artist. If anybody can do it, Burns can. But at this point, I think the likelihood that these combatants, as exhausted as they are and as battered as the Palestinian civilian

population of Gaza is, even so, I have a terrible feeling that this war is going to go on further because the combatants are not exhausted. One thing the United States could do is to say, we feel it's time for this war to end. If Israel decides it needs to attack Rafah, it will do so without U.S. weapons, because we're not comfortable with this next phase of the war. I think the administration is right up at that point, talking with the White House. I know that's on their list. That's a big step to say, Israel, you'll fight this next battle alone. I don't think they're there yet. But the basic point I would make is that efforts to find a compromise where everybody says they got something acceptable are fading. And each side still wants a win.

And the one thing that Israelis will not will not allow to happen. And this isn't just Netanyahu. This is the Israeli people. And that is for Hamas to claim a win. Right. For what they did on October the 7th and for Hamas to stay in power. That's not that's no more acceptable to all the Israeli people. Hamas staying in power in Gaza than it would be for us to leave al Qaeda in place after September the 11th.

So the question is, how do you find how do you give enough of a ceasefire? So it's worth it for Hamas, who is not going to stay in power to release the hostages. That's that's Bill Burns charge dynamic. Still ahead in just one minute, we're going to go over what to expect today when Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial resumes and the big takeaways from the emotional testimony by Hope Hicks on Friday. And that continues today as well. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 60 seconds. Insiders said that during his hush money trial, Donald Trump complained that none of his supporters were in court with him. But that's not true. What about all those cops?

Former President Donald Trump, seen here definitely not sleeping, is probably just praying. Former President Trump, for the first time in his trial, wrote a message on a yellow Post-it note and handed it to his lawyer while he was making an argument. The Post-it read simply, can't pay you. Didn't Donald Trump say that he wasn't asleep, he was just closing his beautiful blue eyes and taking everything in? Yeah, take it all in. Day 12 of Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial resumes this morning in a New York City courtroom after a revealing day of testimony on Friday when Trump's former confidant and longtime aide Hope hush money payments came about. Let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Lisa, everyone was talking about sort of the emotional part of this where Hope broke down. But what is it that she brought to the table in terms of what the prosecution is looking to prove? I think, Mika, that hope was the most valuable witness

on the context of what was happening in the campaign in October 2016 that would have led Michael Cohen and Donald Trump to believe that a payoff to Stormy Daniels was not just advisable, but absolutely necessary to preserve his chances. I had a chance to reread the testimony over the weekend once we had the transcript. And the timeline that she puts into motion is absolutely devastating. It starts with being notified of the Access Hollywood tape by The Washington Post. She's the first person in the campaign to understand that The Washington Post has the tape and the transcript on October 7th. Once the tape is released and the article is published, so many things happen in rapid succession.

A number of very prominent Republicans quickly disassociate themselves from Donald Trump and the campaign. You've got another tape and a rumor about it coming to her the next day on October 8th. Then by October 9th, Trump has his next debate. The first question out of the gate or one of them from Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz is about the Access Hollywood tape. By October 10th, The New York Times is publishing reports of other problematic behavior that Trump has had with women. And then by the 15th and the 16th, Trump is again on the offensive, pushing back against these other women's stories, not stories involving Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal, but other women who have accused Trump

of misconduct in this period. And so she is taking us through in rapid fire succession, one crisis after another, after another, precipitated all at once by the Access Hollywood tape from which they can't get out from under. engineering these settlement payments to happen because they needed this problem to go away, as opposed to continuing throughout November and up till Election Day, Mika. So Politico says in their story reporting on this that Hope Hicks offered the defense their first glimmer of hope here and says that Trump's lawyers have argued that Trump's motivation in seeking to silence two women, former Playboy model Karen McDougal and porn star Stormy Daniels, as prosecutors relate, but instead to protect his family. The motive is important because in trying to convict Trump of 34 felonies, prosecutors is seeking to link allegedly fraudulent business records with violations of election laws.

There were parts of her testimony where she actually did say he was doing it to protect the family. Right. Well, yes and no. I would say, Joe, she said it was a motivation, but not the motivation or even the principal motivation. It's like having two hungry mouths to feed. And if the defense is one of those mouths, she gave them a nice and tasty dessert, but she saved the main meal for the prosecution in that she revealed in 2018,

once Michael Cohen came forward and told the New York Times that he had made the payment to Stormy Daniels, Hope Hicks at the very end of her testimony describes the conversation that she had with Donald Trump very shortly thereafter, where he told her that he had spoken to Cohen and that Cohen had made that payment out of the goodness of his heart to protect Trump from false accusations. Hope didn't believe that. But what she said next was the more devastating thing.

Trump then said to her, I think it was better that this come out now than if it had come out during the campaign and Michael hadn't made that payment at all. It was clear to her that the primary motivation, and while she didn't say this outright, she was conveying for Donald Trump the most important motivating factor was not Melania's feelings, but preserving his electoral chances. So, Lisa, let's look ahead to this week. What do we know about who we might hear from? And also, is there more gag order details to get through? I believe there were there was going to be a second hearing for some gag order rules broken. Let's start with the second part. There was that second hearing. I do not believe that the punishment for the alleged violations will be incarceration,

in part, Mika, because they happened before the first hearing. And so if Donald Trump is going to be fairly warned that incarceration could be a penalty for his criminal contempt, this wouldn't have done it. In terms of what to expect this week, I think it's really anybody's guess. But I can tell you thematically, it feels like Hope Hicks is the last witness, at least for right now, to testify to the formation of the conspiracy to get Donald Trump elected by paying off these women and that we should be moving into the real heart of the matter here, which is the falsification of business records in order to conceal that conspiracy to elect Donald Trump through unlawful means. So who are we likely to see here in this phase?

A number of Trump organization employees who are involved in the invoices and general ledger statements. We also might hear from Madeline Westerhout, who was Trump's executive assistant in the White House. You might be asking yourself, what does she have to do with all this? Well, she's the person at the White House who had to place the nine checks that Donald Trump signed in front of him. And we've already seen through Rona Graff's testimony, one email in particular where Rona and she are discussing,

like, how do we send these things back and forth? Can you send me a FedEx label? I'm sending you checks for him to sign. So count on Madeline Westerhout being a critical witness here to establishing that Donald Trump had knowledge and participation in this portion of the crime, which, as I said, is really the heart of what the Manhattan DA's office has to prove. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, thank you so much. John Meacham, there is simply, we won't even ask, and we stopped asking some time ago for historical parallels. There are no historical parallels in this country. But my gosh, as you said before, what is at stake is so massive this fall. I'm curious your thoughts when you see

this testimony and the Time magazine article, the continued threats of an authoritarian regime coming directly from Donald Trump. It's so interesting. People say, oh, they've got Trump derangement syndrome, if they say. And then they will repeat something that Donald Trump has said directly himself and projected onto other people. You know, Donald Trump constantly saying something and then trying, I'm going to terminate the constitution. I never said I was going to terminate the constitution. I'm going to be a dictator. I never. And I'm going to monitor women's pregnancy. I'm going to monitor women's in support of monitoring women's pregnancies. And they'll say, I never said that. But of course, giving his people what they want

to hear. So I'm just curious about your take of where we are right now. I think my answer is at once to me, thrilling and terrifying. It's thrilling because it's up to all of us. It's up to these the voters in the seven or eight states. It's up to all of us. It's up to the voters in the seven or eight states. It's up to those of us who have strong feelings about the continuance of the constitutional order to make this case. And that's great, right? That's we the people. What's terrifying is that it's up to us and it's up to the voters in the swing states and it's up to those of us who have to make the case to people around the country. If there's no mystery here. Right. It's going to be I think it's going to be impossible for people to vote in the fall and not understand what's at stake. And if maybe that's part of what those of us who, you know, want to make this case

have to keep doing is making sure we say it. And it may seem repetitive to the political industrial class, but that doesn't matter. I think, as Ed was saying, you know, there are normal people who are better adjusted than we are and don't worry about this all the time. But it's really, really important. And I don't think there's again what I would say to anyone who says, yeah, but yeah, Trump is awful. But whatever is there is no but it's got to be. Yeah, Trump is that. And I'm going to vote against him. And I just think that's where we are. I say that not as a Democrat and not as a Republican, as somebody who has voted for presidents of both parties. I'm talking to a former Republican member of Congress who was elected in a year where you all broke Democratic control for the first time in a biblical 40 years.

Right. And here you are having left that party and making this case. And it's not a partisan choice. It's not a partisan decision that at least in my head, it's about the Constitution. Well, you know, and it should be. We balance a budget of four years in a row for the first time in a century. We passed welfare reform. We we we did. We did so many things that at one time people would applaud if they were conservatives. Now you you you have really a political cult. And so, yeah, it's very distressing because ideology doesn't matter.

Ideas don't matter. And it's so funny for people who may have been surprised to watch the show every day. And thank you for watching the show every day. During some of the campus protests, people wrote in and said, you sound conservative. And I said, where have you been for 17 years? That's the thing. I think good conservatives, good moderates, good liberals, good progressives can all agree on the same thing, that we've got a wonderful country. We've got a great constitution. We need to keep moving toward being a more perfect union. We recognize our flaws, but we also recognize a great future if

we go in the right direction. And that's one of the things, that is one of the positive things, that I've loved. I've loved being able to talk to progressives and talk to liberals and talk to people who I may have disagreed with through the years and get together. This is something so much bigger. It is. This is about the Constitution. This is about America. Mike Pence is president of the United States, we have a constitution that rounds off the sharp edges because they respect the guardrails of American democracy. Yeah. Donald Trump is unique in the fact that he does not. And I've just got to say again, it's what it's it is, as John said,

it's I'm a conservative guy from from northwest Florida and there are progressives on the other side. We agree that we're at a moment right now where we all need to come together and protect this democracy, protect this Constitution. And it's very clear from people who study it every day, like like all of us, that this country will change in a extremely significant way if Trump wins the next election, unlike the last time that he won. Yeah, he's promised that. I know that. But we also know what he tried to do the last time around, but he didn't have the people in place that he will this time. They have a whole project to set that up. And when you look at that Time magazine article, at least at least you're writing about why Europe should brace itself

for a for Donald Trump, for another term of Donald Trump. Tell us about it. Well, the European strategy up until now has been to hope that Trump doesn't get reelected. I mean, there's not much you can do in practical terms to hedge against this horrific possibility. Trump first time round was pretty bad. And I think there is an understanding that if he gets elected again in November, it's going to be by a multiple much, much worse than it was last time. So in terms of trade wars, Trump believes that deficits, U.S. deficits with any country means by definition America is being ripped off. So there would be a transatlantic trade war, a far greater scale than there was with the

aluminum and steel tariffs we got last time. The word, of course, be the end of NATO, if not legally, certainly de facto, in terms of Trump saying that countries that haven't spent 2 percent of their GDP are not paying their membership dues. He sees this as a club. And therefore, we will not come to your aid if you're attacked by Putin. Putin, of course, has his eyes on other countries than just Ukraine. He's got Moldova in his sights.

He's got the Baltic Republic in his sights. None of them believe that a Trump administration would back them up in a showdown with Putin. So Europe has to brace itself. It has to prepare for the possibility of Trump. And it's very hard to know how to do that. Some countries like Poland are spending 4% of their GDP on defense, which is higher than America, by the way. But he's not going to take those things into account.

He has a preconceived view about Europe as moochers, you know, people who basically rely on American subsidies, and he wants to eliminate those subsidies. All right, Ed Luce, thank you so much. John Meacham, once again, a warning. Like Eisenhower of the political industrial complex, even Ike could not imagine a day. If only he could understand Shakespeare.

When there would be four-hour political shows daily. That's right. All right. We'll get back to you on your Swanee. Yeah, good luck with that. You might want to. I would say I look forward to that, but I don't. But thank you. You shouldn't. Yeah. Good luck with that. You might want to. I would say I look forward to that, but I don't. But thank you. You shouldn't. OK. David Ignatius from reality. That sounds like

fiction. And that's where we are now to fiction. That sounds like reality. Tell us about your new book, a thriller entitled Phantom Orbit. So, Joe and Mika, Phantom Orbit is about the world of warfare that has really arrived. We don't think of it, but the Ukraine war is really the first space war. All of the communications equipment that allows Ukraine to keep fighting in this war, its targeting, its intelligence assessment, all is happening through space systems. Russians realize that or are trying new ways to take those systems down. My book opens with a Russian scientist who believes that he has discovered a Russian-American, a Russian-Chinese kill switch that can turn off the GPS system on which we rely for basically every aspect of our commercial lives. GPS runs transportation. Every cell phone connects with GPS.

So he sees this as a kind of weapon of mass destruction in the hands of the Russians and Chinese. And he decides that he has to tell the CIA about this and communicates that information to them. And they don't do anything with it. Weeks pass and nothing happens. And the question that we open the book with is, why? The book then pulls back and looks at the roots of this man's obsession with space systems, his relationship with an American woman who's a CIA officer, and moves toward the present moment when the Ukrainian

war is going on, and all these issues are really matters of absolute life and death for our character and for our countries. But I think the basic takeaway, Joe and Mika, is that we're entering a new world in warfare. The next war will begin in space. It may end in space. And these are systems that people haven't really begun to think about. So the pleasure of being a novelist in the time I'm not a journalist is I get to think in this broader way about what's coming and the characters who are driving it. The Washington Post's David Ignatius. Thank you. His new novel, Phantom Orbit, is officially out tomorrow. Congratulations,

David, and thank you very much for coming on this morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe, The Atlantic's Anne Applebaum will join us with her new piece about democracy and how it's losing the propaganda war and what autocrats in Russia and China are now doing with mega Republicans to discredit freedom everywhere. Morning Joe will be right back. Lionel Messi into the attack. Plays it ahead. Watch Luis Suarez from the sharp angle. He strikes again.

Are you kidding me? It's a hat trick for Luis Suarez. Lionel. Lionel Messi continues to make it look easy in the MLS. That assist of former Liverpool legend Luis Suarez was Messi's fifth assist of the second half on Saturday, propelling his team to the win. Let's bring in right now NBC Sports

soccer analyst and founder of Men in Blazers media network Roger Bennett. Roger, it's really just it's kind of impossible to explain adequately the impact Messi is having in the MLS. It just, tickets, ticket prices exploding.

These cities just flooding to see this guy. And a lot of old hands saying, see him while you have the chance. He is the greatest of all time. That I would not argue with Joe. But watching him play football is so joyful. It's like every week watching the Ewoks win the battle for Endor. He delivers. But you want to talk about the Premier League, right?

Because Mika watches the Premier League. Let's talk. I do. Let's talk. I do. Let's talk. On a loop. Mika wants to talk about the Premier League and how Liverpool decides to actually win when it no longer matters.

Yeah, we'll get to Liverpool, Joe. But let's start with the big teams who actually can win things because the Premier League is careening into its final two weekends. Title race for Mika going down to the wire. A bit like the Kentucky Derby with both Arsenal and three-time defending champion Manchester City

headed for a photo finish going right down to the last nose hair. First up, London Arsenal, owned by LA Rams Stan Kroenke. Welcome Bournemouth. And open the scoring in the sunshine, Young King Bukayo Saka, from the spot, cooler than the polar bear's toenails. Declan Rice, span round like a record baby, right round to deliciously caress the ball to Trossard. And then Rice again, finished it off at the death.

A fine, exquisite cap to a tenacious 3-0 win. Finished with a salute to the fans. Absolutely delirious. This team, Arsenal, so young, throwing haymakers like Lamar Kendrick at Drake. But all eyes are moved up north to Manchester, where Abu Dhabi own Manchester City. They held serve and nerve.

They are a machine. Against Wolves, the star of this game, giant Norwegian Hodor Erling Haaland. This man is, well, he's really chapped GPT and cleats. He scored four times. Hedda, like watching Vince Carter dunk on Frederick Weiss if Vince Carter had been born in Norway. And then he rolled over all comers.

This was like watching Larry Bloody Zonker, Scandinavian Larry Zonker, hit the ball as if it was Tom Brady at his row city. Their footballing ultimacy bereft of nerves. One point behind Arsenal with that extra game to play. Honestly, feel like a mortal lock. But we want to talk about your beautiful, human Liverpool Joe. That Teutonic Care Bear of a manager, Jurgen Klopp,

at his penultimate game at Anfield, playing Tottenham, who for most of this game were as bad as Christy Noem reading her own book on tape. Liverpool ultimately won this game 4-2. The pick of the goals, let's see it. That Dickensian street scamp Harvey Elliott thundering the ball home from Caitlin Clarke range. But it is incredible, Joe, to

watch this man, Jurgen Klopp, a German in England, a man who an enormous weight has been lifted from his shoulders by his announcement that he's going to leave after eight years. He was left to celebrate and revel, really in the expression of collective gratitude for the journeys he's taken these fans around the world on,

like you, and the dreams that he's allowed them to share. Even me, who is only 3% human, find it incredibly moving. Well, I've got to say, when we will be watching that on the loop, on a loop, and trying to dissect everything that he said, it's like reading James Joyce. It really is. You're going to be studying this for a while to pick up the Christine Ohm references, the Kendrick Lamar references, the Tom Brady Rose references. I want to know Roger's thoughts. I thought you meant Jürgen Klopp and you meant me.

Mika, I've got to tell you, that has made my week. You saying football, you watch it on a loop. Genuinely, my work here is done. On a loop. On a loop. Okay, Roger Bennett. Thank you. Thank you, Roger.

Very much.