Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/16/23

Episode Date: June 16, 2023

Trump unusually attached to his 'beautiful mind' boxes at Mar-a-Lago

Are you ready? Food for everyone. So former President Trump, that was the day. Food for everybody. Yeah. He was arrested and released, but he kept everybody's spirits up. By buying lunch for them. Yeah, food for everybody. Local Cuban restaurant in Miami. Willie, that is so kind of him.

You know what, maybe he's been misjudged after all. Willie him. You know what? Maybe he's been misjudged after all. Willie, what do you think? Maybe he's been misjudged after all. I think Mika called this in real time and every day since, but I'll let you reveal the story. Well, the Miami New Times reports nobody ordered anything during his 10-minute stop, and Trump didn't pay for anything. I don't think there was even an offer to do so. Willie, nobody ordered nothing.

Nobody paid for nothing. There was no paying. It was, I know this is going to shock you, coming from Donald Trump, it was all a scam. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Friday, June 16th, along with Willie, Joe, and me. We have former aides to the George W. Bush White House and State Department. He was really good. And there's Lemire.

He has to, you know, get that screen time. Let's try this again. Alright, so TJ, ready? Let's do Lemire. Okay, that's Lemire. Let's do Elise Jordan. She was really important and still is. And now let's do Richard Haas. Now can you

do Willie Geist? Let's see if you can get Willie. OK, and now you have Chopper 4 anywhere. Former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg joins us, as well as Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post and MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson. And of course, he's back again. Lamere. Jonathan Lamere. Jonathan Lamere.

So is that something really that Mika was able to call that in real time, that Trump is going to pay for absolutely nothing? No. Yeah, I think decades of experience told Mika that there was going to be no free food for everyone. It's the Miami Times reported yesterday. Yeah, no, I know. going to be no free food for everyone. It's the Miami Times reported yesterday. Yeah, no, I know. And Jonathan, I know you're reporting and you're hearing from people close to Trump, like a lot of us are, growing concern about all of these indictments. And as you said

yesterday, actually silence around New Jersey. There's a little bit of rumbling there, like, oh, he's not really going to do that. But I'm from the Trump camp, but I'm not so sure about that. Yeah. First of all, you can imagine my absolute being stunned that Donald Trump would not fall through and pay people there. That place is very good, though. Versailles is excellent Cuban food. This is there is real concern.

And forget the check. This is something that the former president and his inner circle have been worried about for a while. He's facing someone now in Jack Smith who they simply don't know, and they feel like they can't intimidate, that he is someone who seems immune to what their typical playbook is, which is the smokescreen and the attacks, the assertions of bias. And to this point, that hasn't worked. And we see that the New Jersey thing, I also, Joe, yes, last night heard from a few people in the Trump world saying, we don't think how, we're not sure how real that is.

But they also can't rule it out because they didn't expect all that's happened to this point. And we know that it's not just New York, which they actually feel fine about. They're deeply concerned about the Mar-a-Lago documents, and they're really worried still about Georgia. Georgia's been the one that's been the prop that's been the flashing light for them all along. And it's not like that has gone away, Joe and Mika. That's just probably a few weeks down the road. I mean, Chuck, you know, there are a lot of times that prosecutors have to really stretch to prove their cases. A lot of circumstantial evidence. Sometimes it's not quite as strong as they like. But you look at that Georgia case, they've got the tape recordings.

You look at the Mar-a-Lago case, they've got incredible physical evidence. They've got him saying things again on on audio tape that that that close him. And they've got him saying thing in speeches and on Sean Hannity show that are their admissions of guilt. Again, the picture is so much and so much hard evidence. They're really problematic for this guy. Well, I think that's right. And when you look at the Mar-a-Lago case, you actually have a lot to look at. We have an indictment. And when you write an indictment, and I've written many of them as a federal prosecutor, Joe, you make sure that you can prove every word, every sentence, every paragraph, assuming that's what the prosecutors did here. And I assume they did because they're really good at their jobs, that's going to be a very tough case for Mr. Trump. And as you point out, there are a

bunch of different trains on a bunch of parallel tracks in New York and Georgia and perhaps elsewhere. So I would also like to underscore something else you said. These federal prosecutors, Jack Smith and his team, are an enormously talented and experienced group of prosecutors. First, they're not going to be intimidated by Mr. Trump or anyone else. Second, they are not trying their case in the public sphere. It's going to be in a courtroom, in a federal court in Florida. And third, they're really good at what they do. You know, I won a lot of cases as a prosecutor, and I was remarkably mediocre. And what makes the difference is that you have the facts and the law.

When you have the facts and the law, you don't have to be a gifted advocate. You just have to be competent. You have to be able to stand up in court and introduce your evidence. If you can do that and you got it, then you have a strong case. Well, Chuck Rosenberg, on behalf of the Southerners all all over the fruited plains, we give you the false modesty. And I'm just a poor country lawyer. But you are not mediocre. I am mediocre.

And my wife will attest to that. Mediocre I am. But you, sir, you are the best in the variety. So, you know, we don't know what's going to happen. And this is what scares Trump, right? All we heard was, oh, there's so many leaks coming out of Jackson, which there wasn't. Oh, Smith isn't. No, he actually wasn't. Because we were all surprised by Miami and Trump was surprised by Miami. And if they were surprised by Miami, they start hearing about New Jersey. They don't know. And it's got them worried. One other thing, too, this January 6th case getting more real by the moment. And again, the most damning thing for Trump, along with the tapes and along with all the evidence January 6th committee drummed up, is all of the people testifying against Donald Trump are all people Donald Trump hired. Yeah, like how would he hire an administration? This next reporting, although it might at times seem comical, it does raise the question that we're going to show a little bit later on Mitt Romney and a lot of others

in the Republican Party who have asked the question is like, why? Why did he hold on to these classified documents? And one week after the latest indictment of Donald Trump, there is new reporting that would poke holes in one of the former president's defenses. Despite claiming earlier in the week he, quote, hadn't had a chance to go through all the boxes he took with him to Mar-a-Lago. Former White House aides tell The New York Times Trump was unusually attached to those boxes and their contents throughout his presidency and after leaving office. Are you saying he was unusually attached to those boxes? Unusually attached to the boxes and their contents. So many people get unusually attached to other human beings or you know fates or what but he's unusually attached to those boxes. He loved them. He was obsessed with them.

The staffers reportedly referred to the boxes as Trump's quote, beautiful mind material in reference to the book and movie about Nobel Prize winning mathematician John Nash. So you're saying, Willie, I don't think they meant that as a compliment.

No. There's John Nash's beautiful on the wall. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, he was diagnosed, Willie, of course, with schizophrenia as an adult. And he covered his walls in the office with newspaper clippings and documents. He thought he was hired by the U.S. government to crack a Russian code.

Yeah, John Nash, a brilliant man, but deeply, deeply troubled, as Russell Crowe's portrayal showed us a few years ago. Two people familiar with the practice tell The Times Trump was meticulous about putting things in specific boxes and could, quote, generally identify what was in the boxes most immediately around him. The former president also reportedly had a habit of bringing documents with him from the West Wing up to the White House residence and even went around his own staff system for tracking that material. Since leaving the White House, sources tell the Times, Trump has maintained that behavior, even filling up new boxes when those close to him have suggested he condense his collection or review it for classified material. So, Joe, yeah, this again, this is coming from people

close to Donald Trump. People have witnessed this behavior. And that was the running joke, I guess it was inside the White House that this guy is like John Nash in a beautiful mind, traveling with his documents, keeping his boxes, taking them upstairs. And as Maggie Haberman in The Times team points out, he was warned by members of his own staff. Hey, don't take that stuff with you. That stuff is classified. That stuff stays here. So he knew not only what was at Mar-a-Lago was classified, but this goes back to the time when he was president, according to these sources. Well, and two things that are important to Donald Trump. Two things and only two things.

It's not his family. It's not connections with people. It's money and fame. So you ask why? We'll find out why. Yeah. Yeah. Money, money, money, power and the power because it leads to money.

Right. So so, Elise, this again, this goes back to what I was saying before. Who are the people testify? These aren't the libs. These aren't like, you know, these aren't people in the young Marxist League of Southern Manhattan. I mean, these are people that work for Trump, that are around Trump. They're mocking Trump. They're the ones testifying because, you know, I guess they can justify to their friends, their family. I'm going to work for Donald Trump. They can't justify going to federal prison for him. And they're all talking. This is so bizarre. Just the handling of the classified documents, even from the president. You have been around highly sensitive documents. The idea that he could just take something from

the Oval Office to the White House and it wouldn't be handled by, you know, the proper confidential assistant. It is so bizarre that so many holds just were let go and that he was essentially hoarding. I mean, he's a hoarder. It's like you hear these horrible stories about hoarding of animals. He was doing the same thing with these classified documents. This is the hoarding of nuclear secrets. Yeah, let's go to Richard Pops. More plans. And Richard, you know, we're all sort of... Funny, but not funny. Well, yeah, actually, we're sort of...

Deadly serious. Smirking at the bizarre behavior. But this is extraordinary. Look at that, classified documents. Again, that staff member took a picture of that and sent that to another staff member. But again... A lot of documents, the magnitude of these crimes, when you start thinking about the fact I've talked about what would happen if I went to a briefing as a member of the armed services committee, took a classified document back to my office, FBI would be calling me in 15 minutes.

You were around classified documents all the time. If you ever took one home, if you have, we're talking about one or two documents, right? That people get, get, get the FBI, you know, we'll charge them. This guy boxes and boxes and boxes of, of America's, some of America's close, most closely guarded secrets. Yeah. It's hard to imagine because when the briefer came to brief you in the morning from the CIA, he'd carry the, he or she would carry the briefcase, very clock carefully, opened up in your office. You'd be handed the documents, you'd read the documents, and then you'd hand them back. They'd go back in the briefcase. So the idea that these things are thrown in boxes and mixed with kind of sports photographs. By the way, I want you to stop again, because again, for people that haven't been in government service, that people, again, that haven't had experience with handling even one classified document. I talked about the other day about briefings that I got in the 1990s that I still haven't told anybody about just because I was told not to tell anybody. And unless I called somebody and said,

could I ask you about this portion of North Korea's nuclear program or about Iran's assets in this country or that country? Have you guys declassified that? You just not only me, you, you working the State Department. Nobody would imagine doing that. And this is why this is so grotesque, what Kevin McCarthy and some Republicans are doing, because they would never do it because they understand it's not just the crime. It is the scale of the crime. This is a tsunami of crimes regarding a United States president and some of our most sacred classified secrets. Yeah, look, we all dealt with hundreds, even thousands of classified documents in the course of a week or a month. Some were kept in files. The most sensitive went immediately back to the briefers who came every morning to give you the president's daily brief. He and a couple of dozen officials would get it.

Sure, I can imagine the odd document being filed in the wrong place. I had to do document searches. It does happen. It does happen. OK. But that's the odd document. Right. And it gets returned.

Absolutely. What's so bizarre about this is the sensitivity. These are not sort of things, maybe confidential. We're talking about stuff at the top of the security food chain. Really, really limited distribution documents. I was thinking about this. By the way, one other thing, too, because I know people are thinking about it while you're talking. It's also not like Biden or Pence where somebody missed pack something and sent something to one of their their annexes or offices or even homes by mistake. And then they did a search. They found it. They sent it back. This is a guy that was rummaging through boxes filled with nuclear secrets and then going my box filled with war plans and knew what was in those boxes and refused to return them.

Talk about proving intent a hundred times over. He has, as Andrew McCarthy said yesterday. Oh, OK. There's no defense. Yeah, let's hear it. He he's talking to you. And this is what he says and why he says it. In terms of the president's defense that he declassified the documents, I'm not saying it has merit. But how does he get that into the record without appearing as a witness? There would have to be. This is why I don't think he has a defense. First of all, I think if you do that under the Presidential Records Act, there should be a document supporting it. Otherwise, he's got to have a witness that shows that he did it.

I don't think he has that. And I also think it's irrelevant because it's not a defense to these charges. But assuming he thinks it's a relevant argument and they want to make the argument to the jury, how do they even get the assertion that he declassified him in his mind into the record without him going on the stand? Go ahead, we can talk through the music. Yeah, I don't see how he could do that.

He's got to, if it's the operation of his mind, he's got to testify to it. Okay, first of all, we thank TJ for putting the honky saxophone underneath that bed. I think actually, I think that was actually Hugh Hewitt's show. But he said time and again, no defense. This is Andrew McCarthy, a conservative's conservative,

a great, fierce conservative legal mind who has defended Donald Trump a great deal. He didn't end the election rigging, but in a lot of the impeachment stuff, he was there, same with Hugh Hewitt. And just like so many other Republicans that have supported Donald Trump in the past, they're saying he's got no defense. That's what was so damning about the indictment. There's really two parts. One is the sheer scale of this. It's one thing to have the odd document.

This wasn't the exception. This was the rule. That's one thing. Second of all, that's where the obstruction charge is so important. If he had simply coughed them up, we'd be in a total. We wouldn't be having this conversation. We wouldn't have this conversation. He passed on that. His attorney is corporate. I think politically, that's the most important point, because voters really aren't going to differentiate why this is so different from what other officials have done,

even though they should, because it is of a much greater scale. It's just the fact that he was offered an out as a privileged, powerful person, offered an out that I wouldn't have gotten, that you wouldn't have gotten, that you wouldn't have gotten. And he could have just given them back. And he was an idiot. And he didn't do it. Nobody would have gotten it. A war hero, General Petraeus, didn't get that option. A former CIA director, Deutsch, didn't get that. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger didn't get that. They got charged. You know, Willie, think about it. The two things that Donald Trump really is in the most trouble for right now with the feds, won the documents. He could have just returned them when they asked for him. He could have returned them.

He refused to. It was him sitting there with the documents that got him in trouble. And then January the 6th could have very easily when when when police started getting the hell beaten out of them, he could have gotten online and said, leave the Capitol. Don't do this. There's a better way. He sat there and stared at cops getting brutalized and beaten and the Capitol getting vandalized with with rioters. And he did absolutely nothing for a couple of hours. In fact, watched it allegedly gleefully in the dining room just off the Oval Office as his people were trying to fight for him, he believed. And the reason that he didn't give these back, these documents back, is because, as the indictment makes clear, he genuinely believed they were his.

These are mine, he says again and again, these are mine. Do you remember how we talk about my army, my generals, my secretary of state, my this, my Justice Department? He also knew there was a process. He knew there was a process. They told him there was a process. But you're right, Willie. He didn't realize. And I've said this to people walking into the White House. You don't own this.

You rent it for four years and eight. If you're lucky, you're in there. He never got that. Well, he's always thought the rules were different for him. And he's finally now finding out they apply here. Former George W. Bush aide Karl Rove is out with a new piece in The Wall Street Journal titled Trump Invited This Indictment. Rove writes this, quote, America has been plunged into an unprecedented crisis by the indictment of Donald Trump on 37 felony counts. The case will further tear our country apart as it has a heavy impact on the presidential campaign

and wrongly undermines confidence in our justice system. The blame for this calamity rests solely on Mr. Trump and his childish impulse to keep mementos from his time in the Oval Office, no matter what the law says. And that is the way Donald Trump viewed them as mementos, Gene Robinson, as keepsakes. If you read through the indictment, it's not just the New York Times reporting this strange fetish for the boxes. But in the indictment, Trump's own assistant calls these the beautiful mind boxes and says, no, he wants those on Air Force One with him, like traveling with the documents. He genuinely and incorrectly believed they belong to him personally.

Yeah. And in addition to being a bad person, Donald Trump is a deeply weird person. And you remember that point in the indictment where he's talking to Evan Corcoran, his lawyer, right, and about, you know, the pluck-em-out conversation. And he's saying, I don't want anybody going through my boxes. I don't want you going through my boxes. It's almost a kind of Gollum in Lord of the Rings moment, you know, my precious. It's almost a kind of Gollum in Lord of the Rings moment. You know, my precious. It's like a hoarding instinct about these documents. Some sort of weird security blanket. Some sort of, it boosts his ego and reminds him that he actually somehow became president of the United States. I don't know what it what it

is about it, but it's pathological in addition to being criminal. You know, Gene, also, Karl Rove goes on to say this is all Donald Trump's fault. Republicans know it's Donald Trump's fault. Yeah. And yet they're acting like the worst progressives that they have contempt for trying to defund the police. And Karl Rove makes the point, hey, idiots, defunding the FBI, that's not any better than defunding San Francisco's police department. Right. Exactly. And they're taking these crazy positions that they don't believe in in order to not offend Donald Trump's base. They think that their political careers are over if they offend the guy. And so they stick with him inexplicably because he's now facing these federal felony charges.

There are going to be more felony charges. This is the guy they've decided they're going to stake their party's future on. I think that's a political mistake in addition to being a tragedy for the country. But they're there. They're not profiles in courage. That's for sure. So Chuck Rosenberg, it's hard not to chuckle a little bit when we're hearing these reports about him hoarding these boxes and dragging them all over the place and not letting anybody have them. But are we underestimating the gravity of the situation, calling these documents mementos. It seems to me that a little bit more than mementos. And it seems to me that,

I mean, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence and things we're seeing around the edges here, family connections to Saudi Arabia, money changing hands, large amounts of it to family members. It seems to me these documents might have been not only highly classified and dangerous for Americans who are serving this country, but expensive if you're in the mood to sell them. If Donald Trump were in the mood to sell them at some point. Yeah, I think that's right, Mika. So two things. First, what you're talking about goes to motive.

And motive is always interesting. And as a prosecutor, if you can prove motive, all the better, because it helps the jury understand the case and why a defendant did what a defendant was alleged to have done. But you don't need it, right? The government doesn't have to show that he wanted to monetize these documents or he wanted to use it in some other nefarious way. They just have to show, as the statute requires, that he had this stuff and he unlawfully retained it. And by the way, point number two, and Elise and Richard both referred to this, the obstruction charges make that so much easier for the government.

So in order to prove intent, you have to crawl into someone's mind. And I can imagine, and Eugene is right, Mr. Trump is a weird guy, crawling into his mind would be a really uncomfortable place to go. But the obstruction charges permit you to do that. They evince intent. They help the government meet the burden to show that the retention was unlawful and purposeful and not by accident or mistake. So when you take these two things together, the unlawful retention on one hand, the obstruction on the other, it would be nice to have motive, Mika. But as a legal matter, you don't need it. And by the way, if he was trying to sell this stuff, if he was trying to monetize it,

if foreign governments were getting it to help the Trump family, the Trump organization make more dough. I think we would see other charges. I'm pretty confident we would. They're not there yet. Now, doesn't mean they don't get there, but they're not there yet. And so interesting to talk about. But as a legal matter, not something the government has to prove. Richard, I'm going to get you in one second. Jonathan, let me really quickly, though, it is important that we expand out on what Mika just said. First of all, Jared Kushner got a couple of billion dollars for his fund from the Saudis. There's absolutely no evidence. Nobody's ever suggested there's any evidence of connection between Jared and Donald Trump on this money. In fact, all the reporting I've gotten, and I'm curious what you've heard, is and Donald Trump on this money. In fact, all the reporting I've gotten,

and I'm curious what you've heard, is that Donald Trump was enraged that Kushner got $2 billion, as he would say his fund got $2 billion off of his name. Off of the presidency. So off of the presidency. So that's one thing. The second thing, though, is I was starting to think like Mika that perhaps this whole

shtick that we're like, you know, thinking, oh, it is a strange dude. Why is he keeping this just so we can hug boxes? We've said from the beginning, and today's the eighth anniversary. People tell us of Donald Trump coming down the escalator. We've said from the beginning, this is all about money. If you're trying to figure out Donald Trump's motive, whatever it is, we've been saying for eight years, it's all about money. So I'm not, I'm not, we have absolutely no evidence that he was selling this

information to anybody. But, but I would never, I would never say, oh, he was just doing this to hug the boxes. There's every reason to believe, given his past, his past, that there would be a possibility that he might trade this information, if not directly for money, maybe for access, maybe just so he can make contacts and build a hotel in this place or that place. Not saying he did it, but we would be foolish to be thinking he's just keeping all of this information because he's just a weird, quirky dude. Yeah. First on Kushner. Yeah. There's some frostiness there between the former president and his son-in-law about that deal. And we have seen that Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, at least at this point, have nothing to do with Trump's reelection campaign. So that's number one. As far as this, some people in Trump's orbit have tried to explain the boxes story, more or less with the theory that we would talk about this part, that he's sort of a weird guy. He's a pack rat. But it's more than that. He's so

addicted to press clippings because the things he carries up most are money and attention and power, and they're all intertwined. This is someone who, of course, would put up fake Time magazine covers at his golf club in New Jersey, who would, when people would come to his office in Trump Tower, would show them newspaper clippings, favorable clipping from a decade past. So some of these documents, the sell, the version the Trump people are saying, is simply more of the same. These are the mementos, the things he cares about, and they think because they reinforce that he's important. They reinforce that people are talking about him. They reinforce that he's got power. And he doesn't want to give those things up, that he had these secrets that no one else did. And he still

thinks he's deserving of them. But you're right. Of course, we always have to wonder if there is a financial implication. As you say, there's been no evidence that that's the case here. But at the very least, there's a sense that by having these things, that increases his fame, increases notoriety, and gets more people to buy golf club memberships. It drives more people to might donate to his next effort, campaign or effort, whatever that might be. So, looking under the hood, it's usually not too hard to spot a financial incentive to anything he does. Right. Richard? I'm struck by the difference, what's happening in the UK and what's happening here. In the UK, you have the Tory party. Essentially, they were prepared to suspend Boris Johnson for 90 days.

He was going to lose all of his parliamentary privileges. He would have had to run. He would have been rejected by his people. It basically pushed him to resign. The difference between the way the Tory party, the Conservative party, stood up to reject someone who basically lied to Parliament, one of your most fundamental duties, totally betrayed his position. And then here, Kevin McCarthy is still standing by him rather than standing up to him. To me, it's not just about Donald Trump.

It's how he's infected the Republican Party. And think about the difference. You have Boris Johnson in trouble for lying about parties that he threw here. Donald Trump in trouble for lying about stealing nuclear secrets. And Kevin McCarthy is defending him. The speaker of the House is defending a guy and trying to turn it on other people for Donald Trump stealing nuclear secrets and keeping them and lying about that. And Republicans become weaker as they tether themselves even more to this train wreck because they can't stand separately. And so now you've got a field of, what, 13 Republicans vying for the nomination and Trump is just running away from it and probably would still get the nomination from a prison

cell at this stage in the game because no one is still willing to attack him. And if you don't attack any of this, then you're just giving him free reign. It's very simple. He stole nuclear secrets. I won't. I mean, it's really not that I've done this before. It's not that hard to debone somebody that stole nuclear secrets from the United States government and lied to the FBI and the DOJ about it. I know everybody goes, oh, the party's different than when. Yeah, it is. It really is. But human nature is not. You look people in the eye and say, do you really want to have somebody in the White House for four more years that lied about stealing nuclear

secrets from the United States government. Who would work for him? I know Chuck Rosenberg has to go just process wise. Chuck, Judge Aileen Cannon has set a date for, I guess, lawyers to get security clearances. Is that signaling that she's moving this along? We're all kind of watching her as well. Yeah, if it's a signal, Mika, it's one relatively faint signal, because in order to sort of start this case, Mr. Trump's lawyers need to review the evidence that the government

has amassed. And in order to review the government's evidence, they need security clearances. Hopefully that won't take too long. Hopefully the government expedites it. But, you know, your larger point is a really important one, Mika, because the timing of this case is going to turn on Judge Cannon and how she manages her courtroom and her docket. I know that Jack Smith said he wants a speedy trial. Of course he does. The evidence that the government has, its case, its presentation, does not get better with age. It's not a fine wine. But it's Judge Cannon who's going to determine sort of how quickly this moves. So I'm glad to

see that she started the process. It's a logical first step. It's a necessary first step. It doesn't necessarily foreshadow how she's going to manage the rest of it. We need to see her rulings on motions. We necessarily foreshadow how she's going to manage the rest of it. We need to see her rulings on motions. We need to make sure that she's getting this stuff right. It will be interesting to see whether the government has to take interlocutory appeals. That's a fancy way of describing appeals that the government would take pre-trial to challenge her rulings if they think she's an error. So good start, expected start. The devil is in the details and the details are to come. Chuck Rosenberg, thank you very much. And still ahead on Morning Joe, more new legal trouble for Donald Trump. A federal judge has set a date for writer

E. Jean Carroll's second defamation trial against the former president. We'll have the details on that case also ahead. Live reporting from Beijing ahead of a long-awaited visit from Secretary of State Anthony Blinken that was called off in February over the Chinese spy balloon incident. Plus, NBC's Keir Simmons joins us with his reporting on Russia's answer to the World Economic Forum being held this weekend in St. Petersburg. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Oh, my God. They should give me immediately back everything that they've taken from me because it's mine.

It's mine. Why didn't you say something? Alicia, I mean, John's always been a little weird. Bing, bing, bong, bong, bing, bing, bing. He said he was doing code breaking, that it was eyes only. Donald Trump's very, very large brain. Lately, he becomes so much more agitated. I did everything right and they indicted me.

These boxes were containing all types of personal belongings. I had every right to have these documents. We have deployed News Chopper 4. Look at that beautiful shot over New York City, 638 on a Friday night. Now, Joe, that's how you use Chopper 4 for my friends at WNBC. It's looking good. That is how you use Chopper 4. When you push that button, right, instead of pushing that button to try to bleep something I say, this is a proper use of Chopper 4 on a beautiful, beautiful June Friday morning.

Look at that flying down the East River. There's the U.N. Central Park there in the distance. George Washington Bridge. I could look at that all day. But let's get back to the news. For the first time since the United States shot down a suspected Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina, top diplomats from the two countries will meet this weekend. Later today, Secretary of State Antony Blinken

will head to Beijing and have an important meeting with his Chinese counterpart. Let's bring in NBC News foreign correspondent Janice McEfrayer, live from Beijing. Janice, it's good to see you. So how did this meeting come together, first of all, and what do we expect to see between these leaders today? Well, high stakes and low expectations, but it's on.

Secretary of State getting on a plane tonight. He'll be here for meetings on Sunday and Monday in what is seen as a bid to try to salvage this relationship. So in many ways, it's the reset of the reset, because this is a visit that was supposed to happen four months ago and was called off by the secretary of state when that Chinese balloon was shot down. The relationship was already having a particularly bumpy year then. So the the expectation or the hope is that they can both sides can show that they can manage this relationship responsibly. So in that sense, even going through the motions has some utility. There are actually very few details about who he's going to meet and when, but we know that he will get time with China's President Xi Jinping on Monday.

It's just a matter of when. Incidentally, President Xi had a private meeting today with Bill Gates. It's very rare that the Chinese president will meet with a business leader. And he said to him, and I quote, you are the first American friend to visit me this year. There's no shortage of issues for either side to discuss. You name it, it's probably on the table. Tariffs, Taiwan, AI, American detainees, human rights, confrontation in the South China Sea, fentanyl. From both sides who I've talked to over the last couple of days,

there is the sense that it's best to view this as the first stage of a process where each side is trying to explore the limits of the other side and how they can proceed with some sort of relationship without making it look like they're softening on their positions. It actually started a couple of days ago with a phone call between the Secretary of State and Xin Gang. He is the foreign minister here, former U.S. ambassador, former ambassador to the U.S. And judging by the readouts, it wasn't a very warm conversation. There's a lot of very careful language that's being used on both sides about trying to manage competition and keeping the lines of communication open. So overall, there will be no breakthroughs

from this. But the very fact that they are having this visit is being seen as a sign that they don't want the relationship to unravel even further. And it seems that there were several risks of that happening. We're not sure if we should call it a thaw, but maybe just enough to get the people in the same room at the same time. And the sense that this could pave the way for more high level cabinet visits and perhaps reset relations in that sense, too. NBC's Janice Mackey-Frayer in Beijing ahead of a very important few days there. Janice, thanks so much. So, Richard Haas, take us through this a bit, how this did come together, given everything we've seen in the last, even just the last few weeks, with that destroyer coming too close to call with an American

destroyer in the South China Sea. You had the military jet crossing in front of one of our surveillance planes, sending a message, perhaps. But how important are these next few days in Beijing? Look, sometimes in this diplomacy business, really, you have ambitions to achieve things. I think the United States and China, it's more what you can avoid. The two countries are trying to establish a floor. This is a relationship that has been in free fall. From the U.S. point of view, probably the immediate priority is to get the Chinese to put some pressure on Russia to continue not to help them in Ukraine. I think we also would like to set some guardrails on Taiwan. China has a very different set of priorities. This meeting is happening against the backdrop of a fast deteriorating Chinese economy.

The one area of the U.S. relationship Xi Jinping is really interested in is not what Tony Blinken has in his pocket. It's the Commerce Department. It's trade. It's investment. China's youth unemployment is incredibly high. Is this why the doors really over the past several months swung wide open for American businessmen, businesswomen, corporate leaders, and yet they're still playing coy when it comes to diplomats. Well, they're not interested in having the talks with the Pentagon because they want to keep up the pressure. They believe that we are much more sensitive to being scared by the possibility of an incident that might get us to back off support for Taiwan. So they're doing nothing to reassure

us on the military side. They're doing everything. That's the meeting with Bill Gates, another signal. What they're interested in is help for the Chinese government. They do not want U.S. sanctions, U.S. technology restrictions to continue to expand. The expression these days, Joe, is where we want to build a high fence around a small yard. That's what Treasury Secretary Yellen is talking about. The real debate in Washington and the administration, how big should this yard be? How restrictive are we going to be on China? But what Xi Jinping is worried about is we will be really restrictive on technology and the like going there. So that's what this is about. That's their agenda is economic. Our agenda is Ukraine and Taiwan. Very interesting. Not quite ships passing in the night, but this is not a major breakthrough. So this week in Russia's second largest city, the country is holding its annual gathering of experts for the St. Petersburg Economic Forum.

In less than an hour, Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to speak. Joining us now from London, NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons with more on what we can expect here. Hey, Mika. Well, you're right. We expect President Putin to start speaking in what is always a keynote speech in St. Petersburg at some stage. He often starts late and it usually goes on for many hours. Western journalists have not been given accreditation to attend. I think that speaks to how concerned Russia's security services are, frankly, to protect President Putin. It's not that long ago that there was a bomb that killed a military blogger in St. Petersburg. We're hearing from Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, that the speech will include comments about Russia's so-called special military operation. He says it's mostly an economic speech, but inevitably there'll be comments about that. Another interesting point, the president of UAE is there at the event, but will not take part in the forum, according to Dmitry Peskov, who says his schedule

will not allow him. So I think that's an interesting indication of, you know, kind of the level of international nervousness around Russia now. The president of the UAE going, but not prepared to sit on the stage, according to Dmitry Peskov, because of his schedule. The president of Algeria will be there. Again, I think an interesting indication of the continuing support for Russia in the global south. And I think really, you know, I always, when I talk to you guys, try and bring some kind of a reality check about Russia. I think that global south point, I mean, that segues to a question about the Russian people.

Clearly, President Putin will be talking to the Russian people. We do have some polling from an organization called the Levada Center. It is the most trustworthy polling you can get in Russia. And I think that's very interesting. So just its recent polling from May says that Putin's approval rating is 82% amongst the Russian people, 15% disagreeing with a question about his approval. Now, I understand that many Russians will answer that question in the way they think they're expected to, but it is still an indication, I think. And if you just look at another question the Nevada Center asked, the attitude to the United States amongst the Russian people, 77% saying they have a negative view of the Russian people, 77% saying they have a negative

view of the United States, 12% saying they have a positive view. And then dig into those numbers a little more. 45% of Russians polled by the Nevada Center believe that the war in Ukraine will last for at least another year. 25% believe the war will end no sooner than six months. I think it was interesting, notable to hear Richard Engel's insightful interview with President Zelensky, where he described that special, where he described his counteroffensive as difficult. It looks as if he is trying to signal that this may be a long battle. And it looks like the Russian people think that's the case, too. Just quite simply, there is no sign of any backing down on either side.

Keir, I'd like to change the subject, if you might, to what's happening there in London. Boris Johnson has resigned. A couple of other—a couple of his allies went with him. He's now found to have lied to Parliament. What has happened to the Conservative Party? What does this mean for Rishi Sunak? And what does it mean for Boris Johnson? Is this adios or hasta la vista, baby? Yeah, yeah. Well, you never want to count Boris Johnson out. I mean, look, this is, you know, basically you take a wide lens. This is the British Conservative Party tearing itself apart. I mean, it's also an example of the ruthlessness of that party.

You know how prepared it is to just cut out a former leader if it thinks it's in its interest. It's also I think this is an interesting point, you know, kind of a mirror to what's happening politically there. I think it's also a battle for the soul of the Conservative Party, for the future of the Conservative Party. So back at the last election, when Boris Johnson was leader, it seems a long time ago now, one of the things he did is he won in a lot of parts of the north of England, working class voters who would traditionally vote Labour, the Democrat equivalent, if you like. He won them over, really, in a way, not since Margaret Thatcher. And I think one of the questions with the Conservative Party is, are they the party of the middle class, of the South, as they have been for a long period? Or is that shift to more of a northern vote, more working class voters,

if you like? Is that real? And I think we'll find out at the next election. But you've got to say, just politically, it's hard to see how the Conservative Party win the next election when they look so divided. All right. NBC's Keir Simmons. Thank you so much. I mean, you've got to say at least the conservatives, at least, though, over there trying to respond in an aggressive way to move beyond Boris Johnson, to move beyond some of the failed prime ministers and Sunak, at least having somebody who is, you know, like I think he's more sort of an efficient technocrat without all of the baggage. But they're doing their best to move beyond the failed past. Not so conservatives in America. Right. They're being ruthless and moving on and trying to keep power after having been in power for, I believe, now 13 years,

which is quite a long stretch to keep going continuously, one party winning so much. But I, you know, I don't see how this. Yeah, I don't see how it's going to be tough. Hey, Willie, you know, I was in politics for a while, so I'm very good at reading cross tabs. I've been looking at the cross tabs in this Putin poll. Eighty five percent, 85 percent support Vladimir Putin. The 12 percent are the 15 percent, I'm sorry, disapproved. And I'm reading the crosstabs. Fascinating. Twelve percent of those from gel.

And then so if you look if you look at the crosstab, three percent of those within 30 minutes of answering that they disapproved, pushed out of apartment windows. So those are the some. Those are the cross tabs. And those Russian toes. Those remind me of those Saddam Hussein elections where there was 100 percent reported turnout and 100 percent of the vote for Saddam Hussein. Even Reagan lost one state in 1984. So you got to like maybe.

No, I'm not sure. Maybe take those numbers with a grain of salt. I'm just saying in Baghdad. Yeah, no, it wasn't. It wasn't for all their claims of audio recordings that supposedly prove President Biden was involved in a foreign bribery scheme. Hearing a lot about that in the past week, Republicans admit they're not sure the tapes really exist after all. It's such a clown show. It is such a clown show. You spent all that time at the time that Trump was indicted and arraigned talking about these tapes. And look at Larry, Moe and Curly.

We got the stooges. We'll show you those comments. Morning Joe will be right back pavone plays on the dp world tour this is the t-shot part three he's from madoc in france they make some nice wine there oh he's not gonna go on go on. Oh, play it for us. There it is. Oh, yeah. Number two at 15 today.

A pair of aces at the 15th hole of the Los Angeles Country Club yesterday in the first round of the U.S. Open. Richard Haas, a great leaderboard. This is setting up to be a great tournament. Ricky Fowler, Xander Shoffley both shot 62 yesterday. Fowler shot at first setting the U.S. Open record. Shoffley came in right after him and tied it. So these are all-time records we're seeing in the first round.

And that 15th hole, I think yesterday Richard was playing 121 yards or something. And they're talking about on one of these days it might be like 80 yards. Guys hitting little wedges up there and a couple of aces yesterday. It's a really quirky golf course. You've got the shortest par three on the tour, and you've probably got the longest. You've got another par three that's close to 300 yards. Great to see Ricky Fowler back.

He went through some really, really dark times, really emotionally and mentally, and to see him back in the lead is fantastic. I don't know whether he can hold. You've got Xander Shoffley. You've got Scotty Scheffler lurking. Rory McIlroy's only a couple of shots behind. Going to be a great three days.

Really good weather forecast. So get ready, Willie. Get on your college shirt. He's doing very well. You're getting smoother at it. Any fistfights? Any fistfights break out between the live players and the PGA players? No, because everybody's so confused about where things stand.

You still have the antitrust questions hanging over it. You've got Jay Monahan essentially not there because he's got all sorts of medical problems suddenly that are, you know, one wants to respect his situation. But nobody knows where this is going. So could the Senate kill this merger? Well, it's more the Justice Department. The Senate could ask some really difficult questions. Justice Department, look, it's anti-competitive. It was beforehand it was anti-competitive because the PGA was trying to squelch live. Now they've come together in some kind of really cumbersome for-profit, not-for-profit combination. Cumbersome is a good word.

That makes sense to us, Richard. And you've got a lot of cranky players. Yeah, I bet. A lot of cranky players. All right, Richard Haass, thank you very much. Have a great weekend. And I'm going to follow up about your kids. Okay.

I don't know what that's about, Richard, but our thoughts and prayers are with you. Always. We're having them on. You'll see.