Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/20/24

Episode Date: June 20, 2024

The Morning Joe panel discusses the latest in U.S. and world news, politics, sports and culture.

This heat isn't just bad for the planet, it's also bad for the brain, because according to a new study, the hotter it gets, the harder it is to find your words. Wow. Cucumber. Hot weather can result in lower scores on math tests, as well as higher rates of aggression, ranging from mean-spirited behavior to violent crime. Well, that explains Florida. The heat wave is also blasting Washington, D.C.

When people complained about it being over 90, President Biden was like, see, 81 isn't so bad, right? Just saying. I'm not kidding. It is hot out there. I spent all day sweating like a Fox News anchor trying to explain Juneteenth. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, June 20th. Millions of people from the Midwest to the Northeast will face extreme heat for a fourth straight day. The National Weather Service is predicting record highs again in several areas.

And the heat is expected to last into the weekend. Also, Tropical Storm Alberto, the first named storm of the hurricane season, is expected to make landfall soon on Mexico's Gulf Coast. The large storm has already brought heavy rainfall and some flooding along the coasts of Texas and Mexico. Meanwhile, two large wildfires continue to burn out of control in New Mexico. Police have confirmed two deaths tied to the fires raging in Reduzo. So far, more than 23,000 acres have burned. And moving to politics, the latest Fox News survey finds Biden ahead of Trump 50% to 48% among registered voters. It's the first time the president has a lead since October.

The new numbers come as we are one week away from the first presidential debate, and both sides are digging into preps. But Donald Trump appears to be making sure he lowers expectations all around and he's starting to make excuses, claiming he had to face off against the moderators as well. So that will be a challenge. We're going to get into all of that just ahead. With us for all of these stories and more, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House beer chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, deputy managing editor for politics at Politico, Sam Stein, and U.S. national editor at the Financial Times, Ed Luce. Good to have you all on board. We're going to begin, though, with the growing alliance

between Kim Jong-un and Russia's Vladimir Putin on full display in North Korea yesterday, raising concerns in the U.S. NBC News foreign correspondent Janice Mackey-Frayer has the latest. North Korea's Kim Jong-un pulling out all the stops in an elaborately choreographed state visit for Russian President Vladimir Putin. The outcast and sanctioned leaders, side by side, were viewing troops, cheered by crowds of children with balloons. Then in the front seat, with Putin behind the wheel. Earlier, a friendly debate over who would be first into Kim's car, which was a gift from Putin last year. The two unveiled a strategic defense treaty, promising mutual assistance in case either country faces aggression.

The details of it not spelled out, but both calling it a breakthrough. The deepening alliance raising alarms for the U.S. and the West, who have worked to isolate Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. Putin has turned to North Korea, which, according to U.S. officials, has already sent millions of rounds of ammunition, artillery shells and missiles to help Russia's war effort. North Korea is providing significant munitions to Russia and other weapons for use in Ukraine. might gain from Russia in return, including access to the sort of military technologies that could enhance Kim's nuclear, missile and satellite programs. The visit and all its fanfare doing little to ease concerns. Joining us now, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James

Tavridis. He's the chief international analyst for NBC News and former National Security Council Asian Affairs Director Dr. Victor Cha. His latest op-ed for MSNBC.com is entitled Biden Needs to Disrupt the Russia-North Korea Alliance Before It's Too Late. So, Dr. Cha, let's start right there. How? Well, it's not easy. The difficulties lie in the fact that this is a renewal of the Cold War alliance between the two sides. What North Korea provides to Russia goes deep to Russian territory in terms of munitions, very hard to intercept. But there still are a package of financial sanctions, as well as actions that could be taken vis-a-vis China to try to disrupt this network. So, Admiral, let's talk about the ramifications of this alliance. And in some, there's analysis

suggests this shows how desperate Putin is, the fact that he's got to turn to North Korea, the hermit kingdom, for more supplies for his war in Ukraine. But at the same time, to Victor's point, there is worry about these two autocrats teaming up. Yeah, indeed. And hey, Putin finally found a leader that he's actually taller than. So I think this is a good moment for him. In all seriousness, what we ought to worry about deeply here, exactly as Dr. Cha said, is the technology push that could enable the hermit kingdom to use those 50 or 60 or maybe 70 nuclear weapons. the intelligence. Putin can provide targeting. He can provide access to a satellite system that Russia owns and operates. So there is a package of high tech incentives, both actual physical technology for the nuclear program, as well as intelligence, command and control. We would be very concerned about this. Final thought, they're not revealing yet the details of the agreement they've signed. Sounds a lot like a

mutual defense pact to me. Each nation would be obligated to defend the other. That's quite significant. That's what we have, for example, with Japan, with South Korea, with Australia, with our Pacific alliance. We don't want to see Putin start to build something with North Korea along those lines. All right. So I want to bring Ed Luce into this. And Ed, if you don't mind, if I could ask you to get into the mind of one of the great geostrategic thinkers of our time, and I think you know who I'm talking about. What is the strategic vision of Putin and Kim Jong-un? What are they putting on display here? And what should the U.S. and its allies be doing right now to counter what looks like a collective threat?

Well, I mean, if you're referring, which I think you are, to your father, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, he coined the phrase Alliance of the Aggrieved way back in the 1990s, where he was quite prophetic in how he saw the worlds, the nations, particularly the autocracies, reacting to this new global triumphalist era of democracy we had after the Cold War. And he talked about an alliance of the aggrieved. And he mentioned Russia. And he mentioned North Korea. Of course, it includes China.

It includes Iran. And it includes some smaller countries like Cuba, Venezuela. But the strategy, I think, that he'd recommend, and I think it would be utterly relevant, and I think Admiral Stavridis would probably agree with this now, is to play on China's fears of a wayward North Korea, a freelancing North Korea, because North Korea threatens Japan. Japan could go nuclear at any time. That is the last thing that China wants. And we've seen in the last few days a make-up meeting between the leaders of South Korea and China. South Korea and China. And, of course, South Korea is the real target of North Korea. Play on China's fear of anarchy in the region because because this is this doesn't suit their interests.

They want stability. So, Admiral Stavridis, chime in. Do you agree? I do entirely. I'll add another interesting small point here, which is where is Vladimir Putin today? He's left North Korea. He's in Vietnam. And Vietnam, by the way, has a population four times that of South of North Korea, about 100 million dynamic economy, very strong demographics.

Vietnam, in many ways, is a bigger opportunity for the West than North Korea. So I think if Dr. Brzezinski were advising us today, he'd be saying not only shore up U.S., the alliances you have with Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, those are mutual defense treaties. You ought to focus U.S. on Vietnam for exactly the reasons Ed Luce is saying. You need to put pressure back. So I'm quite concerned you're showing footage now of Putin in Vietnam meeting with President Lam and others. We ought to be watching that flank as well. I think your dad would advise us to do so.

It's all about alliances. Yeah, I wanted to pick up there for Dr. Chag. It's actually a point that Ed made, which is our leverage, U.S. leverage, is not obviously quite strong with North Korea or Russia, but we do have some with the Chinese. Obviously, it's a contentious relationship, but it is a communicative relationship. And it strikes me, and I'm wondering if you could speak to this, that the real danger here is not necessarily a Russia-North Korea pact, but China being more forthcoming and providing more weaponry and intelligence to the Russians as they turn west to Ukraine. So what do you think the U.S. officials are saying to Beijing right now in light of the Putin-Kim

Jong-un meeting that just occurred? Well, I think that's right. The Chinese have not been providing weapons to Russia for Ukraine, but they have been providing a lot of industrial support. China cannot be happy with this meeting between Russia and North Korea, but they're not able to really make a decision about what to do. On the one hand, they don't want to criticize North Korea, but they're not able to really make a decision about what to do. On the one hand, they don't want to criticize North Korea too much because they don't want to push Kim further into the arms of Putin. On the other hand, they're not willing to fully join on with Russia and North Korea because they don't want to be part of a grouping in which North Korean weapons are being used

by Russia to kill Europeans today. That's not where China wants to be. So this is, I think, an opening for the United States, the Biden administration, to try to make some progress with China, whether it's with regard to new sanctions on North Korea or whether it's even with regard to just an open statement about their concern about this relationship. The other thing I'd say is the NATO summit is in Washington, D.C. next month. This is a real opportunity for the Biden administration to work with allies, South Korea and Japan, to really build even more on the trilateral security relationship, maybe even a collective defense declaration among the three allies. That would be a hugely important step forward. Yes, it would.

Former National Security Council Asian Affairs Director Dr. Victor Cha. Thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. There is also new tension between the U.S. and Israel this morning after the Biden administration rejected claims that the White House has been withholding weapons. NBC News senior White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell reports. A new and very public breach in a pivotal partnership over the flow of U.S. weapons to Israel. After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leveled a stinging accusation, posting a video, notably spoken in English, for an American audience. It's inconceivable that in the past few months, the administration has been withholding

weapons and ammunitions to Israel, Israel, America's closest ally. Israel says it must defeat Hamas and secure the release of hostages. During World War II, Churchill told the United States, give us the tools, we'll do the job. And I say, give us the tools and we'll finish the job a lot faster. But his charge has been met with surprise at the White House. We generally do not know what he's talking about. The fallout was swift. A meeting expected with Israeli officials in Washington is off for now. That session to discuss threats from Iran, is described as postponed. U.S. officials say they will not reward Israel with such a meeting in response to the Netanyahu video. In May, the Biden administration publicly acknowledged it paused delivery to Israel of a shipment with 2,000-pound bombs.

Responding to Netanyahu's message, Secretary Blinken disputed the prime minister's complaint and said that one arm shipment is being evaluated. Because of our concerns about their use in a densely populated area like Rafah, that remains under review. But everything else is moving as it normally would move. Admiral Stavridis, I'll start with you. We genuinely don't know what they're talking about is a pretty strong statement. Is Benjamin Netanyahu a good partner in this? What happened here? Clearly, he's not. And I would really draw a line under him cutting that commentary in English, really. It's blatantly trying to insert himself into the U.S. election cycle from all that I can see. It's wildly inappropriate to go over the head of the administration and try to speak directly to Americans. Not his role, not his place. He is a frustrating partner. My good friend Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, his head must be exploding this morning. I think about what he and Tony Blinken and Lloyd Austin have tried to do for Israel. decades. And to be treated in that manner by a prime minister really shocks the conscience of

diplomacy between the two nations. And it only heightens tensions between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who, of course, have not seen eye to eye on much in this war, the president becoming more and more public with his frustrations with how Netanyahu has conducted operations in Gaza and how he has no real plans for after the war there. So, Ed Luce, but to the Admiral's point, this seems like the prime minister going over the heads of the White House, going directly to the American people. Well, in about a month's time, he's got even a bigger moment to do that. He's been invited to address Congress. So what do we think comes of that? This could be a really contentious moment between the relationship between the prime minister and the president. Yes, it could. And of course, we all remember in 2015 when he addressed Congress,

broke all protocol and all precedent by campaigning to the joint houses of Congress against President Obama's Iran nuclear deal. He, at that point, I think, really came out strongly as a Republican, a pro-Republican foreign leader, which was a new one for American politics. And he's now a pro-Trump foreign leader. They have very, very similar psychologies. Arguably, Netanyahu is the original Trump and, you know, have similar incentives not to lose the next election because both face potential jail time. So Netanyahu is a bad actor.

He has bitten the hand that feeds him again and again and again. Biden has supplied everything that he needed. There is no business, by the way, for that delayed shipment of 2000 pound bombs. There is no business for 2000 pound bombs in urban warfare. It is indiscriminate. There are bombs that go around corners and go through windows and can target people. So I'm really puzzled as to why people like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer signed on to Netanyahu speaking. And I don't think it's too late to rescind that invitation. Very interesting.

Much more to discuss about this. Retired Admiral James Tavridis, thank you very much for being on this morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we are tracking the heat wave that is scorching parts of the U.S. We'll take a look at the record-setting temperatures and why human-caused climate change might be to blame. Plus, the Supreme Court could soon release its decision on whether to grant Donald Trump presidential immunity. A panel of legal experts is standing by with a look at what that could mean for the presumptive GOP nominee in his federal election interference case and why it's taken so long to get to a ruling on this. Doesn't it seem

so basic? And before we go to break, a special programming note to tell you about. This Monday is the second anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision to reverse Roe v. Wade. And to mark that day, I will be sitting down with Vice President Kamala Harris for an exclusive interview. That's this Monday only on Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. 20 past the hour, beautiful shot of New York City. Tropical storm Alberto is expected to make landfall soon on Mexico's Gulf Coast. It is the first named storm of what is expected to be an intense hurricane season. High winds and 10 to 15 inches of rain are expected today along the southern coast of Texas, along with flash flooding. Other parts of Texas's Gulf Coast are already dealing with flooding after heavy rainfall yesterday. In New Mexico, two extremely dangerous wildfires have claimed the lives of at least two

people while forcing an entire town of more than 7,000 to flee. Officials say both the South Fork and Salt Fires were 0% contained as of late yesterday. The flames have destroyed more than 1,400 structures and burned 23,000 acres. Meanwhile, millions of people from the Midwest to the Northeast will face extreme heat for a fourth straight day. The National Weather Service is predicting record highs again in several areas, and the heat is expected to last into the weekend. Meteorologists say the dangerous temperatures are the result of a heat dome that is covering large portions of the country. Joining us now, climate journalist and New York Times bestselling author Jeff Goodell, his bestselling book entitled The Heat Will Kill You First. Life and Death on a Scorched Planet

will be released in paperback next month. Seems like this might be a kind of a timely read right now. Jeff, what's going on? Well, what's going on is we're living in the age of climate chaos. You know, we have known for 100 years that burning fossil fuels puts more CO2 into the atmosphere, more CO2 in the atmosphere is creating a hotter climate. And we're seeing that now. And it's not only that our climate is getting hotter, it's making these kinds of extreme events that you were talking about there, from the flooding to the heat waves to the bigger storms, more and more likely. So this is the world that we

have created for ourselves and that we're living in. Hey, Jeff, it's Sam Stein here. Yes, this is climate chaos. We've experienced a growth of climate chaos over the past couple years. And I'm wondering if you could put it in the proper scope for the readers. Talk about just the sheer costs of this in both human lives, but also in just dollars. I mean, we are going to be dealing with massive government investments to try to mitigate these issues and literally move people. Can you speak? I mean, it's hard to actually quantify and put in proper perspective, but can you try to talk about just how much this will dominate our public and private lives? Well, it's going to dominate our lives in every way that we are

just beginning to see and beginning to imagine. How do you put a dollar cost on this? It's just impossible because of the scope and scale of what we're talking about here. There's two parts of this. There's the sort of clean energy part of it, which is the, you know, reducing CO2 emissions, the movement to solar and wind. I live in Texas. You know, that is happening very fast there. Texas is not exactly full of tree huggers. And yet our grid is often 60 or 70 percent powered by renewable energy.

That's remarkable. And the price of renewable energy has gotten cheaper and cheaper. The problematic side is on the adaptation side, on the damages side. When you look at what it's going to take to reimagine our cities, to reimagine our world, to reimagine where our food comes from in the light of these kinds of extreme events, it's really a massive change that we're going through. And we can go through it intelligently by being educated about this and thinking about this and talking about this, or we could do this sort of Mad Max scenario of denial and chaos, which is, you know, what a lot of America sort of the past, sadly, that a lot of Americans

seem to be choosing right now. Yeah, there's such a human toll, too. Officials in Saudi Arabia just announcing yesterday that hundreds of people, hundreds of people died there due to extreme heat during religious pilgrimages. Jeff, you also recently tweeted something that really struck us. You said, our world was built for a climate that no longer exists. Tell us what you mean. I think that, you know, there's a misunderstanding about climate change us what you mean. I think that there's a misunderstanding about climate change and what's happening. I think there's a lot of people who think that climate change is like a broken leg, that we just need to sort of drive electric cars and recycle our bottles and do that for a little while, then everything will be okay and we'll

go back to the world that we lived in in the earlier part of the 20th century. Things will go back to normal. Things are not going to go back to normal. We are moving into a completely different climate era, and the implications for that are profound. The way that our cities are arranged and built do not work in an era of extreme warming. Where we get our water supply does not work in a era of extreme warming. Where we get our water supply does not work in a world of extreme warming. Cities like Miami, the Texas coast we're seeing right now,

lots of buildings, houses, real estate along the water as sea levels rise and storm surges get bigger, all of that is in jeopardy. Where do we get our food as the crop yields get hit by more and more precipitation, more and more heat? Climate change is going to change everything about how we live and where we get our food and where we get our energy. And that's why it's so important to be educated about this, be smart about this, and make better choices. Because I really do think that we could build a better world to use this crisis as an opportunity. Bestselling author Jeff Goodell,

thank you very much. The paperback edition of his book entitled The Heat Will Kill You First, Life and Death on a Scorched Planet is out in paperback on July 9th, and it is worth reading given what we are enduring right now. Coming up, President Biden receives a boost one week before his head to head with Donald Trump. We're going to dig into the new polling that shows Biden as the leading candidate, plus a look at how Trump is preparing for the debate, including his apparent efforts to raise the low bar he previously set for his opponent. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Anything less than a decision by the Supreme Court that says a president should be held to the laws, just like any other American citizen should be. Anything other than that is absurd. The notion,

for instance, that apparently some justices are fooling around with it. Well, if the president violated the criminal law, but was doing so in his official capacity, there may be some basis to say that that's OK. We need to step back and think about that. You know, wait a minute. A president can violate the American criminal law if he or she is doing something in their official capacity. That is an absurd and dangerous conclusion. And I'm worried, given the length of time that it has taken for the Supreme Court to

decide this case, that something along those lines might come out of the Supreme Court. What's the debate? I have to ask. Former Attorney General Eric Holder on MSNBC yesterday, as we continue to await the Supreme Court's decision on Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim. The court heard oral arguments on April 25th, and a decision is expected before the end of the month. Another set of decisions is expected to be released this morning at 10 a.m. Joining us now, former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent

Lisa Rubin and state attorney for Palm Beach County. Dave Ehrenberg joins us as well. Lisa, I'll start with you. Am I being too simplistic? What is what would the debate be happening inside the Supreme Court about presidential immunity? And these delays are conscious, are they not? They're certainly conscious, Mika, on behalf of at least some of the justices, particularly given their decision to schedule briefing in the way that they did. Before the break, John and I were talking about this schedule, and I was saying the delay itself is the win. Even if we see a decision, let's say tomorrow or Friday,

that is a full victory for Jack Smith and his team. The damage will have largely been done. It's not clear whether the case can be tried in the time remaining before the election or whether Judge Tanya Chetkin has the will to impose a trial on that schedule. You'll hear people complain bitterly, for example, that the Department of Justice policy forbids taking certain steps certain number of days before election, whether 60 to 90 days. Read very clearly that policy is about overt investigative steps like subpoenas or search warrants. It's not about a trial. But nonetheless, even if the Supreme Court were to hand Jack Smith a full victory,

it's not clear that trial can be accomplished or if there is the will to make it happen. Dave Ehrenberg, same question. What's the holdup? Clinical person Mika would say the Supreme Court is putting its thumb on the scale of justice here, refusing to hold Donald Trump accountable for his actions. Remember, they could have intervened in December. Jack Smith saw this possibility and went to the Supreme Court and said, hey, why don't you come in now before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rules and let's get this out of the way. And the Supreme Court said, no, no, no, that's too early. Well, then after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a very thorough, very powerful ruling, the Supreme Court intervened anyways. And that's why so many of us are just so

upset about what happened because the supreme court's supposed to be apolitical this does not look apolitical and yes it looks like that trump will not get absolute immunity but he wins by losing as lisa said by delaying this matter by delaying the trial until after the election when he can become president and then call it all off. I do think it is likely, though, that the Supreme Court will issue a ruling that will send the case back to Judge Chuckin for some backfiring to determine whether Trump's conduct falls within his duties of office and whether there's immunity. And so that'll mean that there is no trial before the election. But Judge Chuckin, who is motivated to get this thing going, who said she will cancel her vacation if necessary, could hold this public hearing where a lot of the evidence will come out into the public of Trump's involvement in and before January 6th. So

Jack Smith could get a bit of a victory even if he loses. Talisa, the delay, as discussed, all but ensures that this trial won't happen before the election. But Dave just started to mention one of the outcomes here that maybe would be kicked back down. What are some of the other possible rulings the Supreme Court could provide? Well, you could see, as I just postulated earlier, a complete victory for Jack Smith, saying that historically the Supreme Court has never found immunity for a president and it's not going to start now. There's another possibility that it says immunity could theoretically be possible in certain circumstances, but on the allegations of this indictment, that's not the case. And the

third possibility, John, is somewhere in between what Dave just said and a complete loss for the special counsel's office, which says, no, a president can be immune. And on the allegations of this indictment, they think that this would qualify for immunity. But for example, it would not stop prosecutors from introducing certain evidence, for example, with respect to presidential conduct, even if certain of the conduct is itself immune from prosecution. So, Ed Lewis, this is the latest challenge to the Supreme Court's, frankly, credibility. We're about at the two-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision. But more than that, in recent weeks, there's been all kinds of questions about the personal behavior of some of the justices, whether that's Clarence Thomas accepting gifts,

the role that his wife played in efforts to overturn the election, Samuel Alito and his wife, and upside-down flags. And now we have a moment where almost no matter the ruling, the delay in getting to the ruling seems to be hyper beneficial to Trump and therefore political. Is there any coming back from the court? I think I find it very hard to see how. I mean, as you as you say, and as I think Lisa and David have also implied, the real decision, their real ruling has already been taken, and that is time. Now, whatever they decide this afternoon their opinion, as it took the Supreme Court to hear and rule on the secret tapes that Nixon was then ordered to release in 1974. This is a foot-dragging operation. We've got other rulings coming up, none as important as that. But you've got, I think, credibility issues

with two Supreme Court justices at the moment, with Clarence Thomas in terms of corruption, with Sam Alito in terms of bias and not recusing himself. But we've got one coming up, just to mention this, where it's conceivable they will rule that that people with domestic restraining orders have a constitutional right to firearms. So there are there are choices with the Supreme Court when you say, yeah, has it gone too far? Right. That's a great point. So we got some other things going on. Of course, there is a sentencing of the former president next month. I believe it's July 11th. I'd love to get some historical perspective on the first time a former president is convicted on felony convictions. And also ask our legal panel a little bit about what to expect there.

So we'll take a quick break. We'll be right back with that. Welcome back to Morning Joe. A beautiful day in Washington as the sun comes up over the White House. The gag order in Donald Trump's hush money criminal case remains in effect, but the former president's attorneys say they'll keep fighting to get it thrown out. That comes after New York's top court declined to hear Trump's appeal of the matter earlier this week. The state appeals court dismissed Trump's challenge on Tuesday, stating there were no constitutional grounds for the appeal. That leaves the gag order imposed by Judge Juan Mershon in place, meaning Trump can still

face criminal penalties for violating it. The order bars Trump from going after witnesses, jurors and others who were involved in the case. Following his felony conviction last month, the sentencing is scheduled for July 11th. So I guess, first of all, do you expect Dave Ehrenberg, this gag order to be pulled back before the sentencing? I don't, but maybe there's reason for it. And then what do you back before the sentencing? I don't. But maybe there's reason for it. And then what do you expect for the sentencing? Mika, I think the gag order will remain in place. DA Bragg has asked for it to stay in place, at least through the sentencing. And as far as his penalty, I think in this case, a typical first time offender in in this low-level class E felony would get probation. But Trump has shown no remorse. It's quite the opposite. In fact, he has bashed the judge,

the judge's family, the prosecutors. He's continued to show contempt for the whole process. I mean, he's violated the court's gag order 10 times. A defendant who normally does that would get to think about his actions behind steel bars. But I still don't think that will happen here because, you know, Trump has not been punished with anything beyond a fine for his 10 violations of a gag order. So why would we think that Judge Marchand would give him any incarceration? Right. So maybe he'll get some house arrest at Mar-a-Lago, but he's not going to be wearing an orange jumpsuit anytime soon. So, Lisa, let's take this to you. Beyond the gag order, we're now less than a month until we get his sentencing, July 11th, just before the Republican

National Convention. From what you know of the case, drawing upon your experience, what's your, you know, understand that it's a guess and every case is different. But what should we expect in terms of a sentencing? I actually am going to have to disagree with Dave here. I think there's a possibility that Trump gets some form of incarceration. Now, that incarceration, because of some of the logistical issues, could come in the form of something like a house arrest and not in a traditional incarceratory setting. But I think given the lack of remorse, there are a number of violations of the gag order that have not been brought to Judge Marchand's attention, but happened on journalist's watch during the trial. You know, the district attorney's office may have made the

decision. It wasn't worth it at that stage to bring it to Marchand's attention. They wanted to see the trial through. They wanted it completed. They wanted a verdict. But that doesn't mean that they're not going to go to him during sentencing and say, look at all these other things that he did. Look at all these other things that he said. He doesn't take your words seriously. Nothing short of incarceration will be enough to get this guy to stop. Lisa, I just from you were in there and you watched this every step of the way and covered every detail for us. And I'm just curious, does Donald Trump, a defendant, seem, act, talk like someone who wants to avoid jail time? I'm just curious if he thinks it would even be politically helpful.

I think he thinks it might be politically helpful. I mean, certainly, Mika, the reporting has been that he wants to avoid jail at all costs, that he is very much scared of anything approaching incarceration. But from a political perspective, he believes that's political gold for him. If you look at the messaging, both during the trial and thereafter, he is definitely trying to rile up his base with the possibility of some form of term of incarceration. And in terms of how he's talking, he is continuing to push a narrative that, as I've written and others have, is extraordinarily dangerous, tying the current president to the

prosecution in Manhattan by somehow alleging that the Biden administration and specifically the Department of Justice was pulling Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg strings. How? Through a career civil litigator named Matthew Colangelo, who was part of the D.A.'s team, but certainly not its head. For a variety of reasons, that narrative makes no sense. It is factually false. And it's also dangerously and perniciously racist because it assumes that D.A. Alvin Bragg, who is black, could not have executed this prosecution on his own without the supervision of a bunch of white elders. Ed Luce, I try and ask you for historical parallels, but are there any? I don't think

there are. And I'm just curious what the what the view from across the pond is of this. I mean, it feels like and I know we live in a little bit of a media echo chamber and we read what everybody writes, but it feels like this trial, you know, was not like some of the trials of the century that we have watched in the past. And yet it should have been. Is it the same around the world? How are they looking at this former president convicted, found guilty on 34 felony counts? And by the way, the evidence proving this hush money payment, by the way, to a porn star that he had an affair with while his wife was pregnant. Those are details, but it's out there. I mean, is there any reaction around the world that is a little bit more perhaps, I don't know, specific to the moment than what we've seen here in the United States?

I mean, to answer your first question, Mika, I just don't think there is any possible precedent historically for a former president and a possible future one in a trial over a hush money with a porn star, an ex-porn star, breaking a gag order, an imprisonable offense, potentially, 10 times, and, you know, potentially facing some form of incarceration. That is, I think, sweet, generous, as they say, unique. There is no parallel. The rest of the world, you know, we have had presidents put in jail. We have had leaders, government leaders put in jail for corruption in other

countries. We've had it in Israel. We've had it in South Korea. We've had it in Brazil a couple of times. We've had it various sort of high level criminal trials of political leaders in France. So it's not that unusual to see this happening because that is how the system works. The world looks to America was the first country that said no man is above the law. The law reigns supreme. That is what America is known for, as a beacon for that. So I think America would be catching up with with the world if if if Trump went to one of his real trials. Well, that's a shame. All right. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin and state attorney for Palm Beach County, Dave Ehrenberg. Thank you both very much for your analysis and insight this morning.

Still ahead, we'll dive into the world of vaping and look at the rise and fall of Juul Labs, the company that revolutionized vaping among the younger generation. Plus, we'll go over how President Biden and Donald Trump and preparing for presidential debate now just one week away and the multiple adversaries Trump now says he's up against. Morning Joe will be right back. It's hard to believe Donald Trump was first elected to the United States Senate when I was negative eight years old. That's true. President Biden was elected when I was negative eight years old. I'm gonna get myself in trouble.

Yeah, you are, because they're both old. And so just stop, guys. Oh, well. Republican Congressman Brian Stile in his opening act for Donald Trump's rally in Wisconsin on Tuesday. How'd it go for you? Totally botching an attempt at a joke about President Biden's age, but by mistake, totally making fun of Donald Trump's age. We're one week away from this cycle's first presidential debate, and Donald Trump appears to be lowering expectations and making excuses. During his rally in Wisconsin on Tuesday, he even pushed the conspiracy that Biden could only perform well if he's pumped up on drugs.

Hmm. Is anybody going to watch the debate? He's going to be so pumped up. He's going to be pumped up. You know, all that stuff that was missing about a month ago from the White House. What happened? Who left it? Somebody left it. I wonder, let's see, somebody left a laptop in an office of a gentleman who was supposed to fix the laptop from hell. He never picked it up. And somebody didn't pick up hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of cocaine. I wonder who that could have been. I don't know. Actually, I think it was Joe. Trump also told his followers to be suspicious of the whole debate enterprise, although his campaign negotiated the terms of his participation and agreed. He added that he'll be up against multiple adversaries at once, not just Biden, but both of CNN's moderators who Trump said are incapable of treating him fairly.

Hmm. Really? And when it comes to Trump's debate preparations, he's reportedly been meeting with policy experts and other allies rather than holding mock debates. Republican Senators Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance have also been involved in these meetings. Oh, great. Meanwhile, President Biden will begin debate preps at Camp David. According to Politico, Biden's longtime advisor and first White House chief of staff, Ron Klain, is involved in the prep sessions. Last month, the chair of Biden's reelection campaign put out a memo explaining the president will aim to go on the offensive

and push Trump to talk about how his three appointees to the Supreme Court helped to overturn Roe v. Wade and how he could further undermine abortion rights in a second term. Ed Luce, your new piece is entitled The Mother of All U.S. Presidential Debates. What are you expecting set Set the scene for us. Well, the important thing, Mika, I think, is that the terms and the rules of next week's debate mostly suit Biden. They're the ones Biden requested. No live audience, which Trump, of course, needs and feeds off. So that's bad for Trump. Mike, of the one not speaking, gets turned up, turned off, they're muted. Ditto. And then there's two commercial breaks. I guess you could see them as given both men's ages,

bathroom breaks. But the interesting thing here is I think this is going to be one of the few presidential debates, this and the one scheduled for September, that could sway an election. There's only really been three, and that was the first between Nixon and Kennedy, first bunch in 1960, which had a huge impact for those who watched it on TV, as opposed to listening to it on the radio, in a very close election. Then there's two that Carter fought, the one that he won in 1976 against Ford, where he got Ford partly with your father's advice and coaching to say there was no Soviet control of Poland or Hungary or Czechoslovakia. And alienated tons of voters of East European origin in the Midwest states.

Again, a very close election. And then finally, Carter losing to Reagan when all Reagan needed to do was basically turn up, be genial and show that he wasn't insane. He wasn't going to start a nuclear war. He duly did that. And he defeated Carter. I think this debate between Biden and Trump

in what is an equally close election to those first two is hugely consequential. It's sky high importance. And there are really sort of two parameters. One is we want not to be talking. Biden wants people not to be talking about his age and he wants people to be talking about Trump's character. That's really the goal here. So it's so interesting, Sam Stein, I mean, you already saw Donald Trump on stage suggesting that President Biden will be on cocaine. To back up the point I'll make here, this individual, this candidate, this convicted felon plays dirty. He plays ugly. He's done it many times in the past. We could spend the next

three and a half hours listing his lies. We wouldn't get through them. He lies like a rug and gaslights people. And I actually think this could be a very fraught territory for President Biden who or any other candidate who wants to have an equal playing field and really debate the issues. And on top of that, this former president has a number of so-called news networks that will amplify and back up his conspiracies, his gaslighting and his lies. How fraught a territory do you think this is for President Biden to step into? I guess it just depends on how much cocaine he has, right? No, it's very fraught, I think, in a way that people don't quite appreciate. It's not just because Biden himself is facing a lot of critical views on his age and performance, although that, in a way, could lower the bar for him.

But historically speaking, incumbent presidents who are debating for the first time tend to perform poorly. Ed is right about consequential debates historically, but I would add one into the mix that almost was historical in nature, and that was Barack Obama's first debate with Mitt Romney, where Barack Obama came out and really fell flat on his face, gave an incredible amount of momentum to Mitt Romney's campaign that Romney almost used to catapult in the polls. If not for Hurricane Sandy in the close of the election, it could have ended up very differently, potentially. Joe Biden, this will be his first debate.

He has not sat for that many adversarial interviews, which are good prep work for a debate. He's going to Camp David for intensive debate preparation sessions. But this is always difficult for a president because they're not used to it. I'm not saying Trump is used to it. He doesn't sit for that many adversarial debates and, sorry, interviews. But this is different for Biden. That being said, the closest parallel that we have to judges by the template is when the two of them met last cycle in 2020. And that first debate for Trump was a disaster. He talked all over Biden.

He talked over the moderator. He seemed genuinely crazed in the moment. I believe he had COVID, which was not great at the time. And so, you know, it's possible that we have a replay of that in which Biden comes out, simply clears a very low bar that's been set for him by Trump. And viewers say, OK, maybe we were wrong about the issues of age and stamina. To quote Sam Stein, he had COVID, which was not great. That is certainly true. The diagnosis did not come for a couple more days, though. Let's bring into this conversation a special correspondent at Vanity Fair and host of the Fast Politics podcast, Molly Jung Fast.

She is an MSNBC political analyst. Molly, I want to go to you. Actually, Sam started to take us where I wanted to go with you at this point. It's true. Incumbent presidents often struggle in that first debate because, A they're usually not primary. So therefore, they don't have any debates against fellow members of their own party. And then B, they're rarely challenged while in the White House in the Oval Office. So that's usually an advantage to the challenger. However, in this case, Donald Trump also sat out the primary process. He didn't do any debates.

He doesn't sit for adverse sale interviews. So he's not going to be sharp either. So this might be two, frankly, rusty competitors a week from tonight. Yeah. I mean, look, one of the things that Donald Trump loves to do and has been doing this since he's been running against Joe Biden is say that Joe Biden is infirmed and he's this and he's that and spreads these untruths about Joe Biden's mental state. And then when he gets up there and gives the State of the Union, he can't. Trump has no answer for that. Right. Because he gives the State of the Union addresses and at or the last one he gave, people were like, oh, my God, all of the things that Donald Trump has been saying about him are untrue. So and that's why he's trying to, like, lay the groundwork with this idea that he's on cocaine.

I mean, this stuff is completely crazy. And I think that it just doesn't you know, I don't know where it comes from. And I think that Biden does ultimately benefit from it.