Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/28/23

Episode Date: June 28, 2023

SCOTUS rejects radical election theory on Tuesday, boosting confidence in upcoming elections

I think that the country right now faces hugely challenging and fundamentally important issues. And what we've done in our politics is create a situation where we're electing idiots. And so I don't look at it through the lens of like, you know, is this what I should do or what I shouldn't do? I look at it through the lens of how do we elect serious people? And I think electing serious people can't be partisan. Former Congresswoman Liz Cheney with a frank assessment on the state of American politics. Wonder who she's actually talking about there. I think we know perhaps the Republicans leading going out yet

another excuse for that leaked audio tape that appeared to capture him showing off classified material to people without security clearances. A lot of people saw that audio as him admitting to a crime. But in an interview with Fox News Digital yesterday, the former president professed his innocence and accused the media, even Fox, of conspiring against him. Here's a portion of that leaked tape from August of 2021, followed by Trump's defense yesterday. Wait a minute. Let's see here. Yeah, I just found it. Isn't that amazing?

This totally wins my case, you know, except it is like highly confidential. This is secret information. This was done by the military, given to me. I think we can probably... I don't know, we'll have to see. We'll have to try to figure out a... See, as president I could have de-lessened that, but now I can't. But this is... Isn't that interesting?

I had a whole desk full of lots of papers, mostly newspaper articles, copies of magazines, copies of different plans, copies of stories having to do with many, many subjects. And what was said was absolutely fine and very perfectly. We did nothing wrong. This is a whole hoax. We had a lot of papers, a lot of papers stacked up. In fact, you could hear the rustle of the paper.

And nobody said I did anything wrong other than the fake news, which, of course, is Fox, too. Later in the day, Trump altered his defense once again in a conversation with reporters from Semaphore and ABC News. The former president claimed the plans he was referring to on the leaked tape were related to his real estate properties, not U.S. military plans for a potential attack on Iran. He told the journalist, quote, I would say it was bravado. If you want to know the truth, it was bravado. I was talking and I was just holding up the papers and talking about them. But I have no documents.

I didn't have any documents. Did I use the word plans? What I'm referring to is magazines, newspapers, plans of buildings. I had plans of buildings, you know, plans. I had plans of a golf course. Sorry. It's Willie. I he had me at you could hear the rustle of the papers of the Iran plans. I mean, he has such contempt for his voters or maybe just assumes they haven't heard the tape to suggest that what he calls explicitly on that tape from Bedminster two summers ago, a Defense Department document says sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdity. It's plans, excuse me, for a golf course.

It's plans for one of the buildings that I've been working on. He also had, Mika, yesterday in one of his interviews, a bit of a self-affirmation telling himself that he's a legitimate person. Let's listen. You're not concerned then with your own voice on those on those recordings? My voice was fine. What did I say wrong in those recordings? I didn't even see the recording. Are there any other recordings that we should be concerned of? I don't know of any recordings that you should be concerned with because I don't do things wrong. I do things right. I'm a legitimate person.

There's an element, John, of Stuart Smalley there looking in the mirror saying I'm good enough. People like me saying I am a legitimate person, but I don't do things wrong. I do things right. I'm a legitimate. Yeah. But it also speaks to the impunity with which he has operated with his supporters, especially for the last several years, which is I can just say that these were plans for a golf course or for one of my buildings, despite what's explicitly on the tape. And they'll buy it. And that the quote that Mika read there about the plans, the buildings, he seemed like it was an evolution as he was talking. He was like, wait, building plans, golf course. Ah, that's what it was. I mean, it's nonsensical. And you're right. It shows a lack of respect for the people who

have followed him this far, that he feels like he can just say anything and they will believe it. And polling suggests he's not altogether wrong. Well, it's true. Exactly. A lot of people do. And a lot he's not altogether wrong. Exactly. A lot of people do. And a lot of Republicans, elected officials, important figures will follow him, too. And whether they actually believe it or not, they'll profess that they do in order to not anger him or anger his voters. He's lived, for the most part, a political life of no consequence. He can get away with whatever he wants. He did lose an election. But of course, the story there is he actually didn't. And the people believe that, too. And what's so different right now is that he faced legal challenges and where there are courtrooms

where there will be consequences. He can't just talk away. And, Katie Kay, we'll get into the details of this Speaker McCarthy story a little bit later in the show. But it's a case in John's point, which is he dared step out and kind of in a sideways way, perhaps criticized Donald Trump's chances of winning the 2024 election and then had to quickly clean up the mess and scramble and by some reports, call Donald Trump to apologize. It just speaks to no matter whether he's telling the truth, which is a rare occasion or pretending that a classified document is golf course plans, that he's protected by all the people around him.

Yeah, the McCarthy story is fascinating. He's in this kind of there is nobody's shoes. I would want to be in less than McCarthy's shoes at the moment in Washington, hang to field off kind of, you know, from all of his members who want to show that they are loyal to Trump and having to kind of tamp down all of those revolts in his own party at the moment. But I was struck like John about the it's almost like he's thinking in real time. Maybe they were building plans. No, that doesn't quite sound right. No. OK, so let's go with golf plans. And there's a question mark after those building plans. He hasn't really decided he's thinking in real time. What's my latest defense going to be? But you watch that Fox News interview and we've only got the transcript of the ABC semaphore one.

But it's pretty low energy. I mean, to coin a phrase from Mr. Trump himself. I mean, it's there's not he doesn't he's not fighting there. He's not got his usual bombastic. I'm absolutely right. There's a there just seems to me if you were to read the body language around that interview, that seemed to me somebody who was aware of the kind of problems they were in and was kind of scrambling around for answers and excuses. No question. Things have gotten more serious for Donald Trump. I guess he's just counting on enough people buying his version of the story that he was just rustling around with some golf plans. How does this fit into the special counsel's investigation? Well, we're learning new, previously unreported details about special counsel Jack Smith's

investigation into former President Donald Trump's handling of nuclear secrets after leaving the White House. New York Times is reporting this morning prosecutors working for Smith have issued at least one subpoena for surveillance footage from Trump's Bedminster Golf Club. Now, that's where that conversation on tape took place. Two sources familiar with the matter say that came sometime after the government's request for footage from Mar-a-Lago. But it's still not clear what the footage shows or exactly why prosecutors wanted to obtain it. The Times also reporting prosecutors, quote, fought a pitched battle with Mr. Trump's lawyers late last year over how best to search the New Jersey property.

Specifically, investigators discussed executing a search warrant at Bedminster last fall because they were concerned more documents were stashed there. That's according to two people briefed on the matter. But one of those people told the Times the Justice Department did not have probable cause to obtain a warrant from a judge. Let's bring in congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alomany. She's got some new reporting this morning about how federal prosecutors are perhaps zeroing in now on the former president's New Jersey golf club, adding details about why the FBI has not searched Betminster. So, Jackie, what more can you tell us about this? Yeah, Willie, well, we came to found my colleagues, Josh Dossi and Spencer Sue and I, that this piece of evidence that we now have have all heard this week of Trump brandishing documents

at his Bedminster, New Jersey, property came did come late in the game. It really in recent months ahead of the 49-page indictment that Jack Smith and his team unveiled last month, but was a very key and critical piece of evidence that sort of expedited and spurred the charges against former President Donald Trump. As former law enforcement officials and current law enforcement officials told us yesterday, there's nothing, no piece of evidence that's more powerful at the end of the day than someone talking about the potential crime that they committed in their own voice and words and on tape. New York Times reported that ultimately there was not enough evidence or probable cause or in terms of the sort of public perception of it, political cover to execute a search warrant at Bedminster. And at that point, the Trump lawyers had sort of adjusted their posture and were trying to

comply with the court's order to make sure that they attested in some way that they had fully complied with the May 2022 subpoena, asking for Trump to be responsive to a request for returning all classified materials in his possession. But, you know, even before the August raid of Mar-a-Lago, the legally executed search warrant had occurred, prosecutors already knew that Trump was taking these boxes back and forth. There was a lot of evidence that they had already collected about his habits, but they had also concluded that the bulk of the materials still were at Mar-a-Lago. Hey, Jackie, it's Sam Stein here. I guess the question that hangs over the bed minister portion of this is, what would Jack Smith do with a New Jersey setting, right? Judge Eileen Cannon down in Florida is overseeing this

case. We all know she's appointed by Trump. She has a history of ruling in favor of Trump's legal team. The question people have is, if he gets an adversarial hearing in front of Cannon, could the special counsel go to New Jersey and try to relitigate these cases? How would that work functionally? Do they have the chance to even do that if they have one court hearing going on in Palm Beach area? Yes, Sam, this is certainly a question that has been in the bloodstream that a lot of Trump officials, quite frankly, have been hypothesizing about. And there is certainly the possibility that if things were to go south in Florida, that the charges could be brought in New Jersey under this idea that the venue, that a place where the crimes were in part committed was in New Jersey. That being said, as we've seen all along, the special counsel and the team in its entirety has been extremely strategic. There was a lot of decision making and deliberation about where to

bring charges to begin with, even with the possibility that Eileen Cannon would be overseeing the trial. And the calculation that was made was that they would be most successful in Florida bringing these charges there at the end of the day, despite it being potentially, you know, a positive grounds for Donald Trump. But again, this is someone who I don't think would have brought these charges. And this idea even of, you know, Trump coming up with these excuses about that he didn't actually have a classified document. You've got to think that that Jack Smith already has potential witnesses lined up to appear in court to say what exactly that they saw at this meeting. So, Jackie, one of the focuses of the special counsel in the Mar-a-Lago documents case is not just the fact that they were there at the beach club,

but there was obstruction when the National Archives and others tried to get them back. The New York Times story this morning talking about Bedminster suggests there was some of that at Bedminster as well, that they had to be the legal team, the Trump legal team had to have its arm twisted just to go look for documents and then wouldn't sign a document saying, yes, we checked everywhere, got their own people to look, didn't look in certain areas at Bedminster. Does it sound to you like the special counsel also may be looking at obstruction at Bedminster as well? Yeah, that is something that we do not have the reporting on at the moment. And we get a little bit into the back and forth that was occurring between Trump's legal team and prosecutors at that time. There was one person in particular who was raising questions and concerns

about doing hiring an outside team to conduct a search at Bedminster. That was Boris Epstein, a top advisor and in-house counsel to former President Trump. But at the end of the day, that search of Bedminster was ultimately conducted by this outside team and no additional classified materials were ultimately found. But again, there was some hesitation and reticence and conversations that did occur about searching Bedminster and some hesitation. But obviously, you know, prosecutors did not take, did not litigate the matter further and ultimately execute a search warrant. But as for those obstruction charges, that again is not, that is not something that we're seeing bear out just yet, at least.

Yeah, many legal experts will say this man has been caught in a lie. And as Katie Kay pointed out, his body language really does reflect that. He looks exhausted and he's sort of these little lies are coming out here and there, a smattering of lies here, a smattering of lies there. He is running for his life, they would say, running from jail time. Congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany, thank you very much. We'll move to the big lie now. A major ruling yesterday from the Supreme Court, which made it more difficult for the big lie to repeat itself in 2024. The case Moore versus Harper based out of North Carolina centered on a radical theory known as the independent state legislature theory.

It would have given state legislatures virtually unchecked power over federal elections based on an extreme interpretation of the Constitution's elections clause. In a six to three ruling, the Supreme Court rejected that anti-democratic theory with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett siding with the liberals in his opinion. The chief justice writes the elections clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review, adding that the legislatures the framers recognized are the mere creatures of the state constitutions and cannot be greater than their creators. John Eastman, a legal advisor to Donald Trump, embraced this fringe theory as a way to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that then Vice President Mike Pence had the power to refuse to certify the results. In an email exchange with NBC News,

Eastman claimed the ruling would prevent legislatures from addressing illegality and fraud in a timely manner. When asked if the ruling invalidates the arguments he made in 2020, Eastman wrote, quote, no, but it will be murkier than it was previously. Joining us now to delve deeper into this ruling, senior legal affairs reporter at Politico, Josh Gerstein. Josh, talk about, if you could, what was at stake? Well, this is pretty significant, Mika, on two different fronts. One, the one that you just mentioned involving the 2024 presidential race and the possibility that you could have seen Republicans, specifically former President Trump, put forward this kind of effort to put state legislatures on steroids, you might say, to say that they could be the ultimate arbiter of

who won an election in their state. And that obviously could have led to post-election chaos. That is the plan that the Trump team tried to start to run in 2020, but basically got cut off at the pass. And the Supreme Court, through the reasoning of its ruling, makes it seem like that's a lot less likely here. The second front, of course, is the issue of control of the U.S. House of Representatives. And this decision seemed to shift the ground in favor of Democrats in the overall way in which the redistricting is held to set up the districts. So to put it a different way, Josh, can you explain what could have been if the outcome was different? Well, if the outcome was different, you could have seen a situation where state legislatures

were emboldened, where some of these legal theories that you were discussing before coming from John Eastman, who's now facing a disbarment proceeding, could have seen much more potentially credible in 2024 if we had a nail biter type presidential election there. The notion that each state should be in a position through its legislature to decide where its electors were going to go rather than some kind of recognition of the will of the voters, you know, is the kind of thing that could potentially throw the whole election into chaos. And I think the Supreme Court stepped away from that possibility with this 6-3 ruling. Josh, as you know, a lot of people are holding their breaths waiting for this announcement because of the implications you just laid out for democracy and what might have been different in 2020, what could have been different in 2024. Any surprises as you talk to people

in terms of the six to three vote, perhaps that it was Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, the two justices appointed, two of the three appointed by Donald Trump that tipped the balance a bit here? Yeah, it was definitely surprising to see Barrett and Kavanaugh come across with Roberts. Kavanaugh took a somewhat more nuanced and slightly different position than Roberts. But still, that's still a 6-3 supermajority. And it suggests there aren't that many votes in play for this theory that kind of put state legislatures at the apex of deciding how a presidential election comes out. That wasn't the core issue in the case.

It was more around the issue of redistricting and the power of state legislatures in other federal elections. But it definitely undercuts this case that some conservative legal activists were trying to make to sort of go back to a more old-fashioned approach where maybe there didn't even need to be elections and the electors in each state could just be picked by the political leaders there. So as we heard, one of those fringe conservative thinkers, John Eastman, in an interview with NBC yesterday, email interview, sort of acknowledged that this ruling would make what he tried to do in 2020 murkier. That was his word. Eastman, of course,

was one of those who tried to push the effort for Vice President Pence to overturn the election results and therefore keep Donald Trump in office. So, Josh, let's put it simply. Do we think that as the next election is on the horizon, that things to get a little safer, a little fairer, should Americans feel a little more confident that their vote will be heard this time around? Yeah, I think that's right, Jonathan. I think this does, it seems to put the nail in the coffin. I would say it's not quite as murky as Mr. Eastman was suggesting, although it is actually

a benefit for Eastman, as I said, in this disbarment legal discipline proceedings that he's facing. Because remember, they got three Supreme Court justices to say that at least this was a credible theory, three people who dissented there from the Roberts decision. And so it doesn't quite seem all that fringe if you had three Supreme Court justices that sort of landed in that particular camp. Yeah, although those are the particularly conservative members of this Supreme Court. Can I just look at the states where there is Republican control, which is Republican legislatures, which is swing states. So Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina and Wisconsin. And what specifically kind of in the light of 2020 and what this would mean for those states?

Well, Katty, I mean, you remember you had Rudy Giuliani going across the country, appearing in front of conservative state legislatures, GOP-controlled state legislatures, sort of making the case for election fraud. And if this ruling had gone the other way, you would have seen those legislatures basically become an electoral tribunal of some sort. And this decision basically says that the courts are the ones that are going to play that role and not state legislatures. And so in that sense, if you're looking for the Trump operation to sort of rerun that playbook in 2024, it makes this particular play not look that enticing or likely to be successful.

Hey, Josh, I think we've exhausted the questions on the Moore decision here, your brilliant analysis aside. Can you look at the next couple cases that are to come and also put this in the context of what Roberts is trying to do about what is objectively a free-falling public opinion about the state of the Supreme Court? Well, there's sort of two different schools here, Sam, about where the Supreme Court? Well, there's sort of two different schools here, Sam, about where the

Supreme Court is headed. This could be a last minute concession in a more liberal or pro-Democrat direction before we get the decisions that we're expecting on affirmative action, for example, where the court's direction, not just for years, but for decades, has been to pull back from affirmative action. So we're thinking that the conservative justices will hold sway there and perhaps bring an end to affirmative action, certainly in college admissions. You've got Biden's student debt relief plan that is also up there at the Supreme Court and a case on LGBT rights. So you could potentially see conservatives run the table. But if you take a more sort of strategic outlook and you think that that's what Roberts is pursuing here as we come to the end of this term, you really see him as the institutionalist who's trying to get the court out of the political spotlight and return things to an era where every decision was not seen as political. It's just not clear, though, whether he has that power in every case. You've got a 6-3 Republican conservative supermajority on that court. And as we saw in the Dobbs decision last year, you know, it's quite possible for the

court to basically ignore what Roberts is recommending and go in another direction. Senior legal affairs reporter at Politico, Josh Gerstein, thank you so much for your reporting this morning. A few more stories to get to this morning. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will headline a fundraiser for Democratic Congressman Ruben Gallego tomorrow as he campaigns for the Arizona Senate seat held by Kyrsten Sinema. That's according to an invitation to the event obtained by NBC News. Pelosi has not formally endorsed Gallego. Sinema left the Democratic Party and officially registered as an independent late last year, just days after Democrats reached a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. She has not said whether she will run for reelection in 2024.

Gallego, a four-term congressman and retired Marine, has been highly critical of Sinema and announced a bid for her seat in January. The Arizona Senate race is one of several that will determine which party controls the Senate next year. Willie, a new Department of Justice report says misconduct at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York allowed convicted pedophile and serial sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to die by suicide in 2019. The 120 page report found 13 Bureau of Prison Employees failed to monitor Epstein every 30 minutes, as was required, and then lied about it. Epstein was allowed extra clothing in his cell and the prison failed to make sure he had a cellmate, as was recommended. Two of those 13 employees were criminally charged for their roles in Epstein's death. Mika. Ryan Seacrest is set to take over hosting duties

for the long running Wheel of Fortune. He will replace the beloved Pat Sajak, who recently announced his plans to retire from hosting the game show after 41 seasons. Seacrest signed a multi-year agreement to host the show beginning next year. The 48-year-old is best known for hosting American Idol and his weekly syndicated radio show. He also co-hosted the daytime talk show Live with Kelly and Ryan for six years. This is not the first time Seacrest is taking over for an icon. He also assumed hosting duties for American Top 40 from the legendary radio host Casey Kasem in 2004 and Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve in 2013. So, Willie, Seacrest in. Yeah, it was always going to be Seacrest.

It always is Seacrest. It was always. You know, John, Seacrest, great guy, talented guy, prolific guy. The question now is, and congratulations to Ryan. It's a great gig. What about Vanna? Are we keeping Vanna? I mean, it'll be on her terms. Does she decide not are we keeping her? Does she decide to stay? Do you get a Seacrest Vanna tandem now? Well, really, I should note that Ryan Seacrest taking over way too early tomorrow.

He's adding to his portfolio. He's ambitious, that Seacrest. He can certainly buy all the vowels he wants. Yeah, Vanna White, of course, as we reported earlier this week, in contract negotiations, now really wants a significant raise. Feels like that she was underpaid for a long time there. Pat Sajak made much more than she did.

He has moved on, but she is such a part of the institution. Let us hope that she stays and can guide young Mr. Seacrest into his next television adventure. Pay Vanna, Mika, pay Vanna. I agree. She should know her value. The Pentagon has announced an additional $500 million aid package to Ukraine. This will be the U.S. government's 41st financial lifeline to Kyiv. The munitions will directly assist Ukrainian troops in their

counteroffensive. The New York Times report the Pentagon will send more ammunition to Ukraine from its stockpiles, including Stinger and Patriot air defense missiles, guided rockets and artillery ammunition. Belarusian state news media reports the leader of the short-lived Russian rebellion, Yevgeny Prigozhin, arrived in Belarus yesterday. According to The New York Times, President Alexander Lukashenko spoke with state media about his phone calls with Vladimir Putin as Saturday's rebellion unfolded. Lukashenko reportedly said Putin had suggested they kill the Wagner group leader, but Lukashenko advised against it. Lukashenko apparently told Putin, quote, a bad piece is better than any war before calling Prigozhin himself to warn him

that Putin was going to squash him like a bug. OK, two dynamics here, Willie, that I have a lot of questions about. Number one, does Prokosian survive this? And now Lukashenko making himself look like the winner here. I'm just saying it seems like everybody is going to be getting under Vladimir Putin's skin. And we know how that goes. Too many people taking too much credit away from Vladimir Putin. We'll see where that goes. Join us now. Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four star admiral James DeVritas. He's chief international analyst for NBC News

and associate professor in global politics at University College London. Brian Kloss. Good morning to you both. Admiral, I'll start with you. Dust has settled a little bit on this head spinning couple of days in Russia, where Prokofiev is on the doorstep of Moscow one day out, thinks he can get all the way to the gates of the Kremlin. Effectively, suddenly a deal brokered by Lukashenko in Belarus puts it to an end. What do you make of what we saw and where does it go from here? Let's kind of do it from the inside out, if you will. So ground zero is Prigozhin. I think he's a dead man walking, literally.

Sooner or later, and I would guess probably sooner, Putin will decide, I never forgive, I never forget. And he will take out Prigozhin. How that occurs exactly, I don't know. But if I were Yevgeny Prigozhin, I wouldn't stand near any open windows at high altitude. Go one click out and you're with Putin. This hurts Putin. It doesn't take him apart or destroy him. If he were a stock, Putin's value has probably gone down about 30%. But he's not a penny stock. He still has capability. He still will continue to maneuver. And he comes out of this. And here's the third ring of this particular Russian inferno. He comes out of this with intel on those around him, the generals who apparently didn't try to stop Pergozan,

the intelligence services. How diligent were they in reporting to him on this? How many of the oligarchs jumped on their private jets and went flying away? How many actually stuck around and tried to support him? Putin has gathered a lot of intelligence. So look for a real pogrom to unfold to take out those that displease the evil leader in the Kremlin. And in fact, some reporting that some of Putin's own generals knew this was coming and did not tell Vladimir Putin, to your point. Let's go out to the fourth ring, Admiral, and that is Ukraine. If you're on the other side of that war, if you were President Zelensky and his generals,

you're watching what happened over the weekend and you're thinking what? You're feeling pretty damn good. You're saying to yourself, confusion and alarm amongst my enemies. You know, the old Napoleon quote, when you're my height, by the way, you love to quote Napoleon. Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy when he's in the process of making a terrible mistake. And that's effectively what happened here. On the other hand, this is not going to be a strategic shift in what's happening on the ground. The Ukrainians still have to drive home this counteroffensive on the ground.

I think there are high fives, but now they're putting their shoulders back to work on the counteroffensive. Brian, you've been studying coups around the world for a decade, an attempted one here, and you explain in The Atlantic why coups fail. When it comes to what happened in Russia, you write this, quote, Everyone, loyalist or not, can see Putin has been openly attacked, which conveys weakness. Putin's forces in Ukraine will wonder whether they should get killed in a seemingly futile war, particularly when the biggest territorial gains of the war so far have now been in Russia, not Ukraine. And Putin, already a paranoid and irrational figure, will now make more decisions out of fear.

So even if the coup fizzles, it will change Russia's internal politics, Putin's behavior and the battlefield dynamics in Ukraine. There are no good guys in a battle in which two Russian war criminals vie for control of a major nuclear power. However, if you're watching events and trying to understand the strategic logic of coups and how Putin's regime might end, look out for whether the loyalists stay loyal or start to peel off toward those challenging him. If important figures begin to abandon the regime en masse, Putin is toast. So, Brian, in your estimation, what's the likelihood of that? Are you going to start to see some people peel away or is the iron grip of Putin strong enough that they just can't do it?

So normally what happens after a coup attempt fails or a mutiny fails is the dictator feels vulnerable, paranoid, afraid with good reason, and they begin to purge people. And what the research seems to suggest is actually this is a reasonably effective tactic, at least in the short term, because what it tends to do is it reasserts the iron grip of the dictator, and it makes people worried about challenging him. Now, if Putin doesn't do this, if he doesn't, you know, kill off Prokofiev or end up, you know, cracking down on potential enemies, then more people will challenge Putin and more people will get thoughts in their head that maybe he is really weak and it's time to move against him. So this is going to be, I think, a very precarious moment in Russian politics. It will be a moment where Putin, probably in the war, wants to send a signal of strength as well.

And, you know, the people around the Kremlin are all watching because dictatorships have very bad information spaces. Everybody lies to everybody else in a dictatorship. And this is one of the ways that they get information is when the cracks break, they finally can sort of see what everyone actually thinks. And so this is where a lot of moving pieces will start to settle, I think, in the coming weeks. Take a quick look at what this might mean for any prospects of negotiations around Ukraine. Overshadowed by the dramatic events of the weekend in Russia itself, there was this meeting in Copenhagen, which was an important meeting because you had Brazil, India and South Africa attending to discuss Ukraine.

So you had these non-aligned countries which have been kind of on the fence that we want to bring into the orbit of the West, actually there with the Ukrainian officials. And of course, we've got that Vilnius meeting of the NATO meeting coming up in just a couple of weeks time. Does what's happened over the last few days impact the timetable, do you think, for any serious peace negotiations that might be taking place? Or do we just have to watch how this counteroffensive plays out? I think it's more door number two, Katty, but there is an increased propensity, I hope, on the part of Russia. If you're Putin and he's a unitary decision maker there, as you know, it's got to shake him a little bit. And secondly, the circle around him is shaken by this. And I think that all of that might lead to a bit more of a propensity to come to the negotiating table. Let's go all the way out in the circle to Beijing. This is important for us to understand how all this is received by

President Xi. He has now watched this buffoonery on the part of Russia in this debacle for almost a year and a half. He's losing patience with that situation, knows this could end very badly, is concerned about an escalation that really cracks the global economy. He will put pressure on Putin, I hope. On the other side, it's a different burn rate. Here, it's our patience. How long are we willing to continue to fund and support Ukraine? I would argue we ought to make that indefinite. There are others who might put pressure. So those two things, Katty, you're absolutely right to pose the question. I think we'll begin to put

pressure in a positive way toward a negotiation, but not immediately. Hey, Brian, Sam Stein here. I'm wondering if you, like me, were spending the weekend contemplating the idea that maybe what comes after Vladimir Putin is worse and that maybe we don't want to deal with the Wagner group as a de facto arm of running Russia, a nuclear state, obviously. So if you're in the U.S. government, which is sort of our way to look into this, what do you think? How do you manage this? Can you manage this? Do you have any impact in trying to mitigate against the worst outcomes of a potential coup? Or are you just sort of

captive to events? Yeah, I mean, coups normally produce dictatorships as well. So you normally swap one for the other. And sometimes the knock-on effects can then be very negative because the new dictator becomes extremely paranoid about the military. They miscalculate. They make decisions out of fear. So, you know, there are no good guys here. And I think that the most likely outcome of a transition in Russia is another dictatorship. The system has to change. Right. I mean, the problem is that anyone who can navigate their way to the top in Russia has to be effectively a murderous crook. And in order to change that, you have to change the levers of power. That means changing the very top people

in the military and security apparatus. It means changing the oligarch structure. That is not going to happen quickly. But I think for the U.S. government and for Western allies, the key thing to look out for is those moments of change. You have to be ready because you have to be there to try to put your finger on the scale a little bit when the transition happens to encourage a better outcome and not to not to necessarily force it on the scale a little bit when the transition happens to encourage a better outcome. And not to not to necessarily force it or anything like that, but to say we are here to support you. If you do want to become more democratic, if you want to leave Putinism behind, this is what we can give you. And I think that would be the smart approach here when Putin eventually does fall.

So, Admiral, the U.S., the president made clear yesterday that the U.S., that they communicated to Moscow, hey, we had nothing to do with what was happening on Saturday. They delivered that message. There's a school of thought, though, that Putin was pushed to negotiate here, which is something he doesn't often do. And in part because he didn't want to see violence erupt 100 miles from Moscow. He didn't want to see Russians killing other Russians. Does that open up a window, perhaps, that the U.S. and allies could take advantage of? The threat of violence in Russia is actually something that might make Putin act, that maybe that's a red line they can nudge, whether it is with F-16s or perhaps a little more nodding wing to Ukraine, that it's OK to

occasionally strike over the border? That's a smart observation. And I know that our friends at the CIA are parsing all of that. And the good news is we have a brilliant mind there in Bill Burns, Ambassador Burns, former ambassador to Russia, director of the CIA. He's taking counsel with the rest of the national security team, Jonathan. And I think you're right. They will look for the nuances in what has occurred and play them forward. A final thought. As you look at the events of this mutiny and you think back in history, go back 100 years ago to the Russian Revolution. Go back to 1917 is when the czar falls. But it's 1905 when the mutiny on the Potemkin, a naval vessel, occurs. That lights the fuse that ends up, to the professor's point, eventually blowing up that particular dictator.

The challenge, and he's exactly right, will be making the turn, making the transition if that occurs. Wow. Retired four-star Navy Admiral James Tavridis, thank you very much for being on this morning again, an associate professor in global politics at University College London and contributor for The Atlantic magazine, Brian Kloss. Thank you as well. President Biden weighed in on the issue of abortion during a fundraiser in Maryland last night. Speaking to a crowd of about 100 donors, Biden criticized states that have passed laws restricting access to abortion. According to The Hill, he defended reproductive rights, saying, quote,

I'm a practicing Catholic. I'm not big on abortion. But guess what? Roe versus Wade got it right. And Jonathan Lemire, while President Biden may not often dive into the issue, Kamala Harris, the vice president, has a very, very strong voice on this. Yeah, this is the dynamic the White House has set up. And it's in part created because of the president's personal feelings about abortion. He went years without saying the word. He was very explicit last night at this fundraiser in Maryland that it's something that he, you know, is not always comfortable talking about. But made very clear that Roe v. Wade is the law. Therefore, the White House has made the vice president that their their central voice on this issue. And many around the West Wing feel like it's the voice where she has really it's the issue where she has really found her voice.

There's this she's been comfortable talking about this. She has been their leading advocate in terms of the call to defend women's health care, to defend reproductive rights, which she's been their fiercest critic of what the Supreme Court did a year or so ago. And when she, in fact, gave a couple of centerpiece speeches in the last couple of days around the Dobbs anniversary. And aides tell me that should continue, Mika and Willie, as the presidential campaign ramps up. And we know that abortion, much like it was in 2022, is going to loom large in the ballot in 2024. Look for the vice president to be out front on that. It's going to be a centerpiece of this campaign with Democrats emphasizing that issue.

The first Republican presidential primary debate in that campaign set to take place less than two months from now. Not yet clear if Donald Trump will be on that stage. New reporting from NBC News finds the former president is leaning heavily towards skipping that first debate. That's according to interviews with more than a half dozen advisors. One source who has encouraged Trump to take the stage said, quote, he is not going to debate

unless he's forced to by changing polling. I disagree with it, but it is where he is. End quote. Trump has a 29-point advantage over second place Ron DeSantis in the latest NBC News polling. Trump also exploring options for counter-programming during that first debate. According to people familiar with his deliberations, maybe a big rally. According to one advisor, Trump has not made a final decision, but if he does not debate, I doubt he's staying home.

So, Sam Stein, the thinking from Donald Trump is if I'm up by 30 points, why bother debate? The people are with me. I don't have to make my case on a stage. I don't have to elevate Ron DeSantis and give him the chance to come after me. I'll just hold a big rally and probably get more viewers with it, at least among my base. Yeah, I mean, Trump's wrong a lot about a lot of stuff, but he might be right about this one. There's not much upside, potentially a lot of downside for him stepping on a stage and having more or less six or seven people just bludgeon him for an hour and a half. He did this before, if I recall correctly, holding an event to raise money for

veterans, I believe, a charity for veterans. It was questionable whether all the donations actually got there, but that's what he did in advance of the Iowa caucuses. Now, he did go on and he lost the Iowa caucuses in 2016. I don't think it was because he skipped the debate. In this case, he's way further ahead at this current juncture than he was back then. And so there's really very little incentive structure for him to do that. And this does raise questions about what the RNC does if he were to skip the debate, because it would be a violation of the loyalty pledge, but also it could call into question their power and influence in organizing a primary.

Yeah, this is going to be we'll be watching the RNC and whether they exercise their power and force Donald Trump to stick to the rules or like most Republican organizations bend to him. But Donald Trump is not going to put himself in a situation where he doesn't have complete control and a debate stage. That's just not something he's going to put himself out there for if he doesn't have complete control and a debate stage. That's just not something he's going to put himself out there for if he doesn't have to. Let's take a look at the morning papers. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle has a front page feature on New York legislation that requires businesses to inform 9-11 survivors that they are eligible for medical coverage and compensation. Supporters say people don't know about the state's program for those who are exposed to toxins during the 2001 terrorist attacks. As of March this year, more than 38,000 civilian survivors

and 85,000 first responders had signed up. The 9-11 Notice Act is now at the governor's desk. Willie in Ohio, the Dayton Daily News highlights a new report from the CDC on an increase in e cigarette sales and a big one. Officials say sales jumped by 46 percent over the past three years. In January of 2020, about 15 million e cigarettescigarettes were sold. That number went up to nearly 23 million by December of last year. The CDC reports the surge is driven by non-tobacco flavored products like menthol, fruit and candy flavors. Many teenagers report using and, of course, are being marketed directly at teenagers. Yeah. Thanks a lot for that. And finally, the South Jersey Times leads with a push

to by Congress to provide tutors and all public schools. The expanding access to high impact tutoring act would allow school districts to apply for grants that would pay for tutors to meet with students three times a week. Last week, the nation's report card showed a drop in reading and math scores among 13-year-olds in the wake of the pandemic.