Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/30/22

Episode Date: June 30, 2022

Jan. 6 committee subpoenas Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone to testify

I have been incredibly moved by the young women that I have met and that have come forward to testify in the January 6th committee. America had the chance to meet one of these young women yesterday, Ms. Cassidy Hutchinson. Her superiors, men many years older, a number of them are hiding behind executive privilege, anonymity and intimidation. But her bravery and her patriotism yesterday were awesome to behold. Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney speaking from the Reagan Library. Really inspiring to see her at the Reagan Library. Really inspiring. It was. To see her at the Reagan Library. And getting such a warm reception. By the way, people should go.

I'm sure most Trumpers have never been to the Reagan Library or learned about Ronald Reagan. He was a president back in the 1980s. He believed in a strong military. He believed in a strong NATO. He believed in the strong military. He believed in a strong NATO. He believed in the strength of immigration. He said that one of the last things this guy, Ronald Reagan, for you, Trumpers, one of the last things that Ronald Reagan said as he left office in his farewell speech was that immigration is the lifeblood of America. And when we stop allowing immigrants to come into our country, we will be the ones who will be old and weary and lose our competitive edge. So Reagan, guys, Ronald Reagan,

he was the 40th president. If you're a Trumper, you really should study his history and some of his policies. You may actually find out that you are supporting the wrong guy. And if you will play a lot more of what Liz Cheney had to say, but she was taking note of the bravery of 25 yearold Cassidy Hutchinson, who spoke truth to power, who spoke the truth, who spoke despite the fact that many much older, much more experienced men were too weak and too shriveled to be able to speak out about what happened behind closed doors in the Trump White House

leading up to. Did you say that? Because I don't. Is Willie is Willie here? Let me tell you something. I don't know that they used that. And she mentioned that there's more than one woman who spoke out and was able to do that compared to these pathetic men. Pathetic's okay. I don't think she's were shriveled. Well, they're like powering in a corner, shriveled in a corner. Something like that. It was cold. Well, Cassidy.

Again, it's kind of chilly. I don't know. I mean, I get what Mika's saying cold. Well, Cassidy. Again, it's kind of chilly. I don't know. I mean, I get what Mika is saying here. Yeah, you better. It is quite an image, though, Willie, is it not? Liz Cheney getting rapturous applause at the Reagan Library, the epicenter of what once was a movement called conservatism, and talking about just how corrupt the Republican Party has gotten, but how one young woman actually.

And maybe more. One young woman and several others inside that administration have actually had the courage to step forward and defend our republic. Joe, one caveat, though, to what you're saying about Ronald Reagan. It wasn't that popular. He only won 49 states in 1984. There was the one holdout. So we have to take that into account when you talk about the salience of his message as president of the United States.

But, yeah, you know, Liz Liz Cheney's speech last night, I think there are two parts of it. The speech itself, which we've come to expect from her. I mean, she holds nothing back. She's leaned all the way. But that's the other part of it right there. A standing ovation. Reagan Library at the Reagan Library. And gosh, Joe, it wasn't that long ago, was it?

Four or five years ago where Ronald Reagan was the gold standard for Republicans. Ronald Reagan was the gold standard for conservatives. And now it's Donald Trump for most of them. And boy, what a contrast in values, what a contrast in morality. You don't have to agree with everything Ronald Reagan did to see that contrast and how quickly it happened. How quickly it happened, how quickly it changed. You know, by the way, really little in fact, I once spoke at the Reagan Library while I was promoting a book. The hosts were extraordinarily kind.

I finished my speech, and the first person got up, raised their hand, asked a question. I go, yes, sir. He said, who are you? It was a wonderful night. Oh, no. Listen, I love the writing. Listen, that didn't happen, but it's too good to check. It's too good to check. It's too good to check. But but it is there is something to say, Mika, about about that Reagan library and Liz going there and having that sort of that.

With the words a time for choosing behind her. And it really is for Republicans. It's way past time. Well, for America. I mean, not that you needed it to come to this point. Republicans, you're smarter than that. But for some reason, Trump makes you stupid. And it is a time for choosing. Step up. Speak out. Go testify. Get it behind you. OK. All right. So it's going to come get you. One of the superiors that was, quote, hiding behind executive privilege is Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone. He's now been subpoenaed by the committee to testify on record. And we're going to have the latest on that. One thing about this, Willie, we're going to talk about it much later.

Well, not much later, maybe about five, 10 minutes. But this guy's a lawyer inside the White House. And I must say, if I were a lawyer, I'd let people know I testify. But you need to subpoena me first. So I'm not just running to a committee to testify against a guy that that I had attorney client privilege with. I know the Supreme Court's voted a one. They've struck down these claims of executive privilege. I get that. But again, when you have a lawyer that has a relationship with a client, regardless of the situation, I would say, listen, send me a subpoena first. Then my lawyers will look at it. And I'm sure looking at the rulings, we'll be able to testify. That's what the committee has done now. And so I would hope, I would expect we would be hearing from him soon. Yeah, that's exactly the point.

And that's what we're hearing behind the scenes. We've seen it in some of the reporting already this morning, too, which is that Pat Cipollone, who's invoked executive privilege, said, I can't talk about conversations I had with the president of the United States unless somebody really compels me to do it. So here comes the subpoena, which had to happen, by the way, after the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson, where Pat Cipollone was so central to what was happening on January 6th, according to her testimony. And as we said yesterday, it comes off very well as one of the few people actually sounding the alarm about what was happening and the legal implications of it. So now with this subpoena, at the very least, he can go in and talk whether it's transcribed deposition. He can take the fifth. He can invoke

executive privilege. He can do whatever he wants on specific questions. So it may not be him sitting before that panel the way we saw Cassidy Hutchinson, but it does appear in some form that we'll hear details from Pat Cipollone, which will be so important to corroborating what Cassidy Hutchinson put forth a couple of days ago. Yeah. And again, time and time again, we heard Cassidy talking about how it was Pat that was pushing Mark Meadows. Mark, you've got to get up.

You've got to do something. Mark, we've got to go in and talk to the president. There will be blood on your hands. People will die. You've got to get up and do something. So. There will be blood on your hands. People will die. You've got to get up and do something. So, yeah, his testimony would be great. There's also been a dust up, Mika, about the Secret Service. Apparently there's there's conflict with the Secret Service. I will say also about the Secret Service, and this is a little more difficult, but I'll just say I'm

an institutionalist. One of the last things I would want to happen would be for Secret Service members to start talking about what presidents do behind closed doors and what presidents do specifically inside of the beast, inside of the car, inside of Air Force One, unless it was absolutely necessary. We're going to get into this in a while. They're obviously, Cassidy Hutchinson said what she said, and it's very funny, on one news network last night, one cable network last night, I heard somebody, and now there is some question on whether he really grabbed his steering wheel, which, of course, throws into question all of her tests. I mean, that's so stupid. It's like saying Al Capone, the report is Al Capone, like shot up a bar, killed 30 people

and then got a PBR and drank it. And then when somebody else goes, oh, no, no, he didn't do that. He just had a shot of whiskey. People going, oh, well, then the rest of the you know, we can't believe any of the rest of the testimony. No, it's ridiculous. Here's the only thing that matters. I said it yesterday. I'll say it today. What matters is Donald Trump wanted to go up to the Capitol. He wanted to go up where the insurrection was taking place. He wanted to go up where they were talking about going to the House of Representatives with people that he knew were armed with with AR-15s, with knives, with spears. They were going to overthrow the election results. And Trump wanted to go there.

The Secret Service said that there's some details that I really I don't think they want. They don't want to, in their mind, rat out a president. They may have to at the end of the day. But but I'm sure that's exactly what's happening. And there are other people that have already testified to the committee that have repeated the story that Cassidy Hutchinson said about choking and grabbing the steering wheel. Again, great theater. It shows Donald Trump's crazy. We all knew that anyway. But the legal, the important legal fact is that Donald Trump wanted to go up to the Capitol. Yes, he did. Where the insurrection was taking place. That's where Pat Cipollone said

if he goes up there, we're going to be charged with every crime imaginable. He wanted to go there. He had the intent. We're going to have the latest reporting from Jackie Alimani in just a moment. So because there's a lot more to report on this. Also, President Biden is meeting with allies right now on the heels of NATO, declaring Russia a direct threat and issuing a warning about China. The president will wrap up the summit with a news conference scheduled for 8 a.m. Eastern Time. So we'll cover that live right here during Morning Joe, which is four hours long. Also, is it really? By the way, what Biden's doing there, Willie, is so transformative. You've got to compare what's

happened in the United States over the past six months with a lot of the change that happened after World War Two with Truman from 47 to 49. We have moved the center of our defensive forces from Germany eastward into Poland, a country that has been invaded for centuries by Russia, by Germany. Now the United States is there. I've got a feeling the invasions are going to stop. And then you look at Finland. You look at Sweden coming into NATO. You look at all the Baltic states.

The Baltic Sea, as as Admiral Stravita said, has now turned into a NATO lake. And look at Finland. If you look at Finland and its eastern border, what is that like? Eight hundred miles of NATO border along Russia's border. It's extraordinary what's very excited and about this.. And it really does block Vladimir Putin in from invading any other country. He loves to invade countries. We know that he's been doing it since 2008. He loves to make people suffer. He loves to kill people.

He loves to commit war crimes. NATO makes sure that doesn't happen. Of course, Ronald Reagan understood that. Donald Trump didn't. The world's changed now, though, because Donald Trump is in Moralago. It has been an extraordinary. I mean, the expansion of NATO with the addition of those two countries, the forward deployment, as you said, moving the troops that way and convincing all these countries to spend two percent of their GDP on defense. It is it's transformative.

And good news. We've got the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, with us. Oh, how exciting. So, Richard, your snap assessment of what we've seen. So not just the last couple of days at the NATO summit at Madrid, but more broadly since this war began. Look, for 30 years, really, NATO has been trying to figure out what it does. It knew what it did for four decades of Cold War and how to keep, as they said, the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Soviets out. And for 30 years, it's been casting about. What Vladimir Putin has done is given NATO a new lease on life, a real rationale. Now it's to keep the Russians out, to keep the Americans in. But rather than keeping the Germans down, what we now really want to do is help the Germans get up to play a much larger role. This is, as Joe correctly said, moving east. This is a much more militarily capable, politically united alliance. That's the great news. The question mark is whether it delivers

on all the pledges we're going to hear about and whether it has the staying power for a long war. We know Vladimir Putin probably does. The test for NATO is not a summit. It's the days, months and literally years after the summit. 90 percent for NATO is not a summit. It's the days, months and literally years after the summit. Ninety percent of life is really implementation. That will be the real test for NATO. We're going to go live to Madrid in just a moment. But we do want to begin with the January 6th committee issuing that subpoena for the testimony of Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone. Investigators are compelling him to appear for a deposition next Wednesday, July 6th. That comes after the committee's repeated request for him to testify.

And one day after he was featured prominently in that bombshell testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson. Civelloni sat for an informal interview, not under oath in April. But in a letter to the former White House counsel, the committee writes this. You have declined to cooperate with us further, including by providing on the record testimony. We are left with no choice but to issue this subpoena. The committee states it has obtained evidence about which Cipollone is, quote, uniquely positioned to testify. Here are some of the key moments from the hearing. So far, the committee wants Cipollone to corroborate. Jared, are you aware of instances where Pat Cipollone threatened to resign? I kind of like I said, my interest at that time was I'm trying to get as many pardons done.

And I know that, you know, he was always to him and the team were always saying, oh, we're going to resign. We're not going to be here if this happens, if that happens. So I kind of took it up to just be whining, to be honest with you. Mr. Donahue, during this meeting, did the president tell you that he would remove you and Mr. Rosen because you weren't declaring there was election fraud? Toward the end of the meeting, the President, again, was getting very agitated. And he said, people tell me I should just get rid of both of you. I should just remove you and make a change in the leadership, put Jeff Clark in. Maybe something will finally get done.

And I responded, as I think I had earlier in the December 27th call, Mr. President, you should have the leadership that you want. But understand, the United States Justice Department functions on facts, evidence, and law. And those are not going to change. So you can have whatever leadership you want, but the department's position is not going to change. The president's White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, was also present. Do you remember what his position was? Pat was very supportive. Pat Cipollone throughout these conversations was extremely supportive of

the Justice Department. He was consistent. I think he had an impossible job at that point, but he did it well. And he always sided with the Justice Department in these discussions. I saw Mr. Cipollone right before I walked out onto West Exec that morning, and Mr. Cipollone said something to the effect of, please make sure we don't go up to the Capitol, Cassidy. Keep in touch with me. We're going to get charged with every crime imaginable if we make that movement happen. And do you remember which crimes Mr. Cipollone was concerned with? In the days leading up to the 6th, we had conversations about potentially obstructing justice or defrauding the electoral count. I remember Pat saying to him something to the effect of, the riders have gotten to the Capitol, Mark.

We need to go down and see the president now. And Mark looked up at it and said, he doesn't want to do anything, Mark. We need to go down and see the president now. And Mark looked up at it and said he doesn't want to do anything bad. And Pat said something to the effect of and very clearly said this to Mark, something to the effect of. Mark, something needs to be done or people are going to die. The blood's going to be on your effing hands. This is getting out of control. I'm going down there. NBC News has reached out to Cipollone for comment. A lawyer familiar with the deliberations confirmed NBC News, a subpoena was required for any consideration of transcribed testimony before the committee and that Cipollone would now look at matters of privilege as appropriate. So, Joe, we should remind people, Pat Cipollone, we heard testimony from other people doing the right thing in real time. He did defend President

Trump at his first impeachment trial. We have to stipulate which impeachment trial. It was the first one for President Trump. So he's been loyal to Donald Trump. But in these key moments of history, according to Cassidy Hutchinson and others, he was the one pushing the White House to do the right thing. Well, is it so many of these people that we've seen testify, supported Donald Trump, defended Donald Trump in impeachment trials that, you know, a lot of us were shocked that anyone would do that. But they did that as lawyers. They were loyal to Donald Trump. They stayed loyal to Donald Trump over 40 years. January 6th, though, was a breaking point. And as we heard from Mr. Donahue, Pat had an impossible job at this point and he did it well. I must also say again, as an attorney, well, and let's bring in former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg.

I'll ask him also. Let's bring in The Washington Post congressional investigations reporter Jackie Alomany. I've got to say, Chuck, with Pat Cipollone, if I were the president's counsel and people wanted me to testify, I would want to receive a letter just like the one that Pat Cipollone received saying, we've tried everything to get you to testify. You will not testify. You leave us no choice but to subpoena you to testify. And at that point, I mean, it's much easier to say, OK, now I can talk to the committee. The Supreme Court's already handed down an 8-1 decision. This obviously is something that the court's going to require me to speak to. I've done my job as an attorney. Now it's my time as an American to tell the truth about this story. That's my take. What's

yours? Yeah, Joe, I think that's fair. Just a few things I would add to that. First, don't blame him for wanting a subpoena. As you say, it's a legal order and he needs to follow it. But folks need to know something about privileges, right? We've seen a lot of privileges asserted in bad faith over the last four or five years. But privilege is a real thing, right? By rule, by policy, by law, it protects certain conversations. So if I hire you as my lawyer, I have an attorney-client privilege. There's a Fifth Amendment privilege. There's a privilege between spouses. So it's a real thing. And Pat Cipollone has certain privileges that he is obligated by law to assert. One minor correction. A lot of people say that Pat Cipollone as White House counsel was Trump's

lawyer. He was not. He is the lawyer to the office of the president. Kathy Remler was White House counsel under President Obama. She's an incredibly smart, dignified, principled woman. She was not counsel to President Obama. She was not his lawyer. She was the lawyer to the office of the president. So Cipollone, now with a subpoena and with certain legitimate privileged areas of communication, can go testify. But he has to be careful. And as any lawyer, and you know this, Joe, he has to honor those privileges that are legitimate and genuine. But he has important stuff to tell the committee and the nation. And I hope we hear from him. I just hope both sides and I expect both sides are going to be careful about how they adduce his testimony. Now, his all of these moments that we heard Cassidy Hutchinson testify to where Pat Cipollone goes to Mark Meadows and says, Mark, we have to do something are where he calls Cassidy Hutchison and says, keep the president away from the Capitol or else we'll be charged with every crime imaginable. There are moments there where he's not talking to the president. In that case, he is offering some legal guidance to a president's aid.

That would not be privileged, would it? Yeah, I think that's right, Joe. The things you just described would not be privileged. Look, there's lots and lots and lots of things he can talk about that are not privileged. He understands that. The committee understands that. Prosecutors understand that. But he does have an obligation to the office of the presidency. That was his client. And he ought to keep those certain pieces of conversation. By the way, Chuck, let's clarify for people that are saying, well, what the hell? What are you guys talking about? There was a coup.

So if the president goes to Pat Cipollone and says, hey, if I go up to the Capitol, could I be charged with crimes? You're my lawyer or you're the White House's lawyer. I mean, that discussion about what a crime is, what a crime is not, what legal jeopardy he might face when he's seeking the advice of an attorney that's in a White House attorney, that would likely be privileged under any scenario, right? When you give legal advice and you're not trying to use it to commit a crime, it's typically privileged, Joe. That's right. You know, people get frustrated. I think you're right because they don't understand how privilege

works. And as a former prosecutor, I saw instances where people tried to use privilege to conceal or cover up crimes, we can sort of pierce that veil. But generally speaking, there's a lot that Pat Cipollone can say that's not privilege. And I think with a subpoena, he now has an obligation to do it. As I said earlier, there's a ton we can learn. I just hope both sides are careful. And I respect the fact that any White House counsel has an obligation to the office of the presidency to maintain the confidence of certain limited, discreet conversations. But there's a ton of stuff we can hear from him. Yeah, absolutely. Jackie Alimani, give us your latest reporting on this. And in terms of the subpoena, why now? Is it obvious because of the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson or are there other other factors into timing? Yeah, Mika. Well, why I think Cassidy

Hutchinson's testimony was scheduled on Tuesday and why it was so effective was because she really put fingerprints on every person in the White House who had a firsthand seat to the potential criminal activity by the former president and his co-conspirators. And so that we have heard from people involved with the committee that that is in part why the testimony from Cassidy, the surprise testimony, which was announced with 24 hours in advance, was scheduled for when it was scheduled. We've also heard that now this subpoena, as a lawyer close to Pat Cipollone confirms, it was provided to provide some coverage for him. But at the same time, we've also heard that there are fears amongst lawmakers on the committee

that he's ultimately not going to cooperate, that these tactics to pressure him into cooperating with the committee are going to backfire. And people close to Pat are really skeptical that he's ultimately going to come forward. A lawyer who worked closely with him told us that at the end of the day, he is a big executive privilege guy, which should be obvious to all of us, but that also he thought that the court ruling in the case of Don McGahn, another former White House counsel to former President Trump, was wrong and that that was wrongly decided. And that's when the courts decided that McGahn was compelled to provide testimony to the House under certain parameters. Of course, what we're watching now very closely is whether or not the committee is successful in those negotiations with Cipollone and whether or not this public pressure campaign that that, you know, started months ago that has culminated with Cassidy Hutchinson is going to effectively work for them.

Yeah. Chuck, really quickly, what what Pat thinks about executive privilege probably takes a back seat to what an 8-1 decision by the Supreme Court thinks about executive privilege. Right. All we all we're talking about, if he does decide to not respond to the subpoena, is what the committee's going to go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is going to rule 8-1, that he needs to testify, right? Hey, Joe, you're going to hate me for this answer, but it's more complex than that, right? Oh, no. This early in the morning? Come on, keep it easy. Now tell me about it. Yeah, maybe you'll hate me later this afternoon, but it's more complex than that. Privilege is determined on a question by question, answer by answer basis. And so the right way to assert privilege, if you want to do it, is to show up. And if you're asked a question that you think calls for a privileged response

to then assert the privilege. And if the other side has a problem with that, you go to court. So it's a really fact specific inquiry and it gets complicated and it gets nuanced. But I am confident that the committee and Mr. Cipollone and his lawyers can negotiate a path through that if both sides are going to operate in good faith. Jackie, we've heard many Republicans, Joe, reference what's happening on some other channels, kind of picking apart and picking through Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony on some of the more salacious details. But but at the center of it, I mean, these are incredibly serious charges and accusations and eyewitness accounts she brought about a president basically clearing the path for armed supporters to march up to the Capitol. What changed for this committee, if anything, with Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony?

Pat Cipollone obviously is a huge piece to this. We'll see if he shows up for that subpoena. But what else do the committee believe happened because of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony and how does it move it forward for them? Yeah, Willie, well, at the end of the day, the full force of the Republican party and the Tucker Carlson Fox News media ecosystem was going to try to poke holes in Cassidy Hutchinson's credibility and her reputation and any way that they could sort of dispute her testimony. And, of course, there are legitimate questions to be asked of the committee's sources and methods. I did have a few people who are involved with the investigation tell me yesterday that they felt like maybe there was a misstep or an unforced error with providing certain parts of her testimony that weren't corroborated or having not

reached out to the Secret Service ahead of time to ask for comment, similar to the way that we do our jobs, really. But at the end of the day, the majority of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony was not disputed. And in fact, the U.S. Secret Service statement that came out actually confirmed the vast majority of it, confirmed the conversation with Tony, put her in the room. And the biggest, most problematic part for the former president actually turned out to has turned out not to be disputed as well, which is that the former president was encouraging an armed mob to march down to the Capitol and siege the Capitol and dispute the electoral certification. But I do think that this the way that this has played out is potentially going to

make the committee think a bit more about putting forth evidence going forward that that could be potentially, again, disputed or isn't necessarily corroborated. But that's why it is so important for them to get Pat Cipollone to corroborate key parts of Cassidy Hutchinson's testimony. Liz Cheney has told members of the committee that it would be a big win for them. This is someone who, you know, had not just, you know, had the title of White House counsel, but was really portrayed by many different people, from Eric Hirschman to Rudy Giuliani to Cassidy Hutchinson as being the most powerful voice of reason in the White House, the no person, the last firewall against the former president.

Again, and I don't make this too simple, but it's kind of what I do. If the president were whistling Dixie in the backseat of that limousine and angry because he wasn't going to the Capitol, or if the president of the United States was reading, leafing through an old, an old version of Mein Kampf that he kept by his bedside in earlier years, or if the president were trying to grab the steering wheel or if the president threw plates against. It really doesn't matter legally. Again, as I've said since the testimony came out, that's color commentary. I also think it's true, but that's color commentary. What matters is for intent, Chuck, and please tell me where this this this view is too simple. What matters is this guy was was angry and wanted to go up to the Capitol where the insurrection was.

And from testimony, we're hearing that his lawyer was desperate to keep him away from there because it showed just how connected he was with this insurrection. Yeah, Joe, I think that's Joe. I think that's fair. And I would add a little bit of color commentary to it. Right. So he's told that there's folks outside of the rally who are armed with guns, with knives. They're wearing body armor. They're wearing helmets. And they don't want to go through or can't get through the magnetometers to the speech. And he says, I don't care. They're not here to hurt me. Let them in. I want a bigger crowd. These people are not here to hurt me. So it begs the question, Joe, well, who are they here to hurt? Because he's about to send that angry mob to the Capitol. So I think there's a really fair inference there that he knows exactly who they are here to hurt. It ain't him. It's somebody else. It's the folks.

Yeah. And Richard Haass, that is just what country does Donald Trump think he's governing over? Just as Chuck said, he knows that these people, he's been told these people have guns, they have knives, they have body armor, their sightings of AR-15s. The president says, let them come in without going through the screening. They can come in and listen to me and then go to the Capitol. The president says, and then go to the Capitol. And they're not here to hurt me. And they're not here to hurt me. So let them in.

And then, he says, they can go to the Capitol. And then after they go to the Capitol, the president is angry. We have testimony that the Secret Service confirmed he wants to go up to the Capitol. There's talk among the president's men that he wants to go up to the Capitol and wants to march into the House of Representatives with this angry mob up there. And I don't know, I suppose, assert power, saying, here I am, and I'm going to throw out the election results. My God, if that's not fascism, then I think scholars are going to have to redefine the word. Using violence as a means to gain political power are in this case to keep it, Richard. Look, we like to think, Joe, we're a country of laws, not men.

But I think what this shows is that the law only takes you so far than character matters. And there's got to be a sense of norms. There's got to be a sense of restraint. And for the first time in our history, we had someone in the Oval Office who didn't buy into the norms, didn't buy into the restraint that is so central to American democracy. And that's why, to me, the January 6 hearings are so interesting. They show what a close-run thing it was and how vulnerable and how thin, at the end of the day, our democracy was. And had it not been for a couple of people, people like this young woman who testified this week, Cassidy Hutchinson, or a few state officials, just how close we came that day, not just on January 6th, but before and after. And that,

to me, is the real lesson we've got to take away from this, that we've got to strengthen the guard rails because we can't leave it up to character in the future because we realize just how fickle that can be. There is no doubt about that. We've depended on constitutional norms, Mika. We have defended we have depended on the character of people that are sitting in the White House. We do need some more safeguards. Speaking of character and credibility, Jackie Alomany, before you go, talk to me about Tony Ornato's and his credibility and his participation in all of this. Yeah, Mika, thanks. This is sort of besides the point,

as Joe pointed out, but it's a fascinating subplot and I think something you guys might be talking about down the line. But Tony Ornato is a fascinating character. If you haven't already read my colleague Carol Lennig's book on the Secret Service, I highly recommend picking it up. She touches on some of these issues that I think are really important context for the current smear campaign that we're seeing come out against Cassidy Hutchinson, which is that Tony has a very unique in American history. He is the rare Secret Service agent who crossed over to a political position. He became the chief of operations for former President Trump after his duty as the lead agent was over and then went back to the Secret Service. And while he was in that political position, his fellow colleagues in the Secret Service were pretty upset with the

way that he handled the role. They thought he was overtly political and that he knew better with certain issues because he had spent his career in the Secret Service. There are also some other conflicts of interest. Two sources tell my colleague Carol Lennig and I that actually the committee has found some issues with Tony's credibility when it comes to his recall during his closed door deposition. We are not sure if he was explicitly asked about Cassidy's anecdote about being about Trump lunging at Bobby Engel. But we're told that there are some other stories where other witnesses who have provided closed door depositions disagreed and provided different accounts than Tony. And at the end of the day, he has not sat down and provided a public testimony under oath the way Cassidy Hutchinson has. So when we're talking about, you know, just sort of the oath credibility, giving people the

benefit of the doubt at the end of the day, it was Hutchinson who's willing to go before Congress, which which again, it's a crime to lie to Congress. It is. We'll actually have Carol Lennig as well talk more about this in our 7 o'clock hour. The Washington Post's Jackie Alimany, thank you. And former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, thank you as well. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll get a live report from the NATO summit, ahead of scheduled remarks from President Biden. NBC's Keir Simmons is patiently standing by for us in Madrid. We tend to go a little long in the first

block and we'll get expert analysis from Richard. On golf or on international security. President Biden may be underwater with Georgia voters, but he doesn't seem to be hurting Democratic candidates in that state. We'll dig into some of the fascinating new polling also ahead. If you're traveling, airlines are bracing for the summer's busiest travel weekend, including Delta's new warning about, quote, challenging disruption. Now you wait. You're telling us now you're telling us now after months of canceling flights. Also, it'll be a big day for the Supreme Court as Katonji Brown Jackson gets sworn in this afternoon.

Wow. Yeah. You're watching Morning Joke. Congratulations. We'll be right back. Let's turn back to the NATO summit in Madrid, where the alliance is outlining a new, stronger vision for the future. It says The leaders at the summit yesterday declared Russia the most significant and direct threat to their country's peace and security. For the first time, the alliance also issued a warning about China, accusing it of bullying its neighbors and forming a strategic partnership with Moscow that poses a challenge

to the West. The leaders included threats presented by Beijing into a new blueprint for its strategy going forward. President Biden yesterday unveiled plans to increase U.S. military presence across Europe. The president said the U.S. will deploy additional troops to Romania on a rotating basis and enhance other rotational deployments in the Baltic states. Joining us now from Madrid, NBC News senior international correspondent Keir Simmons. Keir, what's the latest there? Well, Willie, we're standing by for those news conferences by NATO leaders, including President Biden. I expect a lot of crowing. And I think Richard Haass was right speaking earlier, a lot of questions. One of the big questions, what changed between President Biden and President Erdogan? Remember, Biden once called Erdogan an autocrat.

Erdogan was the last NATO leader to congratulate President Biden on his election victory. And yet this week they have looked like bros. We've heard from people in the room that the Turkish defense minister was walking around yesterday saying we got what we wanted. Is that F-16s, UF exit F-16s for Turkey? It does appear to revolve around events on Tuesday. A senior administration official this week saying there was a 11th hour meeting with Turkish officials on Tuesday. Listen to how he describes how it went right down to the wire. Well, I think the first four hours with the Turkish delegation, with Sweden and with the NATO secretariat, of course, it was tough. Two hours, first things are not moving anywhere,

and then comes the coffee break, and as always, during the coffee break, people start to have a little bit new ideas, and then we could process it. So there appears, at least on the surface, to have been some deals done, for example, with this issue of members of the Kurdish community living in Finland? Have deals been done? I can say, of course, only from the Finnish side that no deals are there. We have said to Turkey that we follow our own legislation. We are not going to change our legislation.

If there comes some request from Turkey, we will process them accordingly. You made no promises? No promises. No promises because we cannot, of course, overcome our national legislation on these issues. No promises, no deals done. And yet Turkey now asking for 33 Kurdish militants, they say should be sent to Turkey from Sweden and Finland. The Finnish foreign minister, Willie, also telling us that there was, he said, a good deal of pressure on Turkey from members of Congress, a bipartisan effort, he said. So just another example of how geopolitics has shifted this week. Remember, Turkey is just so important. They are involved in the negotiations

to try and release that blockade in the Black Sea that threatens such a food crisis around the world. How things change, frankly. Yeah, it's amazing. I also like here how you describe a bilateral meeting basically as bro-ing out between Presidents Biden and Erdogan. NBC's Kira Simmons live from Madrid. Kira, thanks so much as always. Richard, you kind of zeroed in on something in that initial report, and that is the China piece of this, that NATO stepped up pretty aggressively and talked about China and pushing back against it. China with a chilly response, as you can imagine, saying basically stay out of the Pacific. We got that. This is our territory. What did you make of this step from NATO? Lots of moving parts. The lead story is obviously the strengthening of NATO against Russia, but also we're getting Europeans doing more NATO,

not just the United States, which means the United States is freed up to do more in Asia and to deal with the Chinese challenge. This is the 25th anniversary, among other things, of the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong. Xi Jinping left the mainland for the first time in two and a half years, goes to Hong Kong. China violated all of its international commitments and how it's dealt with Hong Kong. It's become more repressive at home, less market oriented, much more militarily assertive. So we now face a world where the United States is confronting Russia and Europe, China and Asia, the threat of a war against Taiwan. That's one of the reasons Ukraine is so important, Willie. We do not want China learning the wrong lessons about that aggression pays here. And an interesting question

in Europe going forward is, will the Europeans work with us in sanctioning China to make clear to China that if it ever were to move against Taiwan, it could face the sort of pressure that Russia is facing now. So this is a really interesting thing. We're taking what was largely a regional alliance, NATO, a European alliance, and the idea is whether we can in some ways globalize it. This is a big, big test for American foreign policy. It really is a big test. And Richard, you know, it's fascinating what we've seen so many things happen over the past six months. But at least to my mind, it looks like the world is settling into a tri polar world. You've got the United States, you've got the EU and you've got China.

Russia. Russia has a GDP even less, of course, than Texas. Well, you've got the U.S. over 20 trillion a year GDP, EU over 20 trillion a year GDP plus Britain. And then, of course, China, a GDP over 20 trillion. It is it is fascinating to see again, Joe. But I think there's a growing recognition inside this administration that they can't behave the way Donald Trump did. You can't push people around. You can't insult allies that this is a battle between the West and the East, even if it's not a hot battle with Xi as president. It's a cold battle. So that's why we're seeing we're seeing these somewhat jarring photos of the president with

Erdogan, the president talking about the Saudis and rebuilding the alliance with the Saudis out of just out of realism, out of necessity, because the battle only gets more difficult from here. And we're not talking about Russia. It is, of course, as you said, China as well. Yeah, I think you're right, Joe. The administration in some ways has been mugged or at least sobered up by reality. And what you have is they've realized you can't have democracy and human rights at the center of American foreign policy. It doesn't mean we ignore them. But whether it's Turkey or Saudi Arabia, we've got to focus on the real threats. We've got a real threat in Europe with

Russia. We've got a real threat in Asia with China. We've got to work with partners, even if they're not necessarily democratic. And that, by the way, is a larger point for American foreign policy. We can't, whether it's dealing with climate change or China or Russia or anything else, we can't necessarily choose the partners we want to have. We've got to work with the partners that exist. So this is reality. And this is a demanding world. And that's what I think we're seeing here. We've got a lot on our plates. We can't do it alone. And we can't be quite so choosy as to who we decide to work with. All right. Let's turn to more from the searing rebuke of former President Trump and the defense of conservatism that Republican

Congresswoman Liz Cheney delivered last night at the Reagan Library. I'm a conservative Republican, and I believe deeply in the policies of limited government, of low taxes, of a strong national defense. I believe that the family is the center of our community and of our lives. And I believe those are the right policies for our nation. But I also know that at this moment, we are confronting a domestic threat that we have never faced before. And that is a former president who is attempting to unravel the foundations of our constitutional republic. And he is aided by Republican leaders and elected officials who've made themselves willing hostages to this dangerous and irrational man. As the full picture is coming into view with the January 6th committee, it has become clear

that the efforts Donald Trump oversaw and engaged in were even more chilling and more threatening than we could have imagined. As we have shown, Donald Trump attempted to overturn the presidential election. He attempted to stay in office and to prevent the peaceful transfer of presidential power. He summoned a mob to Washington. He knew they were armed on January 6th. He knew they were angry. And he directed the violent mob to march on the Capitol in order to delay or prevent completely the counting of electoral votes. He attempted to go there with them. And when the violence was underway, he refused to take action to tell the rioters to leave. Instead, he incited further violence by tweeting that the vice

president, Mike Pence, was a coward. He said, quote, Mike deserves it. And he didn't want to do anything in response to the hang Mike Pence chants. It's undeniable. It's also painful for Republicans to accept. And I think we all have to recognize and understand what it means to say those words and what it means that those things happened. But the reality that we face today as Republicans, as we think about the choice in front of us, we have to choose because Republicans cannot both be loyal to Donald Trump and loyal to the Constitution. At this moment. Holy cow. So you see the line that got the applause. She was supposed to continue, but that is the choice. That's the choice.

Joining us now, professor at Princeton University, Eddie Glaude Jr., and staff writer at The Atlantic, Adam Serwer. Adam, in your latest piece for The Atlantic. Well, first of all, Megan, let's talk about the applause at the Reagan Library. Well, I guess my question to you, Joe, is is it too late for that choice for the Republican Party? Listen, you know me. I like my friend Eddie. We've talked about this. I'm a Baptist. You're into the. I always believe. I always believe in deathbed conversions. I'll take it. But yes, it's too late for this Republican Party. I mean, seriously, I believe in deathbed conversions. I really do. I'm always overly optimistic. I always say, you know, I'll take anything. Can it be saved? Too late

for this Republican Party. And you can look at the leaders. But as somebody earlier this week said on the show, it's not the leaders as much as it is the base. It's the base that are chasing around these conspiracy theories. It's the base that chased around conspiracy theories about a pandemic that killed over a million people. It's the base that's spreading the lies about Jewish space lasers that are spreading the lies about the Italian, the Italian dude that's stealing the election. It's the base that's feeding into all of this hatred. So, yeah, I think it's too late for this Republican Party. I think they may do well in the midterm elections. I'm not so sure if you look at a Georgia poll, because they've picked so many freaks and weirdos and insurrectionists in their primaries.

But I think in the long run, the only way they get reformed is they get beaten. Eddie, you believe in deathbed conversions, I know. But it seems to me that it's even too late for this Republican Party, for this Trump Republican Party to reform itself. I think you're absolutely right, Joe. I think it needs to literally be burnt to the ground. I don't want to use that. I know that verb is kind of strong. Not literally.

Hold on. Let me help you out here. Not literally. Not literally. Okay, professor. Figuratively. Figur literally. Yeah, not literally. OK, professor, figuratively, figuratively in a political sense in the right. Right. Right. Absolutely. Absolutely. I think I want to make it. I think I want to I think I want to expand it a little bit, too, Joe.

I think there is this we have to ask ourselves the question because Liz Cheney delivers this talk at the Reagan Library. And we have to ask ourselves the question, what is, in some ways, the status of the ideology of Reaganism? Have we experienced over the last few years, over the last decade or so, a sense in which Reaganism has revealed itself as, in some ways, bankrupt? And what we have instead of those principles that Liz Cheney laid out that define our conservatism, just kind of grievance, the culture wars as the substance of a kind of Republican ideology alongside of a kind of cynical pursuit of power. And if you have those two as the only pillars of a Republican Party, then it seems only reasonable that those of us who are committed to democracy would say that it has to go to the side. Let's put it to the side, Joe, not burn it down. Put it to the side. Well, yeah, I mean, yeah, exactly. So I'm here to help you, Eddie. So, Richard,

I know that there is that many people on the left like to say, oh, well, this is all Reagan. Reagan was all. I know. I know there are a lot of things that Ronald Reagan did, a lot of things that Margaret Thatcher did that obviously people on the left were deeply concerned about legitimately. Some things that I was concerned left were deeply concerned about legitimately. Some things that I was concerned about deeply, concerned about legitimately. You could start with the apartheid policy towards South Africa. There are parts, though, of Reaganism that were, I think, very important, at least to my mind. You look at his position toward the Soviet Union, calling the evil empire an evil empire, an empire that killed over 30 million, perhaps,

of their own people. And you talk to people in Eastern Europe, they will tell you that Ronald Reagan was indispensable in the taking down of the Berlin Wall and the freeing of Eastern Europe. You look at Reagan's approach towards immigration, the same there. There were also a lot of terrible blind spots. That said, this party, this party that exists today can't even lay claim to the positive parts of Reaganism because they have so twisted and and they've they've just so twisted the ideology. I mean, conservative American conservatism, as we've known it, is dead. And I think even some Trumpers will say that. Well, I hope not. I mean, let me sort of full disclosure. I worked for Ronald Reagan for for for five years five years at the State Department.

Lots of things I agreed with, lots of things I disagreed with. But he was within the 30-yard lines or the 40-yard lines. He was a conservative. He did believe in institutions. He did believe in American democracy. He was positive. He didn't talk about carnage. He talked about the American dream. And Liz Cheney basically articulated, as I understood it, what we used to call conservative republicanism.

Again, you can have policy disagreements with it and we all do. But but it took place within a set of assumptions. She never believes in anything. She rejects with every core of her of her being policies or behaviors that are inconsistent with the norms and the precepts of democracy, as did Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan said the most important room in America is the dining room, because that's where parents tell their children, teach their children about democracy. And that's the kind of language you don't hear out of contemporary Republicans. So I actually, I hope there's still a place in this country for a revival of real conservatives, because otherwise we don't have a two party system. We don't have a loyal opposition in this country without it. Adam, in your latest piece for The Atlantic, you write about this week's January 6th hearing and the effect, if any, it may have on Republican

senators who shielded former President Trump from impeachment. Adam writes this, quote, even without this information, the Senate should have convicted Trump. The plain facts are that the former president attempted to violently overthrow the government of the United States and Senate Republicans ensured he would face no consequences for doing so by acquitting him during his second impeachment. Their rationales for refusing to hold Trump accountable are laughable in hindsight, but also disturbing in their frailty, because history suggests when attempts to seize power by force are not punished, they're both more likely to reoccur and more likely to succeed when they do. Attempting to seize power by violence was not sufficient to turn Republican senators against Trump

when his influence was at its ebb. Now that he has reasserted his grip on the party, there is little chance they will discover a reserve of courage. So, Adam, we have seen some members of the White House, Trump's White House, emboldened to speak out during all this. But crickets, silence and whitewashing from establishment Republicans in Washington, senators, congresspeople. And let's not forget, I was so glad when I saw your piece post the other day. Let's not forget that senators like Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley after the insurrection, after the attack on the Capitol, when Congress reconvened, still voted to block certification of the election in certain states. Yes, I think, you know, I want to modify a little bit what Joe said earlier about the base.

You know, it's true that the base, the politicians in office are afraid of the base and they do not want to anger the base. But the other aspect of this is that the base is not coming up with these wild conspiracy theories about Italians hacking the election system by themselves. They are hearing these theories from a conservative propaganda network that prevents them from hearing contrary information that might change their minds, like what we're seeing in the January 6th hearing, and that tells them that anything that goes wrong is actually the result of a wild liberal conspiracy to prevent them from executing or exercising their constitutional rights. So in this case, the lie that the election was rigged is something that not only Donald Trump said, but that the conservative

media repeated and that the base trusted because it came from sources that they thought were legitimate and did not consider those things lies. So it's a bit of a cycle where people are hearing these things that are not true, that are ridiculous, that are absurd, but they believe them because those sources have cultivated trust, even though they are propaganda machines. And then as a result, the politicians who, because this is a democracy, are beholden to this base that believes this propaganda have to act on it in that way. Or, I mean, in some cases they don't. I mean, you can see that Liz Cheney, despite being a very conservative politician, has chosen to stand up to both the conservative media and to those in her party who have attempted to silence her. But that is a rare thing. Politicians don't generally do that.

We admire politicians who do that precisely because it is a rare quality. But I think it's not just a question of the base. There is a there's a cycle here that happens that is creating this problem. Like many, I think, Republicans, Liz Cheney just wants her party back. And Joe, I guess the question for Adam, we can close this out where we began. And the question is, is it rotten to the core? Well, you have and you have people running on the lie and you have offices from the bottom to the top, from state to local to gubernatorial, you know, all the way up. Right. Running on the big lie. Some of them winning on the big lie. How do you how do you fix that? It seems cancer

has taken hold. And Adam, it's not just what they say. It's not just the conspiracy theories that they spew. But as you make a great point, it's what they don't say. Yeah. It's when they remain silent. It's when they sit there and they go through the madness of Trumpism really from the beginning. He comes out in 2015, in early December 2015, and he's talking about a Muslim registry. And it only goes downhill from there. And these establishment Republicans, one by one, as Trump gets worse and worse, the endorsements pile up as they rush to the power. And it's more of the same and it's more of the same, as you say, through the impeachment process and through through the madness of Donald Trump. For sure. Look, I think Donald Trump's connection to the conservative base comes to a large extent from his willingness to repeat whatever he reads in conservative media to make them feel that what they are believing, what they are hearing, they're not crazy, even though the mainstream media might say that the things that they believe are not true. He is validating in

a way. And I think that's part of what creates that emotional connection, not just between Donald Trump and the conservative base, but between other politicians who imitate him. Staff writer at The Atlantic, Adam Serwer, thank you so much for coming on this morning. Thank you, Adam.