Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/5/23

Episode Date: June 5, 2023

Grand jury in Trump classified documents case expected to meet this week after hiatus

We shall fight on the seas and oceans. We shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. The woke mind virus represents a war on the truth, so we will wage a war on the woke. We will fight the woke in education. We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We will fight the woke in the corporations. We shall fight in the fields and in the streets.

We will fight the woke in the halls of Congress. We will fight in the hills. We shall never surrender. We will never, ever surrender to the woke mob. Yeah, a little historical perspective on wars. Well, a little hysterical perspective. And there are wars. A little hysterical perspective on this.

It's so, you know, there was a great profile piece of Ron DeSantis by Mark Leibovich. And it just talked about how everything seemed so sort of, I don't know, contrived. That it was all just very contrived. And when he's going on and on, there will be, and he's trying to sound Churchillian, and he's talking about, again, most Americans are going, huh? What is this?

What? And he just keeps beating it. It's like America's not Florida and that one little area in Florida, by the way, Rhonda D. Santus. But he continues to brag about his efforts to fight woke. We've got a lot to get to this morning. That is seriously so 19, so 2021. Yeah, I guess so. It really is.

Speaking of actual wars, we're going to have new reporting this morning on what is happening in Ukraine. As Moscow is claiming its forces stopped a major attack that may be a part of Ukraine's long-awaited counteroffensive. Plus, new action is expected this week in the classified documents case against Donald Trump. It comes as the former president is being condemned for once again praising a murderous dictator. We'll dig into both of those stories and a look at the GOP hopefuls campaigning in Iowa as two more names are likely to join the field this week. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, June 5th. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief of Politico, Jonathan Lemire, the host of MSNBC's Politics Nation and president of the National Action Network,

Reverend Al Sharpton is with us. We also have U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye, and the founder of the conservative website, The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes. Charlie, let me go to you real quick. I mean, again, I I've gotten to the point now. I mean, obviously, like a lot of people, I was concerned about the extreme wokeness, you know, over the past several years. College campuses, you know, people getting fired for saying things that should really have just started a debate. You can go on and on, people getting shouted down, the hecklers veto. But I'm at a point now, and I have been for about six months, if I get a newsletter and it says woke in the headline, I erase it immediately. It's seriously, it is the pet rock of 2023 politics.

It was it was a thing a couple of years ago. But when you have the head of Berkeley Law School, when you have the head of Yale, when you have the head of all of these elite universities going, come on, you guys have gone too far. Like enough for the hecklers veto. There has been a correction that Ron does. And by the way, when suddenly you have right wingers saying racist things about Chick-fil-A and trying to cancel Chick-fil-A is being, quote, woke for basically talking about their devotion to Jesus Christ, they jumped the shark a long time ago. No, I, by the way, I really love the juxtaposition of Winston Churchill and Ron DeSantis, you know, reminding us that Ron DeSantis is not Winston Churchill and cannot play one in this campaign. But there's no question about it. I mean, there are problems of illiberalism on university campuses. And this is something I've been writing about for 20 or 30 years.

But Ron DeSantis is not really dealing with illiberalism in American culture. He's basically just deploying a buzzword. I mean, a few years ago, the buzzword was cancel culture. Then they started talking about CRT and they realized nobody knew what they were talking about. So now they've come up with this word, which has just become this, it has become this sort of, you know, drone in the background. And I think it goes to what you were, you know, referencing Mark Leibovich's profile of Ron DeSantis, that there seems something sort of wrote about the guy, something, you know, distinctly inauthentic, that somebody has handed him a card and said, say this word over and over and over again. You know that it's bad when even Donald Trump is saying that nobody knows what the word woke means. And to the heart of this, in terms of the substance, you know, the fight for

democracy is a fight for constitutional, liberal constitutional democracy. And that means pushing back against illiberalism. And there is illiberalism on the left. But what Ron DeSantis represents is illiberalism on the right, the use of the government power to silence ideas that he doesn't like, to punish people who say things that he disagrees with. That is the ultimate illiberalism. And I think that that's really the danger at the heart of of this constant buzzword info invocation by Ron DeSantis. Well, and again, it's so old. The thing is, they don't realize I say so. Twenty twenty one. I mean, if you read the closing of the American mind and the intro by Alan Bloom in 1986, in 1986, if you read Harold Bloom's introduction to the Western canon in 1986, he was daring the progressive left, the extremists to try to cancel Shakespeare. I mean, they were talking about this. They've been talking about this for 40, 50 years, as you and I would agree, for good reason. But now it's just like it's very rote. It's very contrived. And I mean, it's just been beaten into the ground. We can talk about

this more, but let's get to our top story this morning. We are learning new details about the Justice Department's investigation into former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving the White House. NBC News has learned exclusively that the federal grand jury hearing evidence in the case is expected to meet again this week in Washington, D.C. That is according to multiple people familiar with the investigation. They say activity for the grand jury appeared to have slowed in recent weeks. Prosecutors working for special counsel Jack Smith have been presenting the grand jury with evidence and witness testimony for several months. But it is not clear if prosecutors are prepared to seek an indictment at this point.

Prosecutors reportedly face two central legal questions. One, did Trump wrongfully retain classified documents after he left the White House? And two, did he later obstruct the government's effort to retrieve them? That's the big question. The Justice Department would not comment on the status of the investigation. Former President Trump maintains he has broken no laws and has dismissed the investigation as a politically motivated smear campaign. There are people who say, well, Biden did it. Well, Pence had documents. Point two is the difference.

Well, I mean, it's very clear. This is is going to be very easy case and the pleadings are going to be clean, slick to the point. Donald Trump obstructed justice. He obstructed the investigation. He lied. We're going to get to his lawyers memos that that that came out that Jack Smith now has that that are going to be devastating for the cause. Jonathan O'Meara. But bottom lining this again, let's just circle back. He's calling it a witch hunt. Other spokespeople are calling it a witch hunt. Lawyers are calling it a witch hunt. But you and I both know, based on people we've been talking to close to Donald Trump, they know this is not a witch hunt. They let me say the words. Let me say the words they feel. Are you ready? The walls. Everybody, everybody say it with me. Closing in on this one. So, yes, people can mock me for saying that, just like they mock people on the show for saying it before the Manhattan D.A. came down with charges. But based on everything I'm

hearing, Jonathan, based on what you're hearing, I at least last week, they are extraordinarily concerned about indictments coming down in this case because they know he lied and he got caught lying to the feds. Yeah. One of the former president's ex lawyers made the rounds on the Sunday shows this weekend. It was a performance of bravado saying that he doesn't think that Trump will be indicted. But that stands in stark contrast with, A, what most legal experts think, and B, what most of Trump's inner circle thinks privately. They are deeply concerned, Joe, the people you and I have been talking to. And the small signs are adding up. This report now from NBC that the grand jury is going to be reconvening again after having had a few weeks off reconvening in Washington.

The little development a week or so back that we talked about briefly on the show, but I think sort of flew under the radar. The letter from Trump's lawyers that Trump then posted on Truth Social asking for a meeting with prosecutors, a meeting with Attorney General Merrick Garland. Of course, he's not going to get a meeting with the AG, but that's the kind of thing you do. That's usually an end stage moment in an investigation when the defense, the defendants, potential defendants, attorneys think charges are coming. They try to make one last plea to ward them off, or at least to ask for smaller, like less serious charges. And that is a sign of how worried the Trump's lawyers are. And they, yes, there are similarities, I suppose, with the cases with Pence and Biden in terms of having documents they shouldn't. But those are superficial similarities that end quickly.

Both Pence and Biden returned the documents. Trump did not. In fact, there's detailed reporting about the steps he has taken to keep them, to obstruct the investigation, to prevent the federal government from returning them. And the people I spoke to near the president feel like this could come and could come soon. Matter of weeks. And Rev, most of the people that I've spoken to that are part of this process say Donald Trump's not going to get charged for the same things, doing the same things that Biden and Pence did. Not going to get charged for that. He's going to get charged for obstructing justice,

for obstructing the investigation, lying to the FBI, lying to the DOJ, doing the sort of things that put people in prison. That is the same thing I'm getting from people with knowledge of the law. And when you have your lawyers go and meet with the prosecutor, it is usually because it's at the end and they're trying to negotiate how they're going to deal with the charges or because you want to have your client go before the grand jury and testify.

Well, the irony in this case is Donald Trump is going to testify before the grand jury and testify. Well, the irony in this case is Donald Trump is going to testify before the grand jury. They're going to play a tape of Donald Trump saying himself that he had knowledge of what he was doing and what he was doing was not declassified. So he's going to have the opportunity to speak. He just won't be there in person. He ran his mouth and now his mouth will be heard, I believe, by the grand jury. To your point, Ravel, the recorded recollections of one of Donald Trump's lawyers could end up being in key in the classified documents inquiry against the former president. The New York Times reports that last year, during a long drive to a family event, Evan Corcoran recorded his reflections about his job representing Trump

and the investigation into his handling of classified documents. And according to the Times, in complete sentences and a narrative tone that sounded as if it had been ripped from a novel. Mr. Corcoran recounted in detail a nearly month-long period of the documents investigation, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. Corcoran's narration of his recollections covered his initial meeting with Mr. Trump in May last year to discuss a subpoena from the Justice Department seeking the return of all classified materials in the former president's possession, the people said. It also encompassed a search that Mr.

Corcoran undertook last June in response to the subpoena for any relevant records being kept at Mar-a-Lago. Last March, a federal judge ordered Corcoran's recordings to be given to the office of the special counsel, Jack Smith. That decision, setting aside what is known as the crime crime fraud exception, pierced the privilege that would have normally protected such musings. The paper notes the level of detail in the recording is said to have angered and unnerved close aides to Mr. Trump. That's the important part. Unnerved close aides to Mr. Trump because they understand what's in there. Those aides are worried it contains direct quotes from sensitive conversations. Corcoran did not respond to The Times request for comment. And there's also, Joe, and we'll go to Katty,

but there's also the recordings for Mark Meadows' book that were taken where Trump has these recordings taken when people are writing his book to keep the record clean, to make sure that the facts are there. And in there as well are issues about the documents.

A lot of, Katty, a lot of recordings going on out there. And of course, the procedural leap that has to be made to be able to have access to an attorney's recordings and attorney's recollections of his meeting with a client is a court believing that that relationship was used to further a crime. So even before we get to what the grand jury is going to do, we have a federal judge who's pierced the attorney client privilege shield because she says it's very likely a crime was committed. So again, that shows us just how far along Jack Smith is in this prosecution.

Yeah, and there are now numerous tapes, of course, including that one where he talks about the document that he has on Iran that is potentially very sensitive to America's national security interests. It was interesting listening to Palo Torre yesterday on the Sunday shows because although he protests that he says he doesn't think that there's an indictment coming, he says he's not worried about it, that there is nothing nefarious going on, actually all of the other reporting around Jack Smith's investigation of this does point to the idea of intent and intended obstruction. And I think those are the key differences. Mr. Palatori was talking about Donald Trump in the context of Hillary Clinton and her emails on the server. But it's apples

and oranges. This is not about that. This is about whether Donald Trump took the documents, which Mike Pence and Joe Biden also did. But then he did the different thing, which was he intended to keep them, and he obstructed the investigation into getting them back again. And this disclaimer that he has that, well, they were declassified in his mind somehow, and therefore they were not sensitive documents. My understanding is you can't take any of these documents, whether they're declassified or classified. But anyway, that doesn't hold up because in the tape about Iran,

he's talking about the fact that he knows he has them. So they weren't declassified. There's no paper trail of them being declassified. And he did not intend. He knew he had them and he didn't offer them up to the investigators and the archives in the way that he should have done and in the way that Mike Pence and Joe Biden did. And that's what could get him in trouble. By the way, the former president once again offered kind words for North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. On Friday, the former president posted the praise

on his social media website in response to North Korea being elected to the World Health Organization's executive board. Here are some of the responses from Trump's Republican primary opponents when asked about his comment. What did you make of Donald Trump congratulating Kim Jong-un? Well, what I'll say is let's not forget Kim Jong-un is a thug and a tyrant, and he has tested ballistic missiles against our allies. He's threatened us. There's nothing to congratulate him about. I was surprised to see that. I mean, I think, one, Kim Jong-un is a murderous dictator. The World Health Organization is a bankrupt organization. one, Kim Jong-un is a murderous dictator. The World Health Organization is a bankrupt organization like Kim Jong-un's bad. But then joining that, we need to be getting out of that and rejecting the WHO lockdown treaty and not congratulating

about being involved in the WHO. Do you think Trump had... Whether it's my former running or anyone else, no one should be praising the dictator in North Korea or or praising the the the leader of Russia. Charlie Sykes, the most bloodthirsty, dangerous tyrant on the globe right now. And Donald Trump goes out of his way praising him. And this is actually this is a guy who's leading, again, leading the Republican Party. It's again, it's you just you do wonder how in the world any Republican in the base could could vote for this guy. Well, I think this is an interesting story because this is not the first time that Donald Trump has praised a murderous dictator. And this is not the first murderous

dictator that he has praised. But what is interesting is the chorus of blowback from the Republicans, including Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia, who's not actually running for president. So, you know, we are seeing Republicans, you know, waking up, looking around, going, hey, you know, Donald Trump is saying things about some of the worst people in the world. Now, what's interesting about this, Joe, and I'm certainly not, you know, Donald Trump is saying things about some of the worst people in the world. Now, what's interesting about this, Joe, and I'm certainly not saying this is going to be a game changer or of any kind. But it is interesting that Republicans have decided that this is a wedge to go after Donald Trump to say, OK, let's highlight something that is clearly indefensible. Because there may be a pro Putin wing of the Republican Party.

But I don't think there's a pro Kim wing. I think it's a vanishing small number of base voters who are going to go, hey, Kim Jong Un. By the way, he misspelled his name. We ought to mention that. But, you know, here's maybe it's maybe it was just a simple reaction or maybe it is a decision by the part on the part of some of the Republicans to begin hitting back against Donald Trump and highlighting some of the most bizarre elements of his character and his behavior, which is his fascination with Vladimir Putin and with Kim and with people like Erdogan and Viktor Orban, all of the world's thugs out there, the authoritarian leaders. So I thought it was interesting that it's not new that Donald Trump praises dictators. And maybe it's just a flash in the pan. But it's interesting that Republicans called him out on it and called him out rather forcefully.

Yep. Saw that. They went on the record. It seems like a change. Charlie Sykes, thank you very much. And still ahead on Morning Joe, a small plane crash lands in Virginia after causing a scare in Washington, D.C., by flying through unauthorized airspace. NBC's Courtney Kuby joins us with more on that. Plus, Moscow claims to have thwarted a large scale attack by Ukraine.

We'll have that new reporting and what Ukrainian President Zelensky is saying about an anticipated counteroffensive also ahead. Another military provocation by Beijing. What we're learning about a near collision between a Chinese warship and a U.S. Navy ship. You're watching Morning Joe.

We'll be right back. 25 past the hour live look at New York City. Time to get up. It's Monday morning, everybody. You know, New York City, Jonathan Lemaire, home of the New York Yankees. Boston, home of... Little Jack had a bad weekend. Little League. He was in Boston. Yeah, Jack sat little bad weekend. Little League. He was in Boston.

Yeah, Jack sat through the rain. Heartbroken. Through the cold rain to watch his play the second game and then yesterday. Do we have one of the worst plays that you'll ever see on any level of baseball? Here we go. Okay, this is. Oh, baseball. Here we go. Okay, this is... Oh my. That part's fine. This part's fine. Okay, yeah, you're not going to get him at home.

You're not going to get him there and then just come home. Who is that to? Let me tell you something. All I can say is I'm glad I never did that on my little league or senior league team because, man, we would be running laps for a month. Yeah. My eight-year-old's team won their game this weekend, and they were played much crisper than the Red Sox did. I mean, this is terrible.

I mean, it's a nice hit and run. It's a single through the right side. That happens. But the throw from – you're not going to get the guy at the plate anyway. And then the catcher just throws it. Yeah, you're not going to get him. The catcher just throws it to the base, but no one's there. And then the worst part is there's no one backing up the play.

And they're all just staring there watching it. And it was emblematic of a pretty dreary couple days for the Sox who have also, of course, lost Chris Sale to injury. But yeah, Joe, as you mentioned it, the Yankees, I hate to report it, the Yankees are playing well. This is Aaron Judge right there making a great catch on Saturday, literally breaking the wall at Dodger Stadium.

He's a little banged up. He didn't play last night. He's got to get tests back today in New York. But great catch, and the Yankees win two out of three in L.A. over the weekend. Yeah, it's not good. Not good. There's Spike. Oh, I don't even see these. Can you take that down, please? It's getting painful. Hey, Jonathan, let me remember when I said they were a fun team to watch. I withdraw my comment. You know, the thing is really quickly and we'll we'll we'll move on because there's nothing good to say about them,

is, you know, their bullpen is just an absolute wreck. Their pitching is an absolute wreck. And it's not like we haven't been saying all offseason that that was going to be the problem. They've got some hitters that could actually do some things when they're hot. But their pitching staff is just, it's the worst. It's the absolute worst. Yeah, they went into the season on paper. We all could see the flaws.

The pitching staff was old. It was unreliable. You know, they get a handful of good starts out of Chris Sale. He gets hurt. The bullpen, they spent a lot of money on it. It's really not that good. Yeah, they've had some guys in the lineup who can hit, but there's not much, and we love Alex Cora,

but there's not much to say for this team right now. And they have, gravity has returned returned to use your phrase, Joe, and they are now back at 500 as we sort of expected all along. Well, and if you, if you have to put a 38 year old out twice, uh, when it's 45 degrees within like four or five hours of each other to try to save the second game of a double header, it's not a good sign. No. All right, let's move to news now. Yesterday afternoon, the U.S. military scrambled two F-16 fighter jets to respond to a private business jet that was flying over restricted airspace in D.C.

The response caused a loud sonic boom that was heard across the region. The Cessna was not responding to radio transmissions. It then crashed in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia. Officials say there were no survivors. According to the FAA, the plane took off from Tennessee and was headed to Long Island when it suddenly turned around and flew down to D.C. It's not clear why the pilot

was not responding or how the plane crashed. The New York Times reports the plane was owned by the company Encore Motors of Melbourne, Florida. The man who runs it, John Rumpel, told the Times his daughter, two-year-old granddaughter, her nanny, and a pilot were on board the flight. He says they were returning to East Hampton, New York, for a four-day visit to his home in North Carolina. Joining us now, NBC News national security and military correspondent Courtney Kuby. Courtney, what more can you tell us about the military response? I will say Twitter was going wild about the massive sound that many said sounded like an earthquake had hit D.C. Yeah, I mean, it wasn't just a sound, Mika. There

were also people who were near Andrews Air Force Base who reported feeling the boom. So feeling the shake that may have been where the reports of a potential earthquake came from. But what essentially what happened here was this plane, as you said, it took off from Tennessee. It made its way up towards Long Island. And then it turned back around and started headed back towards D.C. Well, once it came close to and then even breached the restricted area over the Washington, D.C. area, NORAD jets were scrambled. They scrambled them from Andrews Air Force Base, a couple of F-16s. And because of the potential urgency of the situation, being the fact that the plane was flying somewhat erratically, the pilot wasn't responding to any kind of radio calls. Because of that, those military aircraft

were authorized to fly at a supersonic speed. That's where this sonic boom came in. Essentially, they fly so quickly that it makes this enormous sound that people all around the area were able to hear. Well, those two jets, they made their way to the Cessna. They were able to intercept it. They even fired off some flares with the intent of trying to gain the pilot's attention. The flares basically just burn up in the air. They don't ever fall to the ground. No one's in danger from them. But the pilot never responded. And ultimately, as you mentioned, Mika, it continued to fly. It started a very rapid descent once it got down towards southwestern Virginia and it crashed into a forest, fortunately an area where there was no one around. And as you mentioned,

it seems that everyone on the aircraft was killed, Mika. Oh, horrible. Let's get to some international relations or strategic problems here. Beijing's defense minister is defending the actions of a Chinese warship over the weekend that veered across the bow of an American destroyer in the Taiwan Strait. U.S. Indo-Pacific Command says the maneuver occurred at a distance of 150 yards in an unsafe manner. That's close. It happened on Saturday, the same day U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke about the status of the U.S. relationship with China, saying the U.S. would, quote, would not flinch in the face of bullying or coercion from China and will continue to sail in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea as they are international waters. Yesterday,

China's defense minister told a gathering of defense officials in Singapore that the so-called freedom of navigation patrols are a provocation to China. So, Courtney, what's going on here? What are the Chinese doing? So in this incident over the weekend, a lot of our viewers may go 150 yards. That's not that close. That's not a problem. It's one and a half football fields, right? But you have two enormous ships that do not turn on a diamond. You can tell from this video, it's not just the proximity of it. It's the fact that it cut directly in front of the destroyer. The destroyer may not have the ability to veer off course to avoid a collision. That's what makes this so potentially provocative here. And viewers may remember just a few days ago, there was another incident where a Chinese military jet cut directly in front of a U.S. military RC-135.

That's a surveillance aircraft over the South China Sea. And we saw from video that the U.S. military released that it came so close and flew directly in its path again that the U.S. military aircraft actually hit the wake of the Chinese jet. You can see the U.S. aircraft shaking as they go through the wake of that jet. So two very close calls here in close proximity. So to your question, what are the Chinese doing here? Well, they claim that these flights, these ships that are sailing through these areas, the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait, that they are not in international

waters and that it's the U.S. military provoking the Chinese. And I should point out, you know, in the South China Sea, the U.S. military, when they fly in there, they maintain that that is international waterways, international airspace. But they consider those freedom of navigation operations. And essentially what that is, is them saying, look, we don't recognize the Chinese stakes to this area. So we are going to continue to sail and fly here so that we can show that this is not Chinese land and space here. The Taiwan Strait is different, though. The U.S. just considers that open transit. And so the concern here is that if you have a close call that turns into a potential collision or something, it has enormous potential strategic consequences for the world at this point, Mika.

All right. NBC's Courtney Kuby, thank you so much. Greatly appreciate it. Let's bring in right now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. Richard, this is a bit of an awkward dance. Everybody's stepping on each other's toes. You have an attempt to to get the secretary of defense with his counterpart in China. You have the Chinese at next that we send our CIA director Burns over to meet with the Chinese. There are good meetings there. Biden at G7 conference says he's hopeful that things are going to be going well there. There's going to be a hope that that all of this tension is going to leave sooner or later. You have Jamie Dimon and Elon Musk going over to talk economics. They meet with some of the top Chinese officials there.

And now you have these two near near incident. Well, these two incidences that are provocative, very provocative. And so it seems that China can't figure out exactly what they want to do and what they don't want to do with the United States. Tell us what's going on. Well, on the military side, everything that Courtney said was correct. I'd only add one thing to it, Joe. China actually wants to raise the level of risk out there. They want the United States to essentially blink. Part of this is the Chinese believe that they have a much greater stake in what's going on with Taiwan and the South China Sea than we do.

I literally once had a senior Chinese official said to me, we are willing to die to the last Chinese for Taiwan. You Americans are not. And what they believe is that by turning up the level of risk, the possibility of something that could escalate, particularly at a time the United States is obviously involved in Europe, that they can get us to pull back from what they see as these, quote unquote, provocative actions, which is simply our underscoring the fact that we have we have interests in that part of the world. But your associated point, though, is right. We are getting some mixed signals. Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser, had a good meeting with his Chinese counterpart,

Wang Yi, in Vienna about about two weeks ago. But the Chinese are essentially they're saying, we'll meet with you on economic issues because we care about that. We'll have some meetings on the diplomatic side, even though they're still ticked off at us for what the Secretary of State did, canceling the meeting and the visit

because of the balloons. But they are not extending it to the security side where they do want to keep the temperature high. Yeah, well, Richard, I mean, I'm not sure exactly when they told you they died to the last Chinese for Taiwan,

but obviously after Ukraine, after everything that's happened, after they hear where Congress is, it sounds like Congress will be as unified on Taiwan as it is on Ukraine. There's, you know, there's just not an upside for the Chinese being provocative right now. You'd think they'd want to sit down and try to put the genie back into the bottle and go back to the arrangement that we had, you know, a year ago. Yeah, it's interesting.

You know, we're calling for conversations in order to reduce the chance that you have an incident between American and Chinese forces. And if an incident were to happen, which sometimes do, that the incident would lead to some type of escalation. The sort of things, for example, we had with the Soviet Union for decades during the Cold War. You had hotlines. You had the incidents at sea agreement and so forth. These were confidence building measures. It's interesting that the Chinese are pushing back on that. And the more the administration asks for it, Joe, the more the Chinese are pushing back. It's almost like they have concluded that this is something that we want so badly that to give into it would be some sort of a favor.

I just think that's wrong. I see this as simply something that's in the interest of both countries. The last thing either needs is an incident that would escalate. And if it ever did escalate seriously, you know, talk about a situation for which there would be no winners. The economic repercussions of a major incident in this part of the world, given how central it is to the global economy, would be incalculable. So I don't quite understand the Chinese behavior, other than, again, that by raising the level of risk, they think they can somehow get us to back off big commitments in this part of the world. That's just not going to happen. I mean, that's just not going to happen. I mean, if you look if you look at what the United States has done over the past six months to a year, Katty K, it hasn't happened.

It's not going to happen. The pressure on Biden is fierce. If anybody ever said so, there'd be any backing down. You know, there would be an outcry in Congress that would would would stop the president from backing down at all. It's never going to happen. So and she had this idea that he was going to separate Europe from the United States and Europe. They, you know, Macron, other people met with Xi. They were very polite, said they wanted to reopen negotiations. But I've sent a pretty clear message. You're not going to divide us from the United States. We are not going to divide the U.S.-EU relationship. No, clearly that's held strong. The best that the

U.S., I think, can do at the moment is carry on the kinds of visits that Bill Burns did, that Jake Sullivan did. And, you know, there is some fault here on the U.S. side, too. They proposed a meeting with a defense official in Lloyd Austin and the defense official is under U.S. sanctions and the Chinese just didn't like that. I think you have to kind of try and figure out how can you make this relationship work? Because on the military side, you have to try and avoid some kind of mistake that leads to a serious conflict. But there are a whole host of issues around which the U.S. and China need to cooperate. They need to cooperate on things like climate change, for example. One way to isolate Russia further would be for the U.S. to be having more diplomatic contacts with Beijing, not less of them. That would be the way to try and push Russia out of the picture, particularly as it looks like China wants to play some kind of negotiating role or at least show the

global South, India and Brazil, that he is involved in some kind of negotiating role. So there are opportunities for the U.S. to work with China here. But and those have to be taken. It can't just be this kind of Cold War situation that we're in, because a mistake could happen, as we've seen over the last few days, that would lead to something far more serious and is not in certainly not in the United States' interests. All right. Coming up, we're going to talk to Katty and Richard and our panel about the latest developments out of Ukraine. And by the way, Volodymyr Zelensky was the surprise speaker at the Johns Hopkins graduation. Incredible. The students were so excited. They were surprised by his, and Applebaum introduced him. And he told them one of the most precious things they have

is time. We'll have the latest on the developments in Ukraine when Morning Joe returns. Forty five past the hour now to the latest out of Ukraine. Russia says it repelled a large-scale Ukrainian offensive in the eastern province of Donetsk. Its defense ministry released a video this morning claiming over 200 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in the battle. Ukraine has yet to respond to Russia's statement. The Kremlin recently said one of its top military commanders was at a forward post to the front lines. As the AP reports, this may be an effort by Moscow to respond to criticism inside Russia that its top military leaders have not been visible enough at the front.

Ukrainian President Zelensky, meanwhile, tells The Wall Street Journal that Ukraine is ready to launch its counteroffensive. It's unclear whether the situation in Donetsk is part of that effort. And of course, a big question, Jonathan Lemire, that remains is when will the spring offensive actually begin? Yeah. And it's not clear that we will know exactly when it will begin. It may be incremental. There's some thought that some of the little fighting that's already happened may be the start of it. And we should, of course, take every claim the Kremlin makes with a grain of salt in terms of how they say they've repelled this particular offensive. But Richard, we know that whether this is the part

of the offensive now that muddy season is over or whether the offensive has already begun or whether it's a few weeks away still, Ukraine is going to make a push. And there's a sense among Western allies, including those in the White House, that they're going to need to make some sort of progress here in order to kind of keep momentum going, to ensure the continued support of the rest of the alliance. What's your assessment of like, how much do they need to do? And when do you think settlements talks might begin? Well, first of all, you're exactly right. There's not like a whistle that blows and says, this is the beginning of the offensive. There can be probes, there can be explorations. And what the Russians are saying is also to be expected,

because they want to win the political war, the psychological war. So I think we have to put all that aside. You raise a really interesting question, which is what's enough in order to justify a third season or a fourth season of this policy? Jonathan, my prediction is that's going to be debated come the fall, that Ukraine will perhaps gain a little bit of territory. Like I could be wrong. We're all we're all speculating here. But a lot of people are going to say, well, are two or three or four more years of this going to really liberate all what Russia is holding in Crimea or in the east? The answer, probably not. Well, what then? At what point do we need to transition and add a diplomatic dimension to the strategy? When do you need to have peace talks of some sort? What sort of assurances do you provide Ukraine as an inducement to enter into talks, as a message to the Russians that continuing the war would be futile? My guess is we're still six months away from that. We're going

to get through this fighting season. And as we talked about the other day, the Russians may want to play it out for another year, hoping that someone like Donald Trump will end up in the White House and American support for Ukraine will fall off. So my guess is we probably have one or even two more years of this. But I think probably by this time in the spring of 25, if Ukraine has not regained much of the land that it has lost, not just in 2014, certainly since 2014, then I think we're, I think, essentially, I come under real pressure to negotiate. Richard, how much of the politics in the United States going into an election year, presidential and Congress, and the appetite of the electorate to support, continue to support enthusiastically this war? If that dims, how does that affect where the United States stands in terms of supporting Zelensky?

And then how does that affect where Zelensky tries to go into negotiations? When you see Russia aggressively trying to get other support, there's even stories of African countries that are siding with Russia. How's the politics work? I actually don't think this is a big political issue here. I don't see people going to the polls. If you look at the midterm elections, virtually nobody was voting on the basis of this. It comes up every now and then.

It may come up in a Republican primary or in Republican debates as a way of differentiating with both Trump and DeSantis on this. But I don't see this as a big political issue. This is not going to bring, and part because we're not involved militarily on the ground in the sense of American. So there's no bring the troops back kind of thing. So I think whoever is president is going to have a considerable discretion either to continue what we're doing, if it's President Biden, if it's, say, a Nikki Haley, or to turn down the tap if it's a Donald Trump or a Ron DeSantis. So I actually don't think there'll be so much

political pressure as candidates and potentially individuals wanting to differentiate themselves. All right, Richard Haass, thank you very much for coming on this morning. Would you like to say anything about the muddy season that the Red Sox are going through right now? No, I didn't. I was going to say the following, muddy season that the Red Sox are going through right now? No, I didn't. I was going to say the following, which is it is quite extraordinary. You and Professor Lemire here, how you could spend 10, 15 minutes talking about the Reds, like the fact that the Yankees won the series against the Dodgers, who are on the short list of the best teams in baseball. I just think it deserved a little bit more oxygen than the two of you.

He's now giving us editorial. The two of you gave it. I just want to say that. Coming up, how does stumbling grow stronger? Congress Day froth cop joins us to explain what he called. Thank you, Richard. The Biden two step. Plus, new reporting on the next phase of President Biden's re-election campaign now that the debt limit deal is behind him. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. All right. A few minutes before the top of the hour, it is time now for a look at the morning papers. We begin in Wisconsin, where the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports the Republican National Committee has scheduled the first debate of the presidential primary season for August 23rd in Milwaukee. To participate, candidates must have

at least 1 percent in three national polls or 1 percent in two national polls and one early state poll recognized by the RNC. They must also have a minimum of 40,000 unique donors. In Connecticut, the Hartford Courant is covering the start of what is reportedly the 100 deadliest days of the year on the road for teenagers. Experts say teen drivers are most vulnerable on the roads during the time period between Memorial Day and Labor Day. This is according to AAA. New teen drivers are likely three times more likely to be involved in a deadly crash compared to adults. In Ohio, the Cleveland Plain Dealer is reporting on a new effort by the U.S. Department of Transportation to increase safety at railroad crossings in dozens of states. The department has awarded more than five hundred and seventy million dollars to 32 states for projects that will fix railroad crossings that block vehicle and pedestrian traffic,

keep first responders from reaching emergencies, and occasionally cause deadly accidents. And in North Carolina, the Charlotte Observer is taking a look at the Atlantic hurricane season. According to meteorologists, the Atlantic region can expect 12 to 17 named storms this year, with five of them, five to nine of them, possibly becoming hurricanes. An estimated one to four of them being major ones. Great. Coming up, is there a double standard when it comes to investigating President Biden versus former President Trump? We'll show what a House Republican on the Oversight Committee had to say about that. That is next on Morning Joe. How do you define woke? There's a lot of things. I mean, you want to start with biological boys

playing in girls sports. That's one thing. The fact that we have gender pronoun classes in the military now. I mean, all of these things that are pushing what a small minority want on the majority of Americans. It's too much. It's too much. I mean, the idea that we have biological boys playing in girls sports, it is the women's issue of our time. OK, that was Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley explaining what woke means to her. Missing the irony that the war on woke only matters to a small minority of Americans will have more from her town hall in Iowa. And President Joe Biden made a lot of headlines this fall last week with this fall last week during a graduation ceremony. Yikes, it looked like it really hurt, but he seems fine. It inspired a new piece from one of our next guests calling the Biden two-step.

We'll dig into that. Plus we could learn what, if anything, the FBI has for house Republicans today as they continue to dig for alleged dirt on the president and his family. You know, it's just not going well. Well, I don't think it's ever. My point is, I've made it last week, but it doesn't work. I mean, keep digging. But it doesn't work. People don't.

It's not me. I'm just I don't think people respond to this as it must be done. The thing is, and they're being called out now by Fox News hosts. You actually have, I mean, Katty Kay, you actually have Chuck Grassley, one of the most senior members in the United States Senate, when pressed about this supposed document that everybody's talking about and that it could exonerate the president, Grassley goes, we don't care if he's innocent or not. And that's just that's, again, Michael Kinsley's definition of a gaffe where somebody in Washington accidentally tells the truth. I mean, we have that time and time again,

whether it's the Durham investigation, whether it's the Comey investigation. These people keep humiliating themselves. And it's left to the Wall Street Journal editorial page to try to clean it up for them. But even they're saying there's no smoking gone. Yeah. And coming out on top of the committee chair who said that this was good for ratings. You wonder what the impetus is. I mean, Mietke is right. When you look at all of the polling heading, certainly heading into the 2022 midterm elections, the idea of investigating the Biden family didn't rank anywhere. I literally didn't see it anywhere in the top 10 polling issues that people were concerned about.

And yet it seems to be something that certain members of Congress and the Republican Party are very focused on. And obviously, you know, if crimes have been committed, then they should be investigated and they'll be found. But I think the Durham report found that there wasn't the smoking gun that certainly Donald Trump had been hoping for. And there didn't seem to be any indication. We haven't seen it yet. So it's not something that resonates with the American public so far. Maybe Republicans think that if they carry on with these committees, I don't quite know what the political rationale is because they haven't been resonating. You haven't seen this creep up in polling around what people what issues people are concerned about.

So I'm not quite sure why they're continuing to spend quite so much time on it. Yeah, it just doesn't seem to make sense. So I'm not quite sure why they're continuing to spend quite so much time on it. Yeah, it just doesn't seem to make sense. And, you know, Rev, I mean, when you're preaching, I mean, you need a message that's not going to put the people in the choir behind you asleep. And, you know, this Biden crime family and Hunter Biden's laptop and this, that. As we say, if he's guilty of a crime, arrest him, charge him. And if a jury convicts him, a jury convicts him, so be it. But all these things about like the Biden crime family, this, that, the other, they keep pushing and they keep finding absolutely nothing. And it ends up at the end of the day, just being an embarrassment

for them. And as Katty said, most Americans just don't care about this unless you're the wife of a Supreme Court justice that's talking about putting the Biden crime family on barges outside of Gitmo. Absolutely. And when you see no response and you keep pushing something that you can't really bring anything out that would be even something perceived as a smoking gun, it takes away from the credibility of things you may want to bring in the future that may get a reaction. And to me, how tone deaf they are, if people aren't tuned in, if I'm preaching, not only is the choir sleeping behind me, they start snoring. I might want to get a different message. So here's what Republican Senator Chuck Grassley said last Thursday that Joe just referenced. Take a look. You talked to the FBI director, Christopher Wray, on the phone yesterday, right? And you're trying to get a look at this document.

From what I understand, he says you're okay to come to the Bureau and look at it. Is that the case, and is that good enough for you? Well, it's not good enough for me. We asked for the document a month ago. It's been subpoenaed. He ought to respond to a subpoena. We're doing the constitutional job of oversight. I have read that document. If he would read it, and it's an unclassified document, he admits it exists. And we aren't interested in whether or

not the accusations against Vice President Biden are accurate or not. We're responsible for making sure the FBI does its job. Again, a gaffe. What? A gaffe. A gaffe? A gaffe in Washington when you accidentally tell the truth and you don't mean to. So that was Jonathan O'Meara. That's exactly that's exactly what Chuck Grassley just did there, where he's he's acting shocked and stunned. Then he admits he's already seen the document. And then he admits that Biden hasn't done anything wrong and that this is just all showbiz. This is all political gesturing. This is all raising their. And again, it's what Durham did, made a fool of himself. It's exactly what Comey's been doing where he's got absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing. And here's Grassley. Now they're talking about this document.

We need the document. This is horrible. This is the worst thing ever. Well, but he said you could come look at the document. I've already seen the document. Okay, and what? Well, it doesn't matter if he didn't do anything or not or whether the accusations were lies.

I mean, again, these people just keep making fools of themselves. Why don't they talk about themselves. Why don't they talk about inflation? Why don't they talk about the rising cost of rent? Why don't they talk about the southern border? Why don't they talk about crime? Why don't they talk about quality of life? Like, why don't they lead with that? Because this Biden stuff is getting them nowhere. And poll after poll after poll suggests the American people just don't care. And Senator Grassley gave up gave up the game right there, made it clear this is about politics. So that was last Thursday. And then yesterday, a House Republican on the committee investigating the

Biden family's business dealings was called out over a double standard when it comes to the probes into the president. On Fox News, Oversight Committee member Pat Fallon was discussing a document that Republicans hope to obtain today that they say contains allegations that Joe Biden committed financial crimes in his time as vice president. Despite not yet seeing the document, Fallon was adamant yesterday that it could implicate Biden in a crime. Yet he seemed to brush off the possibility of the same unseen document exonerating the president. If it disapproves, disproves or dispels suspicions and allegations, will that exonerate then Vice President Biden? Oh, no, not at all, because it's just once. It's just one document.

It's an FD 1023. It's one claim. There's so many others. Is the FBI credible? Let me finish. Either when the agency is investigating the former vice president or the former president, is the FBI and its sources credible? Of course you hope so, but you also don't want to see a two-tier justice system. So, Congressman, I mean, you're doing a really good job of sort of squirming around my questions. And what I see you setting up quite frankly—hang on, let me finish, please, sir. What I see you setting up quite frankly is that if this document doesn't give you the evidence that you're looking for, then you're going to keep digging. Even if it does, you're going to keep digging. Even if it does, you're going to keep digging. So it seems like no matter what is in this document,

no matter what the FBI does or doesn't do, they're political. In this particular instance, we will be fair, and as I think we always are. Wow. Now that's how you do it.