Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/5/24

Episode Date: June 5, 2024

WSJ relies on former Speaker Kevin McCarthy to criticize Biden’s acuity

Show your support of Trump and America with the official upside-down American flags. These are not your regular flags, which are only good for right-side-up. These flags are handmade in China, the country upside-down from us. Each one is individually stitched by an upside-down seamstress, priced at $249. Do we love this deal? Yes, we do. Order your official Trump brand upside-down American flag today by 10 or more and receive an upside-down Bible absolutely free. Give me cash, just give me money.

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, June 5th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of Wait to Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle is with us right off the top. And U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye, and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, joins us for the conversation. And you know, when people see Richard,

they think we're going to immediately jump into, I mean, and why they come here, and it drives you crazy whenever we talk about this, but I'm going to talk about it. Because, you know, it's just a little break in the proceedings. Sometimes things get a little. Yeah. Let's talk about India's elections, Richard. What? Not what you expected. I got to say, whoa, you know, there are very few election results where you're just absolutely surprised.

I think Poland was one of them last year where Tusk, despite the fact that that he had all of the disadvantages and none of the advantages that the Law and Justice Party basically controlled all the levers of government were using them to to to defeat Tusk in Poland. What happened in India was maybe more shocking. All we've heard for the past couple of years is how Modi is this growing autocrat. He's one of the most popular and beloved figures in the world. He has complete control over India. He's like a grandfather. Except you've heard it all on and on and on. A shocker last night, a shocker yesterday that, I mean, he's got to like grub around like an actual politician and make alliances with parties he doesn't like to have a majority. All correct. The world's largest democracy has gone to the polls and a real upset in the sense everyone was predicting a landslide.

It was anything but the BJP, the Hindu nationalist party of the prime minister, got the most votes. It's a plurality party, but it did not get as widely predicted and expected an outright majority. The prime minister gets a third term for only the second time in Indian history. But again, it's a disappointment, exactly as you say, is to cobble together a coalition with parties that don't share as Hindu nationalist cultural dreams for for India. I think it's a real pushback on inflation, a real pushback on inequality in India. And you're right. It's I think it's actually a good thing, though, Joe, for Indian democracy. Yeah, it was it was becoming something of an illiberal democracy to top heavy. And I think it's actually a good development. So there is there's our

relief of our comic relief for the morning. Let's go to the hard news. All right. Let's go to our top story this morning. The Wall Street Journal is out with a new piece entitled Behind Closed Doors. Biden shows signs of slipping. The journal says it spoke with both Republicans and Democrats who either participated in meetings with Biden or were briefed on them contemporaneously, but essentially only on the record Republican critics in the article. The one is former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. The journal writes, quote, Last year, when Biden was negotiating with House Republicans to lift the debt ceiling, his demeanor and command of the details seemed to shift from one day to the next,

according to then House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. By the way, they also quoted Mike Johnson, people around Mike Johnson, and admit that this was basically House Republicans whacking. Why didn't they just ask Marjorie Taylor Greene? Well, exactly. Why didn't they? Yeah, theyie Taylor Greene? Well, exactly. Why? Yeah, they could have. Lauren Boebert. It's it's really shocking, especially when you see what Kevin McCarthy has said repeatedly, publicly and behind the scenes about Biden on those same days when they were negotiating. The strong feelings you're seeing about this article comes

also because the context of this race and these two candidates. It's interesting. That's all I'll say. Anyhow, that flies in the face of what McCarthy said about Biden's effectiveness in the past. From Politico last year, quote, McCarthy mocked Biden's age and mental acuity in public. In public, like he did in this article. While privately telling allies that he found the president sharp and substantive in their conversations, a contradiction that left a deep impression on the White House. This from The New York Times. Privately, Mr. McCarthy has told

allies that he has found Mr. Biden to be mentally sharp in meetings. And this from the Hill, very professional, very smart, very tough at the same time. McCarthy told reporters at the Capitol of his talks with Biden. You know, Willie, I could go on and on with things that Kevin McCarthy and others have said about negotiating with Joe Biden. I could also talk about what the French delegation said when they were negotiating with with him and what they told me and friends that I have in that French delegation who were part of those negotiations, who said that Macron came out like, wow, OK, it's a lot tougher than we expected. And actually, I think Macron sort of got his back up because Biden was pressing so hard. I can tell you the same thing about Middle Eastern leaders that I talked to.

Nobody's saying he's not cogent. Some people are suggesting that he, you know, a bit too tough in negotiations, that the United States throws their weight around a little bit too much. But what I find so shocking about this article is they go to Kevin McCarthy as their main source and other House Republicans, the same House Republicans, Mike Johnson, who just there lied through his teeth repeatedly. Mike Johnson, who got to power based on the big lie. And they're using people around Johnson and Kevin McCarthy to do this. This Trump hit piece on Joe Biden. But again, here's the quote. Kevin McCarthy

mocked Biden's age and mental acuity in public. This is from from Politico last year, while privately telling allies that in private he found the president to be sharp and substantive. And I've talked to you about my meetings with the president over the past year, Willie, and talked to Mike and Meek about it. And I said in real time, the guy, the guy, see both those guys right there? I've spent time with both of those guys privately. I've spent time with Biden and Trump privately. I've spent time with every House speaker how to get bipartisan legislation, Joe Biden is light years ahead of all of them. And the fact that The Wall Street Journal knew these quotes were out there, that editors, I'm not looking at the reporter. People always blame the reporter. There are a line of editors behind every story that's done. The editors saw that Kevin McCarthy had a habit of saying one thing in public, lying in public, and then privately telling his aides just the opposite, that Biden was sharp, that he was

cogent, that he was substantive. And in the same meeting that Kevin McCarthy is now telling the Wall Street Journal Biden was out of it. He went out and he told reporters after the meeting that the meeting was, quote, the best yet. We're making progress. And I'm going to be talking to Joe Biden every day. Very professional, very smart, very tough. I just I don't even know what to say. I really don't even know what to say here. Well, let's begin with the fact that Joe Biden is 81 years old. Donald Trump, by the way, will be 78 next week. So he's not much younger. So, yes. Does he move a little slower and speak a little softer than he did 15 years ago when he was vice president? As former Speaker McCarthy says, it sure does. Yeah. I think most

81 year olds do or most people are different than they were 15 years ago. This does have the have the feeling of Trump acolytes laundering their attacks through a reputable, prestigious new news organization in The Wall Street Journal. Also, the point about notes, as Richard Haass would tell you, presidents use notes in meetings. That's not unusual. They might have a sheet. They might have a card in front of them with some points that they want to make. I would also point out Donald Trump has a person who follows him with a printer to print things out for him so he can have hard copies, so he can read his notes and facts and lies often that he rattles off. And then the other point to make is, will the Wall Street Journal have a piece about Donald Trump and his mental acuity? All you have to do is watch the 90 minutes of that Fox News interview over the weekend and you could go through and do an entire series of articles on someone who doesn't seem to have it all together.

Mike Barnicle, you're very plugged into the White House. What's the early reaction to this piece? He can't say it on the air. You just can't say it on the air what your reaction is, actually. But, you know, I am sort of actually embarrassed for The Wall Street Journal with this piece. And there's one, at least to me and others, Richard, anyone who has spent any time at all, Joe, Mika, anybody, you, anybody who has spent any time at all with Joe Biden knows one thing about Joe Biden above all else. He's a talker. He's a talker. So here's the tell in this piece. With Ukraine running out of munitions, the White House called together top lawmakers to discuss what it would take to get congressional funding, along with the scope of border security changes demanded by Republicans.

The president moved so slowly around the cabinet room to greet the nearly two dozen congressional leaders that it took about 10 minutes for the meeting to begin, some people who attended recalled. Two dozen people around a table and it took them 10 minutes to go around. I'm amazed that it didn't take them an hour. Everyone he meets, he has 10 minutes to talk to them about. Everyone. So this was a classic, classic hit piece, probably ordered up by the 93-year-old, fifth-time married Rupert Murdoch over the weekend. Probably, you know. But I mean, this piece is so tilted, so off the mark. Is he 81 years old? Yes. Is he a bit slower in terms of his reactions to some things? Probably. That I don't know. We don't know. I do know, Richard, and you've talked to people, I'm sure, who have been with him in national security meetings. I've been with people who have been with him in the Situation Room where he literally goes around the globe on the chart in the Situation Room.

I've never been in there, but electronically and points out the weaknesses and the strengths of the United States relationships with each and every country that he's talking about with no notes, with no notes. He's an 81 year old president of the United States who gets up every day. He's got to deal with Bibi Netanyahu in the morning, Ukraine about 10 minutes later. His son is on trial. His son is an addict. It's on his mind all the time. This piece is outrageous. But Mike, Mike, it's not that complicated. It's just not. You know, we don't have to talk. Look at who they quote. We don't have to talk to anybody, Richard. But the person they quote, Kevin McCarthy, who is the source again, Kevin McCarthy, who is one a actually a sort of a PR tour right now to clean up the fact. And Politico has written a story about this, the fact that he lies,

the fact that he bounces back and forth. He's trying to go on a basically PR tour. But we don't have to ask world leaders, but please feel free to jump in. Let's just talk to the guy that was the source of this story and quoted. McCarthy mocked Biden's age and mental acuity in public while privately telling allies in private he found the president to be sharp and substantive. He called him very professional, very smart, very tough. And this same meeting, again, that the Wall Street Journal is basing this story on, on Kevin McCarthy's lies, Kevin McCarthy's lies, which it's in the press. There is a mountain of quotes from Kevin McCarthy and people around Kevin McCarthy saying that Biden is sharp. He's mentally sharp privately. I mean, yeah, I mean, so go ahead, talk about what I've talked about,

talking to world leaders, talking to. But again, it's just not complicated. No, it's not. Went to a guy who has admitted that he lies in public and that privately Biden is very sharp. Joe, two Republican speakers have been up for recall in the recent past, Kevin McCarthy and Mike Johnson. Democrats saved Mike Johnson with their votes. They refused to save Kevin McCarthy when he was up and he's out. Why? Because it was universal, even from Republicans and Democrats. Kevin McCarthy is a liar. That's why he didn't get the support. It's also really odd the story comes out now. Think about the last week. Joe Biden has come forward with three major

new policies, a ceasefire initiative in the Middle East, a new weapons targeting policy for Ukraine and an entirely different policy on the border. Three enormous issues, three new policies. You may like the policies, you may not, but this is clearly a president who is driving an agenda. So we can quote some of the White House response. White House Communications Director Ben LeBolt tweeted last night, it's a complete and utter editorial fail. We know the White House spokesperson Andrew Bates is quoted repeatedly in the story, denying a lot of it. And we will note that one of the examples cited in the piece was about energy policy. And then other reporters have

already been fact checking on Twitter today, saying that actually what the president said represented what the Biden administration's policy was. So it was perhaps Speaker Johnson and Republicans in the room who got it wrong. They may have disagreed with the policy. You got confused. Right. They may have disagreed with the policy, but it was the president who did accurately say what the administration wanted. I mean, this is a storyline, of course, that deeply upsets the White House. They understand privately it is a real one, that in polls suggest that Americans are concerned about the president's age. That is simply true.

They do feel, of course, and they point to the White House physician and the physical the president receives every year saying he is very much up for the job. It is a storyline that had faded some in recent months after the president's State of the Union, where he delivered a vigorous performance. Some of the other moments since, he is seen as doing well. It's true, he sits for fewer interviews than his predecessors, though he did just do a big one for Time magazine that printed yesterday. It's true that Americans don't hear him unscripted as much as we heard other presidents. All of that is accurate.

However, a lot of this still applies to Donald Trump as well. And we have gone through on the show repeatedly how he has slipped as well. And he has shown signs of age caddy. So it does feel like this is a moment here with Trump reeling after the verdict. And we wait to see how that's going to play out, that it's Republicans trying to revive what they think could be an effective storyline. Yeah. And one perhaps White House response might be an Andrew Bates is kind of hinting at this in this piece is the degree to which we haven't really seen very much of the unscripted Joe Biden. And will we start seeing that pick up as the campaign gets hotter?

I think a lot of us would like to see Joe Biden out in public more. We'd like to see him doing more interviews, certainly with us journalists, which he hasn't done very many of. And it's, you know, the State of the Union, as you're saying, John, did a lot to kind of put these stories to rest for a little while. So when he's out there, he has performed well when he's got those big moments. There has been some sense that this campaign has tried very much to kind of corral Joe Biden and keep him out of the public eye, not give him much interaction with journalists. Maybe that's something that needs to change a little bit. Maybe actually more Joe Biden is better and we'll certainly see him at the debate. But when he is out performing and talking about policy and doing the kinds of policies and implementing them as, you know, as we've been hearing on energy and the border,

then actually that seems to his benefit. More Joe Biden, not less. Maybe a strategy that helps them. Well, I mean, and by the way, that's a legitimate story. You could you could. That's a story. He's not as available as past presidents or or whatever it may be. But as Richard says, first of all, he's passed more bipartisan legislation than any president in what a generation.

And you look at the past week, how busy that the past week has been. And I just want to say, first of all, I am loathe to attack the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, these papers, Caddy, that do such remarkable work day in and day out. And they do. Listen, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, I read it every day. I disagree with it maybe half the time, but half the time I'm like, glad somebody's saying this, right? I think the Wall Street Journal editorial page, even when it makes me angry reading what they say, it's really necessary. It's important for our democracy. But, you know, as you know, the Wall Street Journal news side of things has always had an extraordinary reputation inside and outside of Washington,

both Democrats and Republicans alike. So I do not want to paint with a broad brush here, especially considering the new editor, Emma Tucker. I'm a I'm a big fan. I don't I don't understand this story. I think it's unfair, but it's it's pretty remarkable, I think, what Emma Tucker's done in her short time at at The Wall Street Journal. And I wish her and and whatever's happening at The Washington Post, though I have no idea what the hell is happening at The Washington Post. I wish them all the best of luck. But this is, again, deeply troubling that they would base a story at this time in a campaign on House Republicans who have a record, record of lying. That is not opinion. That is fact. And we have the specific lies in front of us about Kevin McCarthy saying

one thing publicly and another thing behind closed doors that undermine this story. Yeah, I mean, I agree with you on the Wall Street Journal. I like the fact that when I read it, I don't know what to expect from the opinion pages. It's always refreshing to find media outlets, particularly in this age where people are saying things that are counterintuitive to their party line. And I think the journal does a good job of that. And certainly their news reporting, not just in the States, but around the world. They have great reporters in Ukraine. They have great reporters in the Middle East and in Africa. So they have done a very good job. In this piece, I think they fell short in not pointing out that McCarthy is being quoted on

the record in previous occasions as saying one thing and meaning another thing. And to rely on him as your one quoted source when he has a track record of speaking, let's say, duplicitously on some of this, I think it means the piece falls short. It doesn't quite hold the credibility it could do if they had taken the time to point that out. And we will gloss over the British takeover of American newsrooms at the moment. Just move on from that, Richard. It is happening. You have the Wall Street Journal, the CNN, the Washington Post, CNN. And now the British are coming, New York Times. The British are coming. Prepare. All right. A lot more to cover this morning. So

still ahead on Morning Joe, former President Trump once again floats the idea of jail time for his political opponents. We're going to play for you those new comments from the former president. Plus, President Biden signs an executive order to tighten security at the southern border and members of his own party are divided on the policy. We'll have the latest from Capitol Hill. Also ahead, former Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn defended democracy during the January 6th attack on the Capitol, and now he's launching a new effort to hold MAGA extremists accountable.

He joins us next with more on that. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. Welcome back to Morning Joe. Twenty three past the hour. President Biden issued an executive order yesterday that will shut down asylum requests at the southern border when crossings spike. Under the order, border officials will stop accepting requests when daily encounters reach an average of 2,500 migrants at legal point of entry. The shutdown will go into effect immediately. As the Department of Homeland Security officials say, encounters have reached 4,000 migrants daily. The border will only reopen once the number falls to 1,500 migrants. Speaking at the White House,

the president said he would have preferred to do this with Congress, but Republicans blocked that effort. Take a listen. Republicans in Congress, not all, but walked away from it. Why? Because Donald Trump told them to. He told the Republicans, it has been published widely by many of you, that he didn't want to fix the issue. He wanted to use it to attack me. Today, I'm moving past Republican obstruction and using the executive authorities available to me as president to do what I can on my own to address the border. Frankly, I would have preferred to address this issue through bipartisan legislation because that's the only way to actually get the kind of system we have now that's broken, fixed.

For those who say the steps I've taken are too strict, I say to you to be patient. And goodwill of American people are wearing thin right now. Doing nothing is not an option. We have to act. We must act consistent with both our law and our values. You know, he's getting hammered by both sides. Republicans saying it's not enough. Of course, these are the same Republicans who had the best deal they could have possibly

gotten with, you know, one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate putting it forward. But Republicans, of course, who have no credibility on this issue because they killed it for political reasons, are attacking him. And then the left also attacking attacking Biden for saying that it goes too far, I would just remind everybody that Barack Obama got hammered nonstop over his eight years for being the deporter in chief. And I will all I will say is that before Donald Trump became president, when Barack Obama left, illegal border crossings at the southern border were a 50 year low. Yeah, I'm just so glad he was able to get those words out. And, you know, with all the struggling and difficulty that he's having, I was on the edge of my seat. God, what is going to happen? Yeah. Yeah. More, more help and weapons

for you. Plus getting in the middle of a peace process in the Middle East. My goodness. He's just so bumbling. Yeah. Joining us now, NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Batali. So, Ali, what's the president's goal here? Obviously, criticism from both sides on this. Not everybody is pleased. What's he doing? Not everybody is pleased.

But I think what's so important in what the president said in announcing this executive order is the fact that they could have done this through Congress. And the very action that he took here in trying to stem the number of asylum claims that are happening at the southern border was a central tenet of that bipartisanly negotiated deal. It was one of the things that Republicans who were at the negotiating table felt that they had really gotten a win on. And it was a concession for Democrats, especially when you look at the reaction from some progressives right now who are saying that this goes way too far. Of course, it's going to get tied up in courts. But that's what you get when you don't do this through a legislative route. The politics of this, though, has never been far from the policymaking. In large part, that's why

we did not end up with any kind of vote that succeeded on this bill in the first place in the Senate, despite the fact that there was a blessing from Senate Republican leadership for Senator Lankford to be in those negotiating rooms cobbling together this deal. Again, we cannot underscore it enough. The reason it fell apart is because Donald Trump wanted to keep this as a live ball in the election. Republicans fell in line behind that. We watched that in the vote totals, not just when this vote fell apart in February, but when it fell apart two weeks ago. Senator Chuck Schumer doubled back to the table, trying to put this front and center to say Democrats are trying to put forward something that could show forward progress on stemming the saying at the time, wouldn't go along. And then two weeks later, you have Biden coming along with this executive order saying that he would have done it through Congress, but they were blocking him from doing so. So election year politics are so tied up in this. And there's a reason that Democrats are trying to put the spotlight on this, too, of

course, which you guys well know, which is that polling shows that this is an issue that works well for Republicans. Democrats are trying to wrest back some control of the news cycle, infuse some fact into it, which is to say they wanted to try to do something on this, but they couldn't get it together in bipartisan fashion, again, because Trump wanted to scuttle the deal. The politics are so central to this, and it's why we're gonna continue seeing this

as a live football, as it always is. We've covered Trump for a long time. Every time he's in a tough spot on the campaign trail, this is his favorite issue, his pet child to go back to and try to stem the flow of anger from voters onto this issue. You look in places like Arizona, where there's a tight Senate race, Kerry Lake and Ruben Gallego. This is going to be one of the issues that could turn the Senate map. And we're talking tight margins, as we always are. So every race matters. Arizona, Montana, all of the rest of those. This is going to be key. So, Ali, as you say, Republicans say too little, too late. Of course, the irony of that is they had the legislation they asked for

and turned their backs on it because Donald Trump told them to. Also, progressives say, as you mentioned, they'll tie this up in court with appeals. So is there a sense that this actually will be implemented at some point, that this executive order will actually take hold? Or does it just feel more like an election year attempt to get votes? Right now, I don't get the sense that people are under the assumption that this is going to be enacted immediately. The expectation was in my conversations with lawmakers yesterday, both those on the Democratic side who appreciate this move and then those who say it goes too far. The assumption was that this was never going to become something that was actually put in practice. And many of those people would double back and say the exact same thing that

we've been saying, which is that if this was done through a legislative route, you would have a harder time with the court challenges. That's not to say that they wouldn't still have come up. But when things are done unilaterally out of the White House, especially like this and on this issue, of course, you're going to see the legal challenges immediately. That's the expectation that I've heard from lawmakers on the Hill, again, some of whom on the Democratic side didn't want to be anywhere near this were critical of the White House. Even those folks, though, allow that this is an issue that Democrats need to deal with, need to talk about. It's going to be so central to the way that voters vote and make their decisions in November. NBC's Ali Vitale on Capitol Hill for us this morning. Ali, thanks so much. Some of the police officers who defended that building behind Ali on January

6th are continuing their fight to protect democracy. Harry Dunn, Aquilino Ganel and Daniel Hodges have been fanning out across swing states recently to make the case for reelecting President Biden in November and for stopping Donald Trump. Today, coming off an unsuccessful bid for Congress, which saw him bringing more than five million dollars for the campaign, Dunn is launching a new political action committee called Dunn's Democracy Defenders. I was always ready for game day. Two teams lined up. It's us against them. You leave it all on the field.

I'm Harry Dunn, and on January 6th, the good guys won. My fellow officers and I fought those insurrectionists as a team. We had each other's back. And we didn't do it for one person or one president. We did it for our country to make sure everyone's vote counted. That's what democracy is, that no one person's voice is greater than another. When I ran for Congress, hundreds of thousands of regular people stood with me, and we broke records in fundraising. But our system still allows the wealthiest Americans and their corrupt super PACs

to support insurrectionists and drown out our voices. So our team has got to change that. We need to support candidates committed to getting money out of politics and defending our democracy from Donald Trump and MAGA extremists. Nobody said it would be easy. But for our country, for our team, we can't stop now. And former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn joins us now. He's the author of the recent book, Standing My Ground. Officer Dunn, thanks for being with us again this morning.

So you ran for Congress in the state of Maryland, fell a little bit short there, but did have some money left over from that campaign. So tell us more about what you plan to do with it in this initiative. Sure. Thanks for having me on. It's always good to be on with you all. Yeah, we did fall short. But the reason why I ran was to do everything I can do to continue to fight for democracy, to fight to preserve our Constitution and to fight to stop MAGA extremists, and at the very top of the ticket, Donald Trump. And yeah, we did raise millions of dollars in a very short period of time. And what that told us, what that told me, is that a lot of people across the country, that message of our democracy, the threat of losing it,

the threat of this being our potential last free and fair election. It resonates with a lot of people. It worries a lot of people. And it's at the top of people's minds. So what we're going to do is to continue to use that momentum to continue to go across the country, up and down the ballot and elect Democrats and stop MAGA Republicans and also use the fight to continue to get big corporate money out of politics and support those candidates that really want to do that. So, Harry, when you're out there, when you're out there running for Congress and meeting a lot of people and talking to a lot of people, that aspect that you just mentioned, the threat to democracy, when you would talk to people

about the threat to democracy, how many of the people you spoke to thought it was like real those things really as important as they are. If we have a dictator in the White House, a dictator over democracy, what is the purpose? Those issues really don't even matter because the dictator gets what he wants. So everybody is definitely worried. Even people that voted against me for one of my opponents tell me that they were definitely worried about our democracy. So I think it is very front and center with a lot of people. And being out here on the campaign trail for President Biden, I'm in Pennsylvania right now. One of the things people are definitely worried about, it resonates with people. And as people have talked about, he's talking about

retribution and imprisoning his political opponents. And people are really worried about that. Officer, we keep hearing about a kind of sense of amnesia, not just around President Trump, but even around the events of January the 6th. When you're out on the campaign trail speaking to voters in Pennsylvania, how much are they thinking about it? How much do they remember what happened that day? How central is it in their thinking as they plan to go to the elections in November? One of the things that we've been hearing a lot is a lot of people say Democrats need to move on from January 6th.

But Donald Trump talks about it every day that he holds a rally. He is front and center about hardening the rioters that attacked the police officers on January 6th. So Donald Trump is making it a campaign issue also. Let's be completely clear about that. But people want to know the truth. And there are voters out there that no matter what Donald Trump says, no matter what he does, will not stray from him, no matter what. That's fine.

But the people that we are trying to reach, the independent voters, the Republicans who don't have a political home, the people that believe that democracy is really on the ballot, people that believe in that. Those are the people we're trying to reach out here now. And, you know, I'm hoping to amplify that with democracydefenderspack.com. Former U.S. Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn. Thank you very much for being on the show this morning. All right. Take care. CIA Director Bill Burns is set to meet with Qatari mediators in Doha to discuss the latest ceasefire proposal for the Israel-Hamas war. That's according to a source with knowledge of the negotiations who says the White House's Middle East coordinator

will travel to Cairo for more talks. This comes just days after President Biden publicly outlined a three phased plan to release the remaining hostages and end the war in Gaza. The U.S. says it is still waiting for a response from Hamas. But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be distancing himself from the deal as members of his government are opposed to ending the war without eradicating Hamas. Meanwhile, President Biden is now suggesting Netanyahu may be prolonging the war for political reasons. He made the comment in an interview with Time magazine. The interview was conducted on May 28th, but published yesterday. The president told the magazine, quote, there is every reason for

people to draw that conclusion. It's an internal domestic debate that seems to have no consequence. And whether he would change his position or not, it's hard to say, but it has not been helpful. Biden then walked back that claim when a reporter asked him about it yesterday. Is Prime Minister Netanyahu playing politics with the war? I don't think so. He's trying to work out a serious problem. All right. So, Richard Haass, let's talk about these negotiations. President Biden obviously laid out a peace plan, a ceasefire plan that neither Israel nor Hamas wants. And yet the negotiations continue. If Bill Burns is in your neighborhood, something serious is going on. What's the latest?

Yeah, it was last Friday that the president talked about the three-phase plan. The whole way it was represented was that it was wired with the Israelis and to some extent wired with Hamas. And over the last few days, we've seen it slightly come apart. The second and third phases were vague to begin with. So it's not exactly clear where things are. And I think there's some chance still you could get a temporary pause again, but not an open-ended ceasefire, not yet Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. So my guess is, Joe, that whatever happens, the war at one level is going to continue for some time. I still don't see any of the fundamental questions answered about who would provide, if you don't like Hamas, who is going to provide services, who's going to provide security

and governance. And meanwhile, things are heating up in the north between Israel and Hezbollah, also like Hamas backed by Iran. So the Middle East is not poised, shall we say, on the brink of something positive. Whatever the motives of Bibi Netanyahu or anyone else, I simply don't see things really fundamentally coming together. Well, there's been debate, not only here, but also in Israel, obviously, about what Netanyahu's what his what's pushing him throughout this process. I will say yesterday we had former Prime Minister Bennett on. the defections in the cabinet. We find ourselves in a position now where Netanyahu can't take this still and survive publicly. The criticism that's coming from former Prime Minister Bennett, who many consider a possibility for a future prime minister, as well as members of his own cabinet,

is that Netanyahu is being indecisive and being too weak and not going into RAFA. Look, he's getting it from from both sides. You're right. You have his finance minister, his minister of national security threatened to bring down the government if he if he doesn't, you know, quote unquote, show strength, go in. They talk about finishing the job. The problem with their arguments is that that's that's nonsense. The idea that you can eliminate Hamas and they're somehow a military solution is just a total misreading of the situation. That said, that's the politics Bibi Netanyahu is dealing with. It's not clear to me he can square the circle here. He's got pressures not to compromise. He's also got

pressures to end the war, to focus on the hostages. The president's leaning on him. The president, as people like me have argued, is going over his head, appealing to the Israeli public. Bibi Netanyahu is trying to avoid a decision. That's been, in some ways, the hallmark of his career, is to avoid coming down clearly and hard in order to politically survive. So, Richard, avoiding a decision in some ways inherently prolongs the conflict. And President Biden was asked about this. A Time magazine piece published yesterday. He first said, well, I don't want to weigh in on it, but then sort of said, but lots of people can think that that's what he's doing. He then tried

to sort of distance himself from it slightly when he was asked by a reporter yesterday at the White House. But that is what many in the White House believe. That's clearly what the president thinks as well. How does that dynamic play here? Is that that can't be received well by Netanyahu? No, but I also don't think it's a great idea to get publicly into the into the accusation game about what's motivating people. Just focus on the policy. And I think the United States is smart not to focus on what's motivating Bibi Nath. You know, we know like every other politician, by the way, including Joe Biden on what's motivating Bibi Nasser. We know, like every other politician, by the way, including Joe Biden, he's got political pressures on him. And they're difficult. Focus on what's smart for the United States and what's smart for Israel. And that ought to be to bring about an end to the war, to get the hostages back, to come up with some plan

for how you're going to govern and secure Gaza without Hamas going forward, how you're going to deal with Palestinian issues, slow settlements? There's a whole agenda out there. And I think the president ought to keep the focus on that. And through that, influence the Israeli debate. The best way to put pressure on Bibi Netanyahu is not to question his motives, whatever they may be. It's to encourage an Israeli debate that will create pressures on Bibi Netanyahu to do the right thing. That's what the United States ought to be doing here. All right. Coming up, President Biden

is in France this morning ahead of a ceremony in Normandy tomorrow, marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day. We'll discuss the significance of that World War Two battle and its impact on America's role on the global stage. Morning Joe will be right back. Soldiers, sailors and airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force, you are about to embark upon the great crusade toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of liberty-loving people everywhere march with you.

In company with our brave allies and brothers in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves in a free world. That is General Dwight David Eisenhower's message to allied troops on the eve of what would be one of the most pivotal moments of the 20th century, the storming of the beaches at Normandy, which paved the way for the liberation of France and ultimately all of Europe. President Biden is in France this morning, right now, set to deliver remarks in Normandy tomorrow to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-Day.

Joining us now, historian and professor of law at Columbia Law School, Michel Paradis. He's author of the new book, The Light of Battle, Eisenhower, D-Day, and the Birth of the American Superpower. Michel, good morning. It's so great to have you with us. You've got a lot of people very interested in this subject around the table, so we'll pass it around. But you got access to archival material that we just haven't seen before. You feel like you know everything about D-Day, especially if you're that interested in it. You read every book, you watch all the documentaries. But tell us what new light you shed on this. I think the most important light I shed on it was the light on the commander himself.

You know, Dwight Eisenhower is this received figure who, you know, has this. He's our grandfather in some ways. And his presidency was certainly defined by being a trying to look boring. And the, you know, the two million or more stories that come out of D-Day, the one that I think is the most dramatic and almost relatable to us today is the man at the middle who had to struggle through it all and to project optimism, even though at all times he knew it was on the verge of collapse. That, you know, even on the eve of battle, his chief of staff predicted that there was maybe a 50-50 chance of it succeeding. And had it failed, you know, what world would we live in today? Right. That's an alternate universe.

We don't want to contemplate at this point. And you talk, you get into in the book, the planning of D-Day, which there's, it's been well documented. But the fact that they pulled this off, when you really consider it all, it feels almost impossible. You know, there's the head fake that they convinced Hitler they were coming somewhere they weren't. Can you talk about the early stages of the idea and how outrageous it must have sounded to so many people?

It sounded outrageous to most people, most especially the British, who at that point were probably the preeminent empire in the world. And when the Americans came in in 1942 and said, here's how we're going to beat Hitler. We're going to cross the English Channel and charge to Berlin. The British were like, no, you're not. We can tell you all the reasons why you can't do that, why it's a terrible idea. And moreover, why I think we're all going to be better off if we start pursuing some British imperial interests in the Mediterranean in the meantime. And so, you know, the plan had been shelved for years, deferred, deferred. And finally, at a conference in Cairo in 1943,, 60-year-old men on the verge of a fistfight over whether or not they should continue to pursue operations in the Mediterranean or pursue this high-risk but high-reward operation

across the English Channel. And ultimately, a compromise is cut. They decide to go across the English Channel and conduct Operation Overlord. But the first thing that Dwight Eisenhower sees as both a general and, a student of military history is it's just way too small. This compromise is shortchanging what they need. And ultimately, he has to double the size of the invasion, which becomes probably one of the most sensitive diplomatic things he has to do right as he gets the job. But he ultimately pulls it off, convinces the British to go along, to not only go along with the invasion and support it, but to expand it. And then, you know, basically spends the next five months getting every detail in place

and hoping that everything that he does and that everyone he's leading to do will ultimately come off when the time has come. So pulling this book together and the research that you did for the book and the research that you had access to, you've got Dwight Eisenhower, a career military man. He knows from the moment that General Gavin and the 82nd jump out at 1, 2 o'clock in the morning, he knows that when they land on Utah and Omaha, there's going to be horrific casualty rate. What impact, if any, did that have on him?

It had an enormous impact. And this is one of the things that I think is just so admirable about him because the night before the invasion, June 5th, he gives the order to go. There are predictions. He's essentially betting on the weather at that point. And he personally goes to see off the 101st Airborne. And he's not even recognized right away. He goes up in a very unmarked car, just starts walking between these young men who are younger than his son, who's graduating from West Point the next day. They're all painted up like in war paint. They look like coal miners after a shift. And he walks

from man to man, just where are you from? You know, what do you like doing? Do you like fishing? And, you know, he makes a point as he shakes each man's hand to look them in the eye, knowing, and he's been told that anywhere from a quarter to half of them are going to be killed. And he knows that every other hand he's shaking is a young boy who's not going to have a future, but who's there to do what he's ordered them to do, but ultimately to try and save the world. That's literally what was at stake. We all know the story that Eisenhower prepared the letter about if it had been a failure. What would have been plan B?

Just say it hadn't worked. As you said, it was a best of 50-50 call. What would have happened the next day? What would Roosevelt and Eisenhower have recommended? How would the course of the war have changed? Well, Eisenhower would have been fired, and we would be talking about him the way we talk about General McClellan, probably. But the limits on Allied strategy at that point would be pretty severe. Essentially, the Allies would have to

return to the Mediterranean and pursue the Great Britain's essentially long-term strategy of expanding Allied influence in Great Britain, using their superior air and naval power to try and strangle Germany, but ultimately leaving the hard ground fighting in Europe to the Red Army. So you would have had a world where Russia was essentially the only counterbalance to Nazi Germany. Whether or not they would have cut a separate piece after seeing the Allies fail so completely, I think is not hard to imagine under the circumstances. And we would be living in just an entirely different world today with probably the British Empire still as the preeminent power in the world. Russia, maybe even Nazi Germany or some version of Nazi Germany how to do it, given that Churchill had spent so many years writing literally love letters to FDR, trying to court him to bring him into the war, got him to lend lease. And then ultimately, Pearl Harbor gets the United States into the war.

But that relationship so central to the story. Yes, so central. And another relationship between an American and a Brit that was very central was that between Patton and Field Marshal Montgomery, who you saw there in some of those pictures, who was actually my husband's grandfather. And I wanted to ask you about that relationship because I think when Eisenhower appointed Montgomery to be the architect of D-Day, it didn't make Patton very happy.

And I was wondering whether that... Actually, they hated each other, let's be honest. As Tom would tell you, Monty was a pain in the rear end. He was not a great, you know, he was a sort of Martinette-type grandfather at best. But was there, did that relationship, did the difficulties people had, Patton and Monty, make any impact on the planning for D-Day? Well, it certainly gave Eisenhower plenty of reasons to smoke more cigarettes. He got up to about three packs a day as they were approaching D-Day. But Monty, he didn't choose Monty. He actually advocated for a different British general, and Monty was essentially foist on him. And a moment ago, I spoke about Eisenhower confronting

the original D-Day plan was just essentially too small. And he needed to essentially double the plan. But to do that, he needed British buy-in. And the British were in no mood to expand Operation Overlord. And after Bernard Montgomery is essentially appointed to lead initially just the Canadian and British forces, Eisenhower invites him to his headquarters right after Christmas and essentially gives him a big bear hug and says, Bernard Montgomery, I want you to lead not just the British component of this operation, but the American one as well. Eisenhower, mind you, did not have the authority to make that offer, but he did anyway. And Bernard Montgomery heartily agreed in being the architect of Operation Overlord. And then at that point,

Eisenhower said, and don't you think this operation is just a bit too small, certainly for someone like Bernard Montgomery? And so Bernard Montgomery in essentially December, January of 1944 becomes the face of the expanded D-Day operation, which is ultimately crucial to getting the British buy in that they need. And again, that sort of political touch that I think we really underestimate with someone like Dwight Eisenhower ultimately ends up being crucial to success. 80 years ago right now, thinking about those young men getting ready to jump out of those planes and go do what General Eisenhower asked them to do. The 80th anniversary is tomorrow. We'll have full coverage of the president's visit and speech there. The new book titled The Light of Battle, Eisenhower D-Day and the Birth of the American Superpower. Michelle Parody, congratulations. A fabulous book. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.