Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/6/23

Episode Date: June 6, 2023

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

My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life. To be remembered simply as a good and decent man who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it. Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today pray that what he was to us, what he wished for others, will someday come to pass for all the world. As he said many times in many parts of this nation, to those he touched and who sought to touch him. Some men see things as they are and say, why? I dream things that never were and say, why not?

That was Senator Ted Kennedy at the funeral of his brother, Bobby. Second funeral he would have to mark. And today's June 6th. David Ignatius, two monumental things happened on this day, of course, the assassination and the death, the assassination of the fifth, the death of Bobby Kennedy on June the 6th, 1968, a day that really marked in many ways a low point, the chaos of the 1960s. And I must say also a day that many say this country still has not recovered from politically. And the second, actually a glorious achievement, and that was 79 years ago today, more than 160,000 American, British and Canadian troops landed in Nazi's incomprehensible that these 18 year old kids, 19 year old kids, the boys of were going in there, you were going to liberate the continent from Nazi tyranny. And that they did. Joe, I remember being with you on one of those anniversaries in Normandy and looking with you out across that field of memorials, crosses and stars of David,

and then looking at those cliffs and seeing what those young men, they were mostly men, had to contend with, how they had to fight up those cliffs in the face of overwhelming fire. And they did that on that day. And I remember talking and thinking about how our world really is built on the courage and sacrifice of those people. The other thing we celebrate today, I remember vividly, I was a young man of 18 when Bobby Kennedy died. And there was a way in which life seemed to break in that moment he was he was a person whether because of his family or the change that he'd gone through to an extraordinary change to to be to he'd been

a very conservative guy conservative voice in his brother uh jfk's ear but he became somebody who identified with all the progressive things happening in America, the civil rights movement, the need to end the Vietnam War. It is true that that day when he was shot, it was as if the hope that he embodied had gone away. So it's good of you to mention these two anniversaries, one that makes us very happy, D-Day, pride for our country, another that's so painful even now. And Gene, the fearlessness of Bobby in his final years, the extraordinary ability to grow from

somebody that worked actually for Joe McCarthy and was the hard, tough voice in his brother's ear when he was attorney general to this extraordinary man, who, of course, we remember the most eloquent words spoken after the death of Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, Indianapolis, and Jeff Greenfield, who said he followed him around as a speechwriter throughout the entire campaign. He said that night when he's quoting Greek poets, Escalus, Escalus in Indianapolis that night, I said, well, did you did you help him with that speech? He said the son of a bitch wrote it in the car. He said, he said, maybe the one of the great speeches in the half century, you know, these speechwriters, he wrote it in. And I just I always tell this story because it says all you need to know about Bobby Kennedy that night. The Indianapolis police said, we can't go in with you. It's going to be too dangerous.

We can't go in. Everybody told him to stay out. Bobby went in. And Bobby delivered an extraordinary statement that night on April, the night of April 4th. But, you know, in 1966, on this day, he was in South Africa telling the young people of South Africa, you have the power in your hands, this generation, to change things. And that was the generation that ended apartheid, that freed Mandela, that changed the world. Yeah, he was such an important figure. I don't know if people today who don't remember that day understand who he was and what he did and what he was going to do. I mean, it was his trajectory that everybody was following. I confess that, you know, by the time

he was assassinated, I was almost numb in 1968. Dr. King had been killed just a couple of months earlier. And a couple of months before that, in my hometown, there had been the Orangeburg Massacre, where three young black men with inside of my house had been killed by white state troopers in a demonstration. Three unarmed men, 27 other people shot and injured. And by the time we got to June, it was too much. It was in 1968. It was too much. And Willie, we were we going back to D-Day and then young men there. I remember on the 60th anniversary of D-Day going over there, just walking through the cemetery with, by then, the old men who had charged those hills. And at one point, they're telling me these extraordinary stories. And I just said, man, what were you thinking? And he said, that's the thing. We were 18-year-olds.

We weren't thinking. They told us to go up the hill. We said, OK. He said, it's amazing. He said he said that when he came back to the States a few years later, when he's 23, 24, he thought to himself, he said, I would have never done that at 24, at 25, not in a million years, he said, but at 18, I knew I could do it. Yeah, you know, I was there last summer with my kids. I took my kids over there to see it. And they're old enough to appreciate it. And just walking through the American cemetery where there are more than 9000 Americans laid

to rest is a cemetery that was established, by the way, on June 8th, two days after D-Day 1944 to start burying our dead. You just look at the ages, you know, and they are their high school kids. They're either the age of somebody who's still in high school or who just graduated. And you go, my God, they walked across a stage somewhere across our country, went to basic training and then got on boats and went to liberate Europe. It's an extraordinary thing to absorb. And you used the

right word earlier. It is. It's overwhelming to think not just the scope of the military effort and what they pulled off and what Eisenhower pulled off, but the will, the will of the world, the will of the West, the will of these kids. And they were kids to go over there and fight an enemy that wasn't really on our shores you know there was the threat that it could come but it was to liberate people and to stop evil and you ask yourself as you walk through that cemetery do we have that will today and i think the answer for me is yes a whole bunch of people signed up and put on packs after the 9 11 went and fought in afghanistan look what we're doing with ukraine right now to stand up for freedom and to stand

against evil. But that place, Normandy, for me, will be one of the two or three most special places in the world in terms of just witnessing what we can do when we come together and to witness the sacrifice of an entire generation of young Americans. Yeah. And what was at stake, George? I mean, earlier this year, we went to Auschwitz. We did the show from Auschwitz, saw what happened there. It was back over in Warsaw for the 80th anniversary of the liberation, or not the liberation, but for the Warsaw Ghetto uprising and just the pure evil in the heart of Europe. That's what these kids were doing. Absolutely. And that's, I mean, that's so important to just think of everything in a historical perspective,

particularly today with Ukraine. I mean, Ukraine, I mean, that is as good a, not good, but as black and white, good and evil, good versus evil, as we have seen since that time. I mean, you know, you can look at Afghanistan and Iraq, and there were just ambiguities there. We're aging in essentially what were civil wars, where one party is fighting another party for control of the country, as opposed to

an outside aggressor trying to squelch freedom in the country. So also with us this morning, we have Jackie Alimany of The Washington Post. And while we're on the topic of Ukraine, Ukraine is accusing Russia of wrecking a major dam and hydroelectric power station near Kherson, while Russian state media accused Ukraine of the attack. Hundreds of residents living downriver have had to evacuate due to floodwaters. The country's nuclear operator is warning the destruction of the dam could have negative consequences for the nearby Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant, but calls the situation controllable at the moment, at least. U.S. officials say it appears that Ukraine's counteroffensive is underway. As The New York

Times reports, the stepped up activity includes increased artillery strikes and ground assaults. But the fighting is focused east of where most experts predicted it would begin. Experts say Ukraine's forces can still push south from that location in order to cut off the land bridge connecting occupied Crimea to mainland Russia. U.S. officials tell The Times their assessment is also based off satellite imagery, which indicated increased movement within Ukrainian military positions. David, what can you tell us? So speaking last night, senior administration officials said first, yes, this long-awaited offensive has begun. They stressed that in their analysis, the principal movement is to try to cut the so-called land bridge linking the Donbass

to Crimea, to the other areas that Russia has seized. What's interesting about the offensive as it's unfolding is that it is a long multiple act season because the Ukrainians finally have the ability to move back and forth. They're probing, testing, seeing where the Russians are weak. The idea that if they find a weakness, they can move in and exploit it, move fast and hard. The progress in this first day was described to me as better than expected. At some spots along this line, the push went as far as 10 kilometers. Doesn't sound like much, but they're going through minefields, heavy fortifications. This is tough, tough ground to break through. So I think the U.S. view would be after the first day,

this offensive is off to a powerful start with lots of different opportunities for movement. All right. We'll be following this. We are also following this morning more new developments in the investigation into former President Donald Trump taking classified documents with him to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House. NBC News has confirmed that attorneys for the former president met with Justice Department officials yesterday, including Special Counsel Jack Smith at DOJ headquarters in Washington, D.C. Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa

Monaco did not attend. The meeting comes as the grand jury investigating Trump's handling of classified documents is expected to meet again this week after a weeks-long hiatus. The meeting also comes nearly two weeks after two of Trump's attorneys sent a letter to the attorney general asking for a meeting to discuss what they call Jack Smith's unfair treatment of Trump. Moments after Trump's attorneys were seen leaving the DOJ, the former president took to social media asking, quote, how can the DOJ possibly charge me, who did nothing wrong? Willie, it's tough.

It's tough in Moralago. The caps lock. Yeah. Apparently. It's stuck. It's stuck. Might have been the pool water. It has been all weekend.

Very moist. Maybe he had all of his electronics in one room when he drained it. And then you get you can't get the F. You know, you get water damage on those things. And you know what happens to the documents that were in the empty folders. Yeah, exactly. Anyhow, yeah. Seen out of seen out of Caddyshack draining the pool. More on that later. Meanwhile, NBC News has learned a federal grand jury in Florida. This is a bit of a twist.

We'll also meet this week to hear witness testimony in that classified documents case in Florida. That's according to a source familiar with the investigation. The New York Times reports at least one other witness already has appeared before the Florida grand jury. At this point, though, not clear how the court proceedings there in Florida relate to the work of the separate grand jury in Washington. The Wall Street Journal reports the Florida grand jury appears to be an effort to tie up several loose ends. That's according to people familiar with the process.

So, John, put all these pieces together here. We don't know exactly how the Florida grand jury relates to the one in Washington, but clearly with Donald Trump's attorneys sitting with Jack Smith, we're getting close to something here. Yeah, there's no question there that we're not quite sure what the timetable is, but we seem to be in the end stages of this investigation. Whether that means this week, next, or a few more, we don't know. But it's clear that there's an acceleration here. The grand jury is meeting again this week in Washington. After several weeks that they've been down, they're ramping back up. We have this development now, learning about this separate grand jury in Florida. And as you say, we're not quite sure how

they're connected, but there is a sense also, of course, about the Mar-a-Lago documents case. And this is the meeting that the Trump attorneys wanted. We remember Trump posted on Truth Social during one of his other all-cap screeds in recent weeks that he posted this letter as well, saying that they wanted to meet with the investigators. And that's often what happens in the last stage before a charging decision, where the attorneys for the would-be defendant ask for charges to be dropped or at least lesser ones be brought. And it's not clear that his reporting that they made any progress with that yesterday. So we are now the world is watching as to what is next. But certainly, as I've reported, I know Joe's heard the same.

There's a sense of real panic growing at Mar-a-Lago, reflective in Trump's true social tweets, but also those even calmer heads in the room say, look, we're concerned. We feel like a charge could be coming and coming soon. So, George, as a legal matter, what does it signal to you that Trump's three attorneys were at DOJ headquarters yesterday about where we are in this process? Well, we're approaching the very end. I mean, I kept hearing this earworm in my head as I was coming to the studio this morning. This is it.

Make no mistake. I mean, this is this this we're getting down to the final strokes of this race. And what's really, really remarkable about it is that of all the things that this man has done, eight decades of lying and cheating and stealing, this case, this documents case, is probably the easiest, shortest, simplest, and yet carries the most severe penalties, likely penalties of any of the cases that he has ever, any of the legal issues that he's ever faced. Now, people would say, you know, he really, in a just world, he would go to jail for what he did on January 6th of the weeks approaching January 6th. And I kind of agree with that. But for this man who is basically a nihilistic moron, for him to go to jail potentially for a long time, I mean, these Espionage Act charges bring very heavy sentences. To eventually go to jail for something so stupid and pointless and silly and useless as keeping these documents is actually kind of fitting.

Once again, there is also the potential narrative of people very, very low under Trump following his orders. Is there the potential that there could be others swept into this? Is there any potential that Florida venue has something to do with that? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one of the interesting, I mean, very, this isn't a hard case. It's like almost like a buy and bust drug case because it's so simple. And by the way, the charging documents going to be, I understand, most likely going to be very short, very to the point, very clean.

Yeah, because a lot of the facts are still out. They don't they don't need to tell the world what happened here. And it's very, very simple. But the thing is, you've got acts that were committed in Florida, criminal acts that were committed in Florida, criminal acts that were committed in D.C., criminal acts that were committed in Florida that were directed at D.C. And so under the Sixth Amendment, Sixth Amendment requires that all criminal defendants be tried before a jury of the state and district in which the crime is committed. There is a tricky, there's a tricky aspect of this about what the proper venue is, even for Trump. But certainly if there are lesser characters who had no involvement, no connection to anything that happened here in the District of Columbia, then they would have to

be charged in the Southern District of Florida. And that could be the explanation for that grand jury. Yeah. Jackie, what are you hearing? A lot of different things. I'm still processing the word moist on television. But we we are. We are hearing the end. But it's a matter of what happens between now and the end, because, as George indicated, the Department of Justice is wrapping up a lot of loose ends right now, dotting the I's, crossing the T's. It is possible that they are going to just to check off a box, bring in some other witnesses before a charging decision lands, prosecution memo most likely still being written. There are a number of things, again, that could happen, including any charges against lower-tier people who might have been involved with the obstruction track of this case, as we are looking at sort of two tracks that Jack Smith has narrowed the Mar-a-Lago case down to, which is the classification

issues, did Trump willfully and knowingly retain classified information and then the various pressure points of obstruction along the way. So I'm I think I were watching sort of these, you know, these these supporting actors and characters in the meantime. But all signs point to a decision coming imminently. And we've been told that Trump advisers are expecting that as well, that the meeting yesterday, which was sort of a front for them, at least for raising grievances with Jay Brat and Jack Smith for some of their more aggressive tactics in terms of obtaining evidence and waiving attorney-client privilege and fighting for evidence, but also to make one final plea and ask not to indict their clients. One final plea also playing to their audience of one, Donald Trump, go up and scold

the DOJ or whatever. You know, Jean, of the many political norms and constitutional norms Donald Trump's violated and the damage that he's caused the scar tissue on on on on our political system. I think I think actually one of the most extreme will be one of the ones that he actually loathes the most. And that is a former president not only being indicted and charged, but probably convicted. That is a that is a line that that scares the hell out of me that as America crosses it again, he's I think he's put the judicial branch and no other and no other position. But to do this, but as you've written quite eloquently, this this is not a good day for America, regardless of how you feel about Donald Trump. This is a very sad and I would say dangerous day. Well, right. I don't want us to have to go through with this, but we do have to go through it. I mean, it's Donald Trump. He's the one who brought us here.

This is his fault. He did this stuff and he has to be held accountable. He's not above the law. But it is it is a sad thing that that we have to contemplate, you know, the trial and possible conviction and then punishment of a former president. And that would be a traumatic thing for the country to go through. And it's again, it's his fault. It's not it's not Jack Smith's fault. It's not Joe Biden's fault. It's Donald Trump's fault. It's but this is yet another horrible legacy that he's going to leave to this country. It's just amazing. I just had one question for George, which is it. So so Jack Smith is driving this bus. Right. In the end, does the attorney general have any role to play in this, in this decision

or is it basically up to Jack Smith? Well, under the regulations, I mean, this, this is the, these are the regulations that were drafted after the original Ethics and Government Act independent, independent counsel was struck down. The, the AG is supposed to supervise the special counsel and has the obligation to, and he could veto, in theory, a prosecution. He could direct the special counsel what to do because the special counsel is an employee who reports to the attorney general. But I think the purpose of the whole exercise is so that Garland can say, I did not influence this decision.

I allowed a professional to make the assessment. And I think that's he's going to he's going to let the chips wobble where they may. And I think he knew that's what he was going to do when he appointed Jack Smith. It would put Garland in a bit of an uncomfortable position. He'd have to go to Congress and explain the decision for a veto. And I mean, all signs point to him being fairly risk averse. No. So, Dave, David, looking down the road, though, I mean, let's look at and I agree with you. No, no man is above the law and no person is above the law. So I understand we left a little choice as a country. That said, David, the consequences are pretty rough.

It's always been maddening when a single district court judge in Texas could stop Democratic legislation or a single district court judge in California could stop Republican legislation, and then you'd have to try it out. Now, in this age of political figures, Donald Trump mainly being indicted, now we're hearing of, you know, prosecutors wanting to ring charges against Joe Biden. We heard yesterday a sheriff in San Antonio wants to bring charges against Ron DeSantis for the Martha's Vineyard flight. And, you know, you're going to have a lot of sheriffs, a lot of local people that are going to be bringing charges against national figures. And it could lead to a pretty chaotic situation. I think that's one of the dangers of the moment is that people will respond to what we're expecting will be the indictment of Trump with capricious use of our legal system, our precious legal system, our legal system that got us through, in my judgment, the nightmare of the 2020 election.

The sensible judges who will many of them Republicans that we will enter a period in which people argue this legal system has been weaponized and we're going to use it too. That's why I think it's important that the Jack Smith case be, as Jackie and George were saying, narrowly focused. There is a difference between the classified document issues that are often handled administratively and what seems to be the evidence of deliberate obstruction, deliberate acts to conceal things from the Justice Department as it was investigating. If that can be clear to the public that this isn't like Hillary Clinton's email service, this isn't like anything else you've read about. This is a deliberate, willful attempt to manipulate and conceal. I think it will be easier, prosecute easier for the country to take it in. Well, I mean, it's a lying. It's the obstruction. It's a sort of thing.

If anybody else had done it, they would be in jail. And that certainly is a case that Jack Smith has to make. And it should be clear and to the point. All right. Still ahead on morning, Joe, two more Republicans are officially jumping into the 2024 White House race. How Mike Pence and Chris Christie's candidacies could impact the field. This as Republican Governor Chris Sununu decides not to run, saying beating Trump matters more. Also ahead, attorneys for Donald Trump ask a judge to stop. Writer E. Jean Carroll's defamation case against the former president. We'll have the latest on that legal fight.

And House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is our guest this morning on the heels of Congress averting a debt crisis. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. The investigation is not dead. This is only the beginning. It appears this investigation is part of an ongoing investigation, which I assume is in Delaware. October session, it was part of an ongoing investigation.

That's what he learned. Okay, but then I must have missed that because I've not heard that this is part of an ongoing investigation. That's what he learned. Okay. But then I must have missed that because I've not heard that this is part of any ongoing investigation. What I know is that the FBI Department of Justice team under William Barr and Scott Brady in the Western District of Pennsylvania terminated the investigation. They said there were no grounds for further investigative steps. I would hope my colleagues would think long and hard before holding the director of the FBI in contempt for what the Trump administration and William Barr did back in 2020. Maryland Congressman Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, responding yesterday to the chairman of the House Oversight

Committee, Kentucky Republican James Comer, after both men received a briefing with FBI officials over a document related to an investigation into the Biden family business dealings. Jackie, can you explain what's going on here? What was Comer saying? So this briefing that happened about this form that contained unsubstantiated allegations about Joe Biden and his family is what James Comer had subpoenaed for. They finally got a review of this form yesterday and they were briefed by FBI officials, James Comer, Jamie Raskin in the same room with the same people getting the exact same briefing.

We have sources that independently confirm that the FBI actually had looked into this 1023 document that records allegations made by a confidential informant. It was allegations all surrounding Burisma when Bill Barr opened up this field office in Pittsburgh at the end of 2020 to field all of these really conspiratorial claims that were being funneled into the FBI. But they were being vetted and checked out and sort of crossed off the list. But James Comer has tried to dredge this up and his readout, we are told, is inconsistent with what actually happened. He claims that the investigation is still ongoing. We haven't gotten clarity on what that investigation is. He also claims that this information that was included in the 1023 form is also being used in an ongoing investigation. We've also been told that that's not accurate.

It really is unbelievable. I mean, George, I mean... I'm sure Bill Barr was covering for Hunter Biden. Yeah, yeah, of course. It's just unbelievable. You time and time again, Comer over promises, under delivers. Got the same thing, of course, with that poor special process. What's his name again? Durham. Durham, who, again, overpromised, underdelivered, lost everything that he took into the court. And in this case, you've got Comer, who, again, has been trying to do things. Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page is saying, no smoking guns. I mean, these people just get out over their skis. They're just so desperate

to distract from the issues that face the former president, frankly, and others. And they just will just take anything, any scrap of information, will twist it and combine it with other scraps of fake information or real information and turn it into something. And it's nothing there. And Jackie, these conspiratorial wanderings by Cumberbatch, that's different from what the FBI is investigating on Hunter himself, right? It is. But it is possible that any and all information that has ever been submitted to the FBI would need to be given to any ongoing investigation related to someone. That being said, we can definitively say that these claims did not

check out and that the FBI did close their review and assessment into the claims that the confidential informant had provided to this FBI agent. Sorry, the confidential informant, as Jimmy Raskin noted sort of in his statement, had received these tips and allegations from his sources, his or her sources in Ukraine, and then reported that back to the FBI. And those allegations are moot. Right. Willie.

So, John, we should also point out again that James Comer and other Republicans have given away the game on several occasions, saying out loud on broadcast interviews, look at what's happened since we started this investigation. Biden's poll numbers are down, cherry picking a poll that shows that Donald Trump is leading Joe Biden, saying effectively our work is it's working. The thing we're trying to do, which is to drag Joe Biden down during a presidential campaign, is working. Contrast that with even going back to Benghazi, where Republican leadership took great pains to say this is the investigation of the death of Americans. It's not about taking down Hillary Clinton, though. Most people believe that was part of it as well.

Yeah, and it wasn't a one time slip of the tongue. They have repeatedly said, yeah, we're doing this just to try to attack President Biden and his poll numbers. Comer has said it repeatedly in interviews, including on Fox and other times. He said that he's acknowledged they've lost the informant and key witnesses to this to this matter. We heard from Senator Grassley the other day complaining about FBI Director Wray and saying that you're not admitting that he had actually seen the document that he was looking for and that it didn't matter whether or not it showed any wrongdoing or not. That wasn't the point. It's all about the process. We should note, though, that actually Kevin McCarthy got

in trouble post Benghazi for acknowledging that, yes, hey, look at the toll that it took on Hillary Clinton's poll numbers. So this is not a new play for Republicans, but it just goes to show the efforts again to muddy the waters, to try to try to make things equivalent. And as right now, as Donald Trump, the leading voice in the Republican Party, faces all sorts of legal peril, they're trying to gin up some smoke to say, look, Joe Biden does, too. Yeah, Joe. And during the Benghazi hearings, during that investigation, Kevin McCarthy was made to apologize publicly by Republican leadership for suggesting it was about Hillary Clinton's poll numbers. Yeah, but that was that was old, Kevin. This is, of course, we now are in

to like statesmen. This new Kevin, this is new Kevin. No, you're exactly right. What an unbelievable change when Kevin McCarthy goes on television and says, well, Benghazi hearings, just the proof's in the pudding. Hillary Clinton's numbers are going down. And he was actually chided by his caucus for that. Many people believe that he wasn't named speaker because of that. And now, of course, they wallow in it. They wallow in it.

And you have Gene. You have Grassley going on TV going, we don't care whether Biden did anything right or wrong or not. Exactly. It doesn't matter to us. Again, it's a process. Again, they've given up the game on this. I know they really have. And it's it's it's so transparent.

But this is today's Republican Party. It's just very different, even for the Republican Party of 2016. I mean, come on. But it is today's Republican Party. It's just very different, even for the Republican Party of 2016. I mean, come on. But it is. All right. The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany. Thank you very much for coming on. Great to see you.

And coming up, a look inside the, quote, desperate effort to rescue America's pastime fromrelevance. Mark Leibovich will join us next hour with this new cover story for The Atlantic on how baseball saved itself. I wish the Red Sox could. Not happening. Morning's Joe will be right back. Come on. Hey, welcome back to Morning Joe. Yeah. The 6th of June, and again, extraordinarily momentous day.

Yes, it is. Momentous day because of D-Day. We remember Bobby Kennedy. For sure. On this day, every June 6th, but also a momentous day in your household. Yes, it's my daughter's birthday today. She's 25. What happened to time?

Carly. It keeps on slipping. Happy birthday. We have Chrisews here okay i was just telling everybody on the table again that like because our days wherever we were would stop if we were out if we were in maine on the lobster boat at 6 30 she would go we got 30 minutes we've got to go we've got to go i can't miss the lead line we'd so we'd gun it in. We'd get in. We'd run in front of the TV set. It would be 659. Turn it on.

And there would be Chris and go, bar fight. Let's play hardball. Oh, that was a good one. That's one of Mika's favorites. There's something about bar. We followed the heat. We followed the heat. I had bar fight.

Let's play hardball. I tried to send Chris submissions, but he has his own thing. That's like sending headlines to the New York Star. All right. Chris Matthews is here. Former Vice President Mike Pence is officially entering the race for President Pence. Filed paperwork yesterday declaring his candidacy. He is expected to formally announce his White House bid at a rally outside Des Moines, Iowa tomorrow. Also, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is expected to launch his 2024

presidential bid tonight. He is scheduled to hold a town hall event at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, where he'll make the announcement. New Hampshire governor, meanwhile, Governor Chris Sununu has announced he will not be running. So we've taken the last six months to really kind of look at things where everything is, and I've made the decision not to run for president on the Republican ticket in 2024. Obviously, a lot goes into that decision, but it's been quite an adventure, but not the end of the adventure by any means. Governor Sununu goes on to explain his decision in an op ed for The Washington Post entitled I'm not running for president in 2024. Beating Trump is more important.

So, Chris, we've got a boatload. Speaking of lobster boats, a lobster boat full of Republican candidates jumping into the race. What's the impact? You see Christie or Pence breaking through? Well, not breaking through. They're all in the on-deck circle, aren't they? They're waiting for something to crack. So they don't have to do it.

In 2024, it will be a different year than it looks like in 2023. That if there's convictions with these indictments, and they're all going to come perhaps before March, even, some of them, that it's going to be a different world out there. They're not going to crack that 30 percent, probably, of the Trump people, but you're going to crack around it a lot and make people second guess. And I think they're all hoping for something new. Yeah. Trump, if Trump is in full power, he will be dangerous to them personally. But I think they're willing

to take the short-term risk of facing the chance to be president of the United States. It's still an amazing goal to be president. And I think they think they can beat Joe Biden. So, Willie, Chris Christie took it upon himself last time to be the prosecutor to take down Marco Rubio, politically, a political prosecutor against Rubio. And he did it. I mean, it was you destroyed him and the debate destroyed his chances if he if he ever had him. I am wondering, has he been waiting three and a half years to do the same thing? Or, well, I'm sorry, seven and a half years to do the same thing to Donald Trump? Yeah, I mean, he went he kneecapped Marco Rubio in that debate to the benefit, though, of Donald Trump, not really to his own benefit. He just helped Donald Trump get somebody else out of the way. We'll see. Chris Christie beyond

New Hampshire, John, remains to be seen what his appeal is, what the case for for this is. But as Chris Matthews points out, I think a lot of people are getting in and the field is big now. We have to say for this big, bad behemoth of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, they sure don't seem to be afraid to get in and run against him anyway, at least to take a shot at it because of everything that may be coming down the pike. You're not going to break it. His base is his base. They're not leaving him no matter what, as he's suggested he could win from a prison cell, probably among his voters. But they're hoping perhaps that's enough. People want want something else that they will be the one, if not Ron DeSantis. Yeah. Christie skipping Iowa, his candidacy seems tailor-made just for New Hampshire, speaking to the sort of independent voters there. I think we should be careful. Let's remember, he also served Donald Trump pretty faithfully until the end. He was part of his

general election debate team in the fall of 2020. in fact, got COVID and was hospitalized because of that. So his turn on Trump is relatively recent. Yes, he has shown he has the ability, he has the rhetorical skills to deliver some blows. Whether he does it in Trump's face or not remains to be seen. We also don't know what those debates will be like, whether Christie will qualify our debate, whether Trump will participate in a debate. Those are all things that are up for grabs. But sure, I mean, the school of thought is the more candidates jump in, the better it is for Trump, because we know his base is going to stay with him. And now this is getting to be a pretty crowded field. And I think we should also watch to see how Vice President Pence tries to handle this, who's trying to put a sort of a happy warrior face, his team says, as a contrast to the anger

we hear from Trump, the grievance we hear from DeSantis. But again, he's someone who's polling in the low single digits, someone who's Trump's base has not forgiven him for January 6th. He's betting conversely on Christie. He's betting on Iowa. Hard to know where that goes either. So, George Conway, you had two potential candidates making two different choices. You had Governor Sununu in New Hampshire saying, making the case a lot of people have made. We don't need more people in this splintering up the anti-Trump vote. Chris Christie making the case, we've got to get in and try. Who knows where this goes with Donald Trump and all his legal problems. Which of those cases strikes you as more compelling?

Well, I like both of those cases. I like both of, I like what those two have been doing. I like the fact that Sununu dropped out because I think he didn't have a chance. And I think the problem we have here is 2016 redux, which is that there are too many people running against Donald Trump and they're all going to take shots at each other. And then Chris Christie, on the other hand, the difference between him and Chris Christie's 2016 and everybody else in 2016 is he's going to go right after Trump. They all should be going right after Trump. And they need to go after him, not just because to point out all of his flaws, which everyone really, even the Republican electorate knows very well, but to trigger him to engage in, you know, conduct that would that will turn people off. He has to be triggered.

Yeah. David Ignatius. So I want to ask Chris whether he thinks looking at the political race broadly we're seeing what might be called a renormalization of politics president biden is trying hard to be that bipartisan guy in the middle and first he ran as in 2020 uh the republican field uh you know people aren't quite so afraid of Trump and trying to talk normal Republican politics. What do you think?

Is that what's going on? And will it last? Well, let's talk about Chris Christie. I think he's fascinating. One night when I had the program, I said something to him pleasantly. Let's talk about something. And he said, well, I don't like you. But then, but it's just, it's so Chris Christie says, I don't like you.

Can we have dinner tonight? Yeah. What, what did that all mean? And then I thought, but this guy said, he likes to be fighting. He reminds me of one of my dad's old Knights of Columbus buddies. You know, he's an Italian guy. He's from the big city. He sees very big time New york and he's like

this is the kind of ethnic guy that the republican party is to go for this was their target the republican part we're going to get those guys from the democratic side they're going to vote republican this time for ronald reagan and that's going to be our party and that was the whole idea of it christy's a classic example of a 1980s republican i mean whether it worked today or not he certainly would be well-received. People liked the guy. And when they went after him for being overweight in that Corzine ad, when I saw that ad, I don't know about you, when I saw that TV ad that they ran against him, I said, Corzine's going to lose.

I was hoping it because I thought it was dirty politics. But I think Christie has this personality. And then Joe Man manchin talked about personality this weekend did you watch him dancing on the third party thing and the new labels thing i won't say anything good about trump i mean about biden he's too far left he's inherently okay but he's been pulled too far left therefore there's a center role for me i want to be a third party candidate which is going to be another problem for the Democrats. It certainly is. So, Gene, talking about Republican candidates, I saw Tim Scott yesterday on The View. Chris reminded me because, you know, Chris was talking about Christie saying, I don't like you.

Let's go to dinner. And, you know, Tim Scott was in Iowa gone. I hate The View. And then yesterday, I'm on The View. I can't ever say this on Twitter because people are so, everything's black and white on Twitter. So if I say this on Twitter, people are like, oh, you're for abortion in like the first, whatever, you're for abortion in the first week. Whatever. But let me just say, Tim Scott, I saw Tim Scott, a clip of Tim Scott in Iowa, and I saw him on The View,

which should have been a very hostile situation. And the clip I saw, because I was traveling, was he and Sonny talking at the table. Two very different views of race in America. They're both extraordinarily respectful. And it was one of those moments. Two things can be true at the same time. Tim Scott's argument.

We've made extraordinary progress on race in this country. My grandfather in South Carolina had to step off the street when a white man approached and couldn't even look him in the eye. My mother in South Carolina, when she went to high school, only 10 percent of black Americans were going to high school. When I graduated, 90 percent going and they talked about unemployment being at five percent. And then Sonny talked about the long, long road we still have being more perfect union, which is very fair, which is extraordinarily fair. But I will say it's the first time I mean, Tim Scott went in there talking about a happy warrior smiling. They were coming at him hard. He was so polite, deferential, but determined. Do you have an exchange? Yeah. Alex. Well, would we rather hear that or me talk about that? Roll it. Roll it.

You say that your life disproves leftist lies. And my question to you is, I'm the exception, right? You're the exception. Maybe even Miss Whoopi Goldberg is the exception. But we are not the rule. And so when it comes to racial inequality, it persists in five core aspects of life in the U.S. Economics, education, health care, criminal justice and housing. At nearly every turn, these achievements were fought, threatened and erased, most often by white violence.

You have indicated that you don't believe in systemic racism. What is your definition of systemic racism? Let me answer the question that you've asked. Or does it even exist in your mind? Let me answer the question this way. One of the things I think about, and one of the reasons why I'm on the show is because of the comments that were made frankly on this show, that the only way

for a young African American kid to be successful in this country is to be the exception and not the rule that is a dangerous offensive disgusting message to send to our young people today that the only way to succeed is by being the exception okay is that all you have so he does that all you have that's like cutting the Gettysburg Address off with. Well, it wasn't the Gettysburg Address. And then Lincoln said, it was not the Gettysburg Address. It was good. No, no, no, no. You know what? I can say.

Hold on a second. You need to get a lot more of that because it was really good moving discussion between both of them. And Gene, my only point is that they had a great, honest discussion on race. And Tim Scott actually did what no Republican I've seen do effectively in a long time, go into a hostile environment, be respectful, get his message across. Right. And so my question is, will Republicans vote for him? You know, and where does that get him in the Republican primary? And I wonder about that. I wonder about that.

I, you know, I would have debated him on some of his points, having also grown up in South Carolina, a little bit older than he is, but I have a somewhat different view. But I would agree with you that he came across well in that exchange, in his demeanor, in the fact that he went there and he had a civilized discussion on the view. I think that's all to his credit. I wonder how far he goes. My question to Chris, because you're a great evaluator of sort of political horse flesh, as we say, right? So who do you see? What do you think of Scott? What do you see when you look at Nikki Haley? Well, first of all, Nikki Haley had the guts to take the flag down at the right time,

and Lindsey Graham went along with her. And that's the guts to take the flag down at the right time. And Lindsey Graham went along with her. And that's leadership to know the timing to do the right thing. And she did both. I think that I think that Tim Scott is going to be a figure because I the more I dig into it, the more I listen to Republicans talk about it. He's for real. You know, you can question their racial attitudes. You can do it. Always question that anywhere in the country.

But I think they got something about this guy. I think he's a guy that gives them credibility. I can see Trump, if he survives, putting him on the ticket with him, for sure. He's being very careful not to attack Trump. I think he'll give the best speech at the Republican convention, whether he's nominated or not, for either office, because I can hear him. And the guy's going to have a message. And his message is, I'm here.

I'm me. Right. I'm me. You can talk about other people, what other people are. You can talk about identity politics all you want. I don't believe in identity politics. I'm proof there is an identity politics because I'm here. And I think Americans like that sound, even though a lot of them have racially tinged views

of a lot of things, immigration, things like that. We know these things and crime and all that. But i think he's their proof positive we're not like that you like that do you like the way i said that i hear the narrative i think that will be the narrative um i think the narrative would be you know it's open to challenge a lot of it should be open to challenge because there is systemic racism in America. But I will tell you this, not from white people telling Tim Scott he doesn't really understand what it's like to be a black man. That is deeply offensive. This is where I draw the line.

No one can tell Tim Scott how to be black. Tim Scott, you know. And so, no, I grow the line at people who say that he cannot have these views because he's African-American. No, of course he can have those views. He can be wrong. You know, he has the right to be wrong. Or maybe his view of reality. I don't think he can be wrong about your own reality. If he believes what he believes about his experience.

There are a lot of people who who would say the same thing as Tim Scott. I guess the main thing is, though, again, it's it's it opens up a good opportunity for a great, respectful debate on race where people have have different viewpoints. And Tim Scott, I have no doubt the Republican Party, there are a lot of people in the Republican Party that are not enlightened on race, who will point to Tim Scott and say, look at us, look at us, look at us. So I understand that part of it, but also I understand the offensiveness when pundits mock and ridicule Tim Scott, like he doesn't have a right to talk about the black experience in america because he's a black conservative well i do know i hear him and

people allied with him complaining about that a lot i don't hear that a lot i don't hear people saying i'd rather not because they're friends of mine but it it does happen you know in philadelphia we all saw the piece in your paper yesterday about the low turnout, 32 percent in the mayor's race. And I'm thinking about that as a real problem for Bobby Casey and for President Biden, if they're the nominees, of course, of the party. And I think there's going to be an excitement if you have a black man on one ticket and a woman of African-American background and Indian background on the other

ticket, I think the turnout is going to be pretty good. I think it's going to lighten up people, excite them about this election. Interesting. I think it's going to give it something supercharged about this election. David, just a thought. I was going to say, listening to Chris, this is the first time I've been really excited about the 2024 election race in a while. You think this is going to be so grim, a replay.

And this is, you know, as Chris and Gene and all of us talk about it, it's going to be an interesting election with a lot of new personalities and a fuller, richer debate than we've had in a while. And maybe, again, a return, Mika, to gravity here, as far as you look at Trump is still there. Yeah. But what from what you and I have heard talking to people who voted for Trump, there is an exhaustion. This Trump may still win the nomination. This is not 2016. I have studied this exhaustion just on anecdotal conversations with Trump supporters. I wanted to ask you about this, where really the

all in could never vote for Biden, Trump supporters, local business owners and people I've known for a long time from Maine to Florida and across the board. They've told me they're exhausted. I, you know, if I ask them, they'll vote. Will they vote for Donald Trump again? But then the answer is they could never vote for Biden. And then the answer on top of the answer is disinformation, which there's the part where the conversation separates us, where they are going down rabbit holes there. It's a witch hunt. Joe Biden took documents.

He should be in jail and just sort of, and I just listened to that part. January 6th was the setup, et cetera, et cetera. And, you know, would you vote for him again? I, they get to yes. Yeah, but they don't want to admit their role. But hold on a second. This is important.

We're talking about in a general election against Joe Biden. Right. They want to vote for somebody else in the primary. Well, before we get too optimistic about this 2024 election. OK, if it's if Donald Trump is a nominee, that election is all about Trump. It's all about Donald Trump. If Ron DeSantis is the nominee, it's all about anger. It's about being mad and getting revenge.

And those are the two most likely outcomes right now. So I would only, I think my equation is this. If Donald Trump wins the nomination, the election's about Donald Trump. If anybody else wins the nomination, the election's about Joe Biden. And when people are talking about Donald Trump, Democrats win. When people are talking about Joe Biden, Republicans win. And that's the thing. And I get what you're saying about Ron DeSantis and the anger and everything else. But man, it's it it's just like 2016. That race wasn't about race wasn't about Donald Trump. That race was about people going, I am not going to put another Clinton and another Bush in the White House for the 34th year out of 40 years. I think it's about that. I think it's about the establishment. Call it what you want. The liberal establishment, the big city establishment against the people out there in western Pennsylvania and in West Virginia who have

shifted from voting for Al Gore to supporting Joe Manchin or justice. And so I think that the country is riven right down the middle. And we've seen this in 2000. We saw it back in 60, of course. We see it in 16 and 20. It wants to get back to 2020. It wants to get back to close. In other words, everything we fight and argue about in these discussions in Washington and elsewhere about how we divide over this or that or woke this or that, which has made up a lot of it. And it comes down to the fact there's a lot of people out there that don't like us, that don't like the big city Democratic liberals. They don't like them. They talk about I got cousins like this. I've got two brothers like this. I know what they're talking about.

It's it's the us thing. And they're not one of us. They're opposed to us. So Donald Trump is asking a judge to stop writer E. Jean Carroll's second defamation lawsuit against the former president. Carroll sued Trump in 2019 shortly after she came forward with allegations that he raped her in a New York City department store. Carol claims Trump defamed her after he called the accusation totally false and said Carol was not his type. The writer's lawyers amended the lawsuit to seek $10 million in damages following Trump's appearance during a town hall last month, where he again denied Carol's allegations and called her a whack job. Trump's comments came just a day after a jury found him liable for sexual abuse in a defamation and a separate civil trial filed by Carroll.

While Trump is appealing that verdict, his lawyers argue the jury's findings favor Trump's position in this pending lawsuit because they rejected the rape claim. Carroll's lawyer, however, disputes that claim, writing in a statement, quote, the jury's verdict makes complete sense. It concluded that Trump knowingly lied about me, Ms. Carroll, when he claimed otherwise. So George, George, George, it is you went like this. It is just another more BS from the Trump side. I mean, the reason why the jury presumably rejected the rape claim is because the definition of rape under New York law requires certain kind of penetration as opposed to the manual, the sexual abuse that he was actually found to do. Even that was a basis for the defamation liability,

because he basically said he didn't touch her, he didn't see her, he didn't meet her, and he engaged in what was clearly sexual abuse, what would be rape in other states. So there's just no, you know, the notion that because the jury didn't find by a preponderance of the evidence that the technical rape charge wasn't wasn't sustained doesn't help Donald Trump. I mean, the fact of the matter is he lied about whether he groped her. He lied about whether he touched her or how he touched her, which was just absolutely horrible. And he lied that he said that he never he never met the woman. There you go, Chris Matthews. I had her on the show many times.

I think she's great and tells the truth. There you go. Chris Matthews. I had her on the show many times. I think she's great and tells the truth. E.J. Carroll. I just know her. Well, she's she's not over yet. She's coming back with another defamation suit. Chris Matthews, George Conway. Thank you both very much for being here. It's great to see you both.