Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/7/23

Episode Date: June 7, 2023

Dozens of Secret Service agents have been subpoenaed or appeared before grand jury in Trump docs probe

But does it say to you that an indictment is near? Do you believe that? I suspect it's I suspect it's there. I've said for a while that I think this is the most dangerous legal risk facing the former president. And if I had to bet, I would bet that it's near. You believe there is enough evidence? Well, they won't indict if there's not enough evidence. But from what I've seen, there's substantial evidence there. Former Attorney General Bill Barr reiterating his belief that the former president is likely to be indicted for refusing to return classified materials.

We'll take you through the latest developments connected to the Mar-a-Lago documents. This comes as a key witness in multiple investigations into Donald Trump. Finally, gives testimony to a grand jury. Meanwhile, Chris Christie officially jumps into the 2024 race for the Republican nomination. We'll show you his pitch to voters and what he had to say about his past support for Donald Trump. Also ahead, a Republican revolt in the House will explain why a group of far-right lawmakers intentionally tanked a couple of GOP-led bills. And we have the latest on two major stories tied to the war in Ukraine, the flooding caused by a destroyed dam and what we're learning about the last week's drone attacks in Moscow, plus

a merger that has stunned the sports world. We'll explain the significance of the deal cut between the PGA and Live Tours. And Joe, I have been getting quite a tutorial in what has happened here from our crew here in the Washington studio. A lot of strong feelings about the Live Golf merger. I guess if you can call it a merger, some don't. Well, yeah, or a $10 to $11 billion buyout. Some people could call it that as well. But, you know, Willie, I think people, the clips that people are seeing is Jay Monahan, the guy who, when PGA golfers went out and started to play for the Saudis and lived, suddenly he was talking about how badly he felt for 9-11 families because, you know,

his very strong implication that it was the Saudis that were completely responsible for September 11th. And how could they? And you know, PGA players ever had to be ashamed for playing with the PGA yesterday. He he turns around. I mean, Q, the Isley brothers for the love of money yesterday. What's he doing? He's saying that that're, he said they're something, a respected business partner or something like that. You talk about a radical turn. It was just naked materialism yesterday. Yeah, and those 9-11 families ripping Jay Monahan, he's the PGA commissioner now, that he has joined forces with the Live Tour. This was framed over the last two years as a moral question.

How could you possibly go play for Saudi Arabia, knowing where the money comes from, knowing where that money goes? And the players, I'm thinking of a guy like Rory McIlroy, who's the third ranked player in the world, who stood with the PGA tour, who ripped guys he knows who went and left to go to the Live Tour, who also framed it morally, who probably could have gotten somewhere in the neighborhood of $300 or $400 million to go play for the Live Tour and didn't because he believed it was the wrong thing to do. And the PGA Tour, led by its commissioner, let him and many other players go out, in fact, sent him and many other players out to do their bidding to defend the PGA, to say this, you'll never have to be ashamed to play here. Tiger Woods went out

and did that. Now, he doesn't have to worry about money as much, but they all took this principled stand. And without the consultation of any of those players yesterday, the PGA joined forces with Liv. Many of the players, Joe, finding out in a tweet that they now were in business with Saudi Arabia. Yeah, I mean, there's just no excuse for him to do it the way he did it. And you talk about Tiger Woods. I think Tiger passed up $780 million. Three quarters of a billion dollars to do the right thing. To do the right thing. to stay with the PGA.

And then, you know, this morning, Mika, I'm sure Tiger's thinking the PGA stab him in the back like about 780 million times. It will be fascinating to see the fallout from this. But a lot of strong feelings about this that we can continue to talk about throughout the show. Let's bring in our panel along with Joe, Willie and me. We have U.S. special correspondent for BBC News. Katty Kay is with us. Washington bureau chief for the New York Times, Elizabeth B. Miller is with us and former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg. He's an NBC News legal analyst and also with us, the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire.

So we are learning new details this morning about the two separate grand juries looking into former President Donald Trump's handling of classified documents after leaving the White House. First, NBC News has learned roughly two dozen Secret Service agents have been subpoenaed or have appeared before the federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. That's according to two sources familiar with the matter. They say the testimony took place in the past few months, meaning not recently, as the grand jury has been on hiatus. At the same time, the New York Times reports a previously unknown federal grand jury in Miami,

Florida, started hearing testimony in the classified documents case last month. And only a handful of witnesses have testified or are scheduled to appear. That includes one witness set to testify today. The paper cites people familiar with the grand jury's workings on this. The Times also reports that the existence of two grand juries suggests prosecutors are considering bringing charges in both Washington and Florida. Big news, Willie. Yes.

So while all that's going on, Donald Trump's former White House chief of staff reportedly has testified before a grand jury hearing evidence in the Justice Department's investigations of the former president. Sources tell ABC News Mark Meadows answered questions in both the probe into Trump's handling of classified documents and the investigation into his alleged efforts to stay in power after losing the 2020 election. Meadows was with Trump in the weeks leading up to the January 6th insurrection and stayed with the administration right to the end. Last year, he turned over hundreds of text messages to the House committee investigating the attack

before he decided to stop cooperating. According to The New York Times, which broke the story, Meadows also was one of Trump's representatives to the National Archives. That would give him insight into efforts by the archives to retrieve boxes of material the former president took with him when he left office. In a statement to The Times, an attorney for Meadows would not confirm his client had testified, but did say, quote, Mr. Meadows has maintained a commitment to tell the truth where he has a legal obligation to do so. Chuck Rosenberg, not surprising that Mark Meadows offered testimony or that he was

asked to come testify, given that he was at the middle of everything as the chief of staff to Donald Trump. Given what we know about how close he was to the January 6th attack, to the attempt to overturn the 2020 election, everything we heard in that House committee from people who worked around him, what do you expect that he was asked yesterday? Sure. Not surprising at all, Willie, that prosecutors would want to speak with Mr. Meadows primarily because he had proximity to the president. He was with him at the end of Mr. Trump's term in office. He knew what he was thinking. They obviously must have discussed things going on around the White House, like the election and

its outcome. Probably knows a good bit about the classified information, at the very least, how Mr. Trump routinely would treat classified information. And I imagine prosecutors would also want to know whether there was any standing declassification order, for instance, something that Mr. Trump has hinted at over the last several months. So the most important witnesses in cases like this are people with proximity to the subjects of the investigation. And that's precisely what Mark Meadows is, somebody with proximity to Mr. Trump. Yeah. Chuck, what do you make of the Miami grand jury? science experiment that we did in grade school, where you would get something in a box and shake it and turn it upside down and try and figure out, without having the ability to open it,

what was inside of it. So it could mean a couple of things. It could mean that there are parallel investigations, other charges, other defendants against whom charges might be brought. It could mean that as the government has learned more about this particular investigation, they believe venue might be more appropriate in Florida than in Washington, D.C., and the case is sort of moving on a different track and in that direction. It could mean, although I think this is less likely, that it was done for the convenience of a witness or two who weren't able to travel to Washington, D.C. That happens occasionally, but that's rare.

So it's one of those things, most likely, but it's that black box from grade school, Joe, and it's hard to know for sure. So, Elizabeth, Mark Meadows, we learned from the January 6 hearings from following the news, had a lot of information to share. I guess the question is, how do we know if he shared it? Was he perhaps compelled to share it? But he had access to a lot of the information that could potentially damage the former president. Yes. And he was he shared all of those documents earlier in the very beginning of the investigation. So much of what he knows was in the documents he already gave to investigators. But I think what's interesting about this grand jury in Florida and what looks to be wrapping up the grand jury in Washington is that we are hearing we're fairly close to a decision by the prosecutor to

potentially charge former President Trump. And we're hearing that increasingly, that this is perhaps, I don't know, weeks away. Of course, things take a lot longer, as Chuck knows, than people usually think. But it looks like the investigation is wrapping up. And plus, they need to move quickly because there's the Georgia investigation. And then, of course, there's a January 6 investigation. So as we have talked about, the president is former president is potentially facing three more indictments, two more indictments even before he. Wow. Joe, for the election. I mean, it's lining it's lining up like traffic over LaGuardia in the summer.

I mean, yeah, they need to start clearing some of these indictments out. They're quite a quite a few more ahead of us. And former Attorney General Bill Barr actually is talking about and taking on Donald Trump for his handling of the classified documents after leaving office. Trump's former AG, who really, I thought personally, just defended him shamelessly for years, is not doing it anymore. This is what he said yesterday about the investigation and whether it was, in the words of Donald Trump, a witch hunt. I think if the based on the facts is the facts come out, I think over time people will see that this is not a case of the Department of Justice conducting a witch hunt. In fact, they approached this very delicately and with deference to the president. And this would have gone nowhere had the president just returned the documents.

But he jerked them around for a year and a half. And the question is, did he deceive them? And if there's evidence of that, I think people will start to see that this says more about Trump than it does the Department of Justice. And that is that he's so egotistical that he has this penchant for conducting risky, reckless acts to show that he can sort of get away with it. It's part of asserting his ego. And he's done this repeatedly at the expense of all the people who depend on him to conduct the public's business in an honorable way. And, you know, we saw that with both impeachments and there's no excuse for what he did here. Around the time Barr was giving that interview, former President Trump unleashed a series of posts on social media claiming he did nothing wrong, et cetera, et cetera,

slamming the DOJ's investigation against him as, quote, election interference. He also called on his supporters to, quote, fight in all caps. So, Katie Kay, predictable response there from Donald Trump. But we're hearing it when we have heard it now from people closest to him, including his former attorney general, Bill Barr, who we should point out found religion suddenly after January 6th when he left the administration before the inauguration, was right at the side and did Donald Trump's bidding throughout his time as attorney general. And by the way, has said if he's the nominee, he'd still vote for him against Joe Biden. But that's a separate story. Put all this together if you can. There's a lot for people watching this morning to sort through where the peril is,

the most immediate peril for Donald Trump. Well, it seems like the most immediate peril is the Mar-a-Lago case. That's been the simplest one. It's perhaps not the one that some of the people who are attempting to prosecute Donald Trump on other charges would like him to be charged with, first of all, in this context, because it's maybe not the most serious. And if you put January the 6th up there, perhaps it's the most serious. Georgia as well. But that looks like it's further off. So Mar-a-Lago looks like it's the one that's closing in the fastest. And it's a pretty clear case. It looks like from everything we've heard of obstruction, which is what makes it different from the Hillary Clinton case, which is what makes it different from Mike Pence and which is what makes it different from Joe Biden.

I mean, one question I would have perhaps for Chuck, if I may, Chuck, that that box that you're shaking around in grade school. Do we know when Mark Meadows went in, whether he was just just being questioned on Mar-a-Lago? Was he also being questioned on January the 6th? Or do we not know? It sounded like he was being questioned on both. And that would be logical, Katie, because he was there for both. But, you know, to your point, it's really hard to know what prosecutors are aiming at right now. I also think something you said, I want to get back to it. I always thought if you're going to charge a former president that you have to have really compelling evidence, number one, of a really serious crime. In my mind, January 6th is as serious as it gets because it's an attempt to undermine the democratic processes of the United States. I don't know if that compels

them to go first on one or the other. We'll find out. That's not to say the classified document case isn't important. It is, and the obstruction makes it more so. But in my mind, the January 6th election interference, the insurrection, trying to thwart the transition of power to a new president has always been, in my view book on on January 6th. You wrote it on the big lie. I'm curious about this. We hear about the sliding scale that if you look at all the indictments coming at Donald Trump, the weakest is probably the Manhattan D.A.'s. But this bit. But the most serious crime is, of course, the January 6th insurrection. And we're seeing one defendant after another defendant plead guilty for rioting, for trying to overthrow the government, for committing seditions, being part of a conspiracy to commit seditious acts against the United States of America. I'm just curious from your research, also from what you're hearing now, is the Justice Department getting closer to having a workable case on January 6th? Because it does seem like the documents case from

everything I'm hearing, you know, they're going to indict him. It's going to be a clean, simple indictment. January 6th, obviously a lot more complicated, a lot more sprawling. But then again, a lot a lot of Americans believe if there's going to be justice for all these other people who committed violent acts against police officers and attacked the Capitol, then the person that's running that conspiracy, well, he needs to face justice as well. You can't you can't throw a bunch of working class and middle class people in jail for for a conspiracy to commit sedition against the United States without having somebody running that conspiracy. Can you? Right. And we certainly know that hundreds of people involved on January 6th riding at the Capitol have already been charged, tried, in many cases convicted. So there's been this question whether Trump would follow them. And yes, there is the assessment that is the most serious of the investigations into him, but also probably the hardest to prove. What I'm hearing from people with some knowledge of the investigation and

people close to the former president is, yes, there is a concern that that's happening too. It's going slower. It's more complicated. It's bigger. It's harder to do. But that is also something that Jack Smith could bring charges on. It likely would be further down the road as opposed to the Mar-a-Lago documents case, but still very possible. And that would be perhaps be the political death knell for Trump, even though, as he seems to be shrugging off these other investigations, at least so far in the Republican primary field. And Chuck, I had one more question for you. And we should also not gloss over the idea that Secret Service agents who are testifying subpoenaing,

well, they also have proximity to the president. They also would be very aware of his actions and whereabouts and what he's doing and saying, not just about classified documents, but about January 6th. But that Florida grand jury, is it also another theory that was posed to me is that that might be connected to an associate of Trump, that Trump himself, the grand jury, the Washington-based one, is looking into the actions of the former president, but someone who has been caught concealing, lying, impeding the investigation simply in Mar-a-Lago, who's not Trump, that maybe that's what's happening in Miami? Does that strike you as possible? Entirely plausible, Jonathan. If somebody had committed acts only in Florida, even if it's connected to a broader scheme, then venue for that person, maybe somebody who followed Mr. Trump's instructions to obstruct

justice or to conceal evidence, would be properly charged and tried in that jurisdiction. Venue would be appropriate in Florida. So absolutely a possibility remains to be seen. I will say one other thing, Jonathan. I don't know which case is moving quicker, although it appears to be the documents case. But when defense attorneys request a meeting at the Department of Justice to make a pitch that their client ought not be charged, you know, you're much closer to the end than to the beginning. Chuck Rosenberg, always great to have you with us to sort through all of this. We appreciate it. Meanwhile, some new faces in the race to challenge Donald Trump. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie officially is running for president. The Republican made the announcement last night during a town hall

in New Hampshire. In his speech, Governor Christie described the state of American politics and blasted Donald Trump. A lonely, self-serving mirror hog is not a leader. The person I am talking about who is obsessed with the mirror, who never admits a mistake, who never admits a fault, and who always finds someone else and something else

to blame for whatever goes wrong, but finds every reason to take credit for anything that goes right, is Donald Trump. It's not amusing anymore. It's not entertaining anymore. It is the last throes of a bitter, angry man who wants power back for himself, not for you. So, Joe, Chris Christie, representing the voice of the exhausted Republican, perhaps saying it's not funny anymore. It's not funny anymore. It's time to move on and trying to give some of those voters a place to go. Big focus on New Hampshire for him. He thinks that's the place where he can do best. Didn't do great there. It should be pointed out in 2016 when he ran and soon after dropped out and endorsed Donald Trump.

But what's your take on Chris Christie in the race now? Well, you know, New Hampshire is a site of that February 2016 debate where he ended Marco Rubio's chances to win the nomination. And and that was just one debate. And that was his focus in that one debate. You do get the sense that Chris Christie's mission, it may be to win the Republican nomination and be president of the United States. But like Sherman going through Georgia to the sea and his march to the sea, you get a sense here that Chris Christie's march to victory is straight through Donald Trump. And it is political annihilation. That's his goal. Total war.

And what I suspect, what Marco Rubio saw in one debate, Donald Trump is going to be seeing this entire campaign. Does that move the needle? I don't know. But I was thinking yesterday, Elizabeth, Chris Christie, actually, Chris Christie, a former prosecutor. This is a guy that can actually take the case not only about Donald Trump's failings as a president and a politician, the person straight to the voters, but also the federal indictment that is coming. It seems Chris Christie's lined up perfectly

to be the one taking it to the voters going, no, no, no, no, no, no. You know what? Great, your uncle on Facebook told you that. No, let me tell you, I did this for years. I prosecuted for years. Let me tell you why he's wrong, why Donald Trump's wrong and why he's not fit to be president. Maybe Christie's able to carry that message in a way that's

stronger than anybody did in 16. Maybe. But it's but everyone's going to ask, where have you been the last number of years when you were endorsing Donald Trump, supporting him, talking about becoming his chief of staff? It's it's a complete U-turn and it's going to be hard for some voters to take. I mean, yes, he's appealing to that dwindling number of Republicans who are fed up with Donald Trump and need someone else. But again, it's going to be Trump will eviscerate him and it's going to be it's it's annihilate him. So we shall see. It's he's he's interesting to watch. Right. He's not a boring candidate. He's he's lively. He's smart. He knows the stuff. But I just wonder how he will do in this in this in the current Republican Party.

Well, this was a stronger start than we've seen. I mean, this was going right to the heart of the matter. I can't disagree with one thing he said. I think there are a lot of people who feel that way about Donald Trump, but I'm not sure it's the base. Although there are some members of Trump world or Trump supporters who are tiring of it. And I think Chris Christie, as Joe pointed out, former prosecutor, has the skills to meet Trump where he is and to fight even fight hard, possibly even dirty. But my God, that is going to be the question, at least in a general. Where in the world were you? Like when the country was melting down over covid, where in the world were you? Like when the country was melting down over COVID,

where in the world were you? And you could do a long list of things that happened right when he was in there by Trump's side that he said nothing. I mean, that would be a critique of him that I imagine that comes from the press and from the media when he's doing all of those media interviews. But the other candidates who are running against Donald Trump, they may not want to raise that because that will make them look like they are criticizing perhaps Donald Trump as well. So he may get a pass from the other candidates on, well, why weren't you criticizing Trump earlier? Because it slightly puts them in a bit of a, in a double-edged position. But I think more than the prosecutorial skills, he just has the temperament. He has that, He has been waiting a long time. He has been waiting. I spoke to him a year ago when he was first thinking of running. Yeah. And it was pretty

evident in the conversation I had with him that he was he was waiting to fight Trump. I mean, and he wants to fight Trump and he relishes fighting Trump. The other candidates are looking at Trump thinking, how can I go round Trump? Right. How can I get round him without barely mentioning him? They don't want to fight Trump on a fight. But Chris Christie, he wants to fight Trump. And that's fair. I haven't seen a candidate back even in 2016. Was there a candidate who relished the fight with Trump? Apart from perhaps Joe Biden, kind of relished it. But none of the Republicans did. And I don't see any of the other Republicans in this field relishing it in the way that Chris Christie seems to.

He's liking it a lot, Joe. Well, and, you know, and Katty's exactly right. And that's what separates Chris Christie from everybody else. We've been whining here on this show that everybody's being polite to Donald Trump while running against Donald Trump to try to destroy Donald Trump. Chris Christie's going straight through Donald Trump. And, you know, there is a sliding scale for for all Republicans. You know, you can say the same thing about people. You know, Matt, you know, James Mattis went in to try to help Donald Trump. A lot of people did. Chris Christie did the same.

I will say early on in. 2020, it was Chris Christie that started quietly telling people, Willie, in March and April, he said Donald Trump is trying to set this election up, talking about how it's going to be a rigged election. He's already trying to talk about mail-in balloting and everything else. And he talked about in March of 2020 that this was his plan to try to steal the election from Joe Biden. So, again, yeah, he was there. He was there all along. And I'm not I'm not carrying, you know, his is his water. When I when I say this, the way I look at this Republican field is it's Donald Trump against the field.

And people have been trying to figure out how does Donald Trump get beaten? I think with Chris Christie being the lead prosecutor, that gives the field a chance, at least a 50-50 chance. And if I'm Donald Trump, I don't want this guy going around all the time talking about payoffs to porn stars, talking about, you know, all the things that Chris Christie is going to be talking about during this campaign. And he will get a lot of earned media. He's a well-known figure. He speaks in soundbites. He knows how to get media attention. The question will be, if that matters in this big field, if it matters against Donald Trump. As I said, New Hampshire, he's setting up as his place.

This is where he's going to win. He did finish sixth place in 2016. He made that same pitch to voters there in 2016. I guess what he can do, and he remains a long shot like a lot of these candidates, is to inject into the conversation these issues, these failings of Donald Trump, Donald Trump's history in a way that, as Joe said, a lot of these other candidates just don't want to do. They don't want to fight him. Yeah. Christie is showing a willingness that he will. In fact, I was struck yesterday. He really went after Trump's family, too, after Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner calling him personal,

calling him grifters. And certainly there is a backstory there with his relationship with Kushner in particular. But he's at least so far going somewhere that other candidates have been afraid to do so. Now, it will be a balance. This is someone who still, his stated mission is to become the GOP nominee. He's a long shot, no doubt. He's not even playing in Iowa. He's only playing in New Hampshire. He's polling in the single digits. So there are some in the GOP never Trumpers who want Christie to almost put on the political suicide vest and say, hey, if it can't be me, at least I'm going to make sure it's not Trump either. And they remember how he took down Marco Rubio a few years ago. You have to ask Chris Christie, they're willing

to do that without because, of course, that he would know that he alienate so many Republican voters. It would eliminate his already very small chances of winning. The other thing you're right. He's very good at earned media. He will do, I'm certain, a ton of interviews. But the best moment for him to take on Donald Trump is on a debate stage. There's real questions whether Chris Christie can qualify for a debate stage. There are pretty strict guidelines the RNC has put in place. He's going to have to raise a lot of money from a lot of different donors in order to make it.

If he can't, that will mute a lot of his attacks on Trump if he can't do it face to face. OK, still ahead on Morning Joe, another revolt against House Speaker Kevin McCarthy from within his own party as right wing members block a pair of GOP bills in response to the debt ceiling deal. Also ahead, could Florida Governor Ron DeSantis face criminal charges in California? We will explain that. Plus more on yesterday's stunning golf merger and the comments from PGA Tour Commissioner Jay Monahan that have critics calling him a hypocrite. You're watching Morning Joe. We will be right back. I've talked at a player meeting and I've, and I've talked to a number of players individually for a long period

of time. And I think you'd have to be living under a rock to not know that there are significant implications. And as it relates to the families of 9-11, I have two families that are close to me that lost loved ones. And so my heart goes out to them. And I would ask, you know, any player that has left or any player that would ever consider leaving, have you ever had to apologize for being a member of the PGA Tour? A lot of people have been reading about the tension and that we've talked a lot. And I said previously that we were going down our path, they were going down theirs. And today, that tension goes away. The litigation has dropped. We're announcing to the world that on behalf of this game, we're coming together. And it's less

about how people respond today. And it's all about how people respond today and it's all about how people respond in 10 years that is pga tour commissioner jay monahan almost exactly a year apart speaking last year first there as compared to yesterday about the league's position toward its rival now partner the saudi-backed live golf league in a stunning announcement yesterday the pga tour said it has agreed to merge with live in a deal that would combine their commercial businesses and rights into a new yet to be named for profit company. Live Golf is backed by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund, an entity controlled by the Saudi crown prince that's been embroiled in antitrust lawsuits with the PGA Tour in the last year since its formation. Let's bring in the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, and bestselling author, longtime sports columnist Mike Lubka. Guys, good morning. It's good to see you both. Mike, I'll start with you. We were

saying earlier, how'd you like to be Rory or Tiger Woods this morning, having on principle passed up 400, 500 in Tiger's case, $800 million to join Liv standing out publicly for the PGA Tour, only to find out they're making a deal behind your back. Yeah, Willie, it's amazing how much sports always comes back to the old Bob Arum line from boxing. Yesterday I was lying. Today I'm telling the truth. Jay Monahan is going to have a hard time explaining to those players why the other guys got paid. And he said, no, you remain loyal to us and we'll take we'll take care of you. OK. And literally one year apart, he said that stuff.

And this is also mob like to me. You know, it's the old line from the godfather. It's not personal. It's strictly business. Jay Monahan went to the people he said he hated yesterday for money. And, you know, anybody who's ever taken money from the mob knows there's a big and the big in this case is going to be Monahan's personal reputation. And, Willie, I believe that it might not happen next week or next month. I think Monahan's through. We'll see. I mean, this combines your two wheelhouses, Richard, foreign policy and golf.

What did you make of that announcement? We were all stunned yesterday and immediately thought about all these guys who went out there or were put out there by the PGA Tour in the last 12 months to defend the PGA and to rip some of their friends who went and left and played for Liv for making that decision.

Yeah, that's one whole set of, shall we say, awkward confrontations that remain. People who went in both directions. What's going to happen to those who went to Liv? What's going to happen to those not? I'd also say that this was inevitable. Once the president of the United States went to Saudi Arabia, given the deep pockets that the Saudi have, given how many talented players defected,

given the antitrust and other legal battles, this reminds me a little bit of the old NFL, AFL. First you fight, then you merge. So I just thought this was this was inevitably going to happen. It happened much, much quieter, much more quickly than I thought. You got a lot of unhappy players. I get it. It's not 100 percent done yet. But I thought, again, it was only a question of when, not if this was going to happen. Well, I mean, it's like the NFL and the AFL, if the NFL accused the AFL of being responsible for Pearl Harbor. I mean, in this case, Mike Lupica, you actually have. I mean, I don't think the Hunts were ever accused of starting planning Pearl Harbor. But you had said something a second ago. You said that Jay Monahan went from saying he didn't like the Saudis to now working with them. No, no, no.

It's so much worse than that. Jay Monahan accused the Saudis of killing over 3000 Americans on September 11th. He did. Look at his words. He wraps it all around. His defense of the PGA is all wrapped around this idea. We're not going to be in bed with the people who killed 3000 Americans on September 11th. And yesterday he's calling great business partners. And I've got a feeling, Mike, Jay Monahan, he doesn't care if he gets fired tomorrow. I mean, everybody's getting rich on this deal. Everybody's getting rich. And I just, again, I don't know how you go from calling them terrorists to calling them great business partners just because he's getting 10, 11 billion dollars. Yeah, you can't call this simply the NFL-AFL merger or the NBA merger, because this

has a global context. And this is sports watching. And listen, I know sports doesn't get to take any high ground. We keep sending the Olympics to China. We know how in bed the NBA is with China, OK? And they're hardly the mother of Mother Teresa. But in this case, in this case, you saw how the 9-11 families went right after Monaghan yesterday. It's going to be tough for him to walk away from. And for all of the talk about truth and beauty and these two warring factions uniting. OK. The way I look at this is the crown prince bought himself the PGA tour yesterday. And the other context here is this. I think the PGA was as worried about discovery in all of these antitrust suits as the Saudis were. And I don't think they had the deep pockets

to compete legally. The Saudis, they'll say, we'll play the long game here. We'll run out the clock on these lawsuits. The PGA Tour couldn't do that. And, Joe, I don't know how cash-strapped they might be spending the way they have on purses to try to keep up with the Saudis. Yeah, sports is always about money, Richard, but rarely so naked and blatant. And, of course, that's the rhetoric about the September 11th families. It's also Jamal Khashoggi, the Washington Post columnist, killed, U.S. officials believe, on the orders of the crown prince, who just bought himself a golf league.

We now have a foreign entity running, more or less, or partnering with a U.S. sports. And so let's talk about the Saudi perspective here. This is obviously part of their soft power game. They also just bought Cristiano Ronaldo, one of the most famous soccer players in the world. There's talk that Lionel Messi may be heading that way, too. This seems like such a success for them that they have this influence, that they get this blessing from a U.S. entity. At the same time, they just said they're going to slash oil production so prices can rise. The good or bad news, depending on how you look at it, when they did slash oil production, prices have not risen. Saudis don't have the power they had.

But yeah, this is about the crown prince essentially telling younger Saudis, I can give you a better future. This is less to do with how Saudi Arabia plays here and more how to do it has to do with how it plays at home and more how it has to do with how it plays at home. And what he wants to basically say is support me, do not oppose me, and I will bring you a better future. And for a lot of young Saudis, they see rock concerts, they see this. And for all the flaws, I get it. I think he's basically making that sale here. And the charges are real, particularly on Khashoggi. There's no gray. That is black and white. Women still have real difficulties in Saudi Arabia. Anyone who basically

wants to initiate their own human rights or political efforts, that's not allowed in Saudi Arabia. A lot of people are jailed. You hear about the killings and so forth. 9-11 is a little bit more complicated. The 9-11 commission said there was no direct evidence of official Saudi involvement in it, a little bit grayer. But there's no illusions here about what the partner is. But for Saudi Arabia, they've essentially sent the message, we're here to stay. We are not going to, remember President Biden, Jonathan, used the word pariah. What the Saudis are saying is we, you need us. We're here to stay. They did the deal with Iran there. You've got Tony Blinken there now, the secretary of state. Saudi Arabia is basically sending the message. You may not like us in lots of ways, but we're a player.

Well, you know, it's fascinating. Jonathan was talking about rock concerts, Rinaldo. They bought Newcastle. But when you buy the professional golfers association you're taking it to a new massive level like this is a whoa i mean yeah and i will say this for everybody hyperventilating uh there are a few of us here let's see see. Just two of us here. Richard and Mike that are old enough to remember when the Japanese bought Pebble Beach in the late 80s and everybody was hyperventilating and bought 30 Rock. Oh, my God. America is going to be Japan's granary. Everybody get a paper bag out. Breathe deep this day. I mean, we don't know if the Saudis are going to be here forever. We just know that the PGA is run by a bunch of hypocrites, Mike Lupica. And again, hypocrites, you just can't underline this enough, who a year ago were accusing the Saudis of being behind the

killing of over 3,000 Americans on September 11th. Joe, you're absolutely right. There's an old expression, if it walks like a hypocrite, and it quacks like a hypocrite, it's a hypocrite. I'm not sure if you got that exactly right, but I get your point. That might have had a couple of words off there, but I think you know where I'm going with this. And you talked about Newcastle. You talked about Ronaldo. The crown prince bought himself a PGA Tour commissioner yesterday. That's what really happened. Yeah, no doubt about it. Mike Lupica, thank you so much. We should mention Mike has another book coming out. He writes books like I drink sweet tea.

It's just that easy for him. He's got another bestselling book out with James Patterson titled 12 Months to Live. I mean, this thing's sure, like all the others, to go to the top of the list. It's due out this September. Mike Lupica, thank you so much for being with us. And coming up, we're going to have the latest on the dam break in Ukraine that's flooding the front lines and how it could impact the war for weeks to come. Also, Prince Harry becomes the first senior royal to testify in court in more than a century. We'll tell you why ahead of the morning jam. Experts say the explosion that destroyed a critical dam in southern Ukraine most likely

was deliberately set off from the inside. The New York Times cites engineering and munitions experts who say a structural failure or attack from the outside of the dam is possible, but quote, less plausible. The dam's destruction has triggered massive flooding, endangered thousands of people living downstream. Ukraine's national police say 23 towns and villages

have flooded and at least 1,300 people have been forced to evacuate. The U.S. has intelligence leaning toward Russia being behind the attack. That's according to two U.S. and one Western official. So, Richard, let's talk first about this dam and why it's so critical and why it might have been attacked. Whoever did it, U.S. intelligence believes it was Russia. But why that is such a central place and an important, significant place in this war. Well, what it clearly does is distracts what Ukraine wants to do.

If it wants to focus on launching the so-called offensive, this makes it much more difficult. Tens and tens of thousands of people directly affected. It's also somewhat related to providing water for the cooling of the nuclear power plant. That's not that far away from it. So it's inconceivable to me that Ukraine had anything to do with this. All the logic, if you will, points to Russia, plus they've been controlling this area of Ukraine for quite a while. So one assumes they had access to something inside the machinery that operates to them. So if this is something that's taking place at the beginning of this counteroffensive that we've been hearing about

for months and months and months, perhaps as a way for Russia to slow that. What is the state of that counteroffensive? People hear that term. They hear it's coming. What does it mean exactly? And what difference will it make in the wider war? You know, it's the right question to ask. It's a hard question to answer. It's not as though an offensive or counteroffensive is a single event. It's not as though it happens at a single moment. You do all sorts of probes. You do all sorts of feints. We'll probably have a better sense of it once it's underway. Indeed, Willie, it's possible that the Ukraine military haven't quite decided where they're going to concentrate. My guess is you probe certain places and you find out where

you have the greatest opportunities. What though is true is strategically Ukraine is under pressure to show some significant gain. And they've got a few months to do it this fighting season. So whatever you call it, however you describe it, in a few months, either Ukraine is going to be controlling a lot more of the territory of its own country or not. And either way, that will have all sorts of implications. So Richard, let's get your assessment of a few recent reports about Ukraine potentially carrying out operations within Russia. These drones attacks from a few days ago in Moscow, there's reporting that they may have been targeted. Russian intelligence officials, departments, doesn't seem like they had much success. Also reporting that the Ukrainian government was plotting to blow up the Nord Stream pipelines. They didn't carry

through with that operation, but later believed a pro-Ukraine group did. What is your take on Ukraine's, frankly, being a little more aggressive going into Russia and what the U.S. response has been? Well, the U.S. apparently knew that Ukraine or some Ukrainian entity was planning an attack on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline for several months, and we clearly did not head it off. So I would just put that out there. But you're right. There's too much going on for this not to be planned. You see the drone attacks. I think what Ukraine has clearly decided to do is they want to bring the war to Russia. They want the Russian people, and they're hoping that that puts heat on Vladimir Putin to potentially rethink the entire war against

Ukraine. I'm not sure it's going to work that way. Always dangerous. It feeds Putin's narrative that they are the victim. They're on the defensive. There could be a rally around the flag approach. I would think, Jonathan, that is the Ukraine calculation, that if we can take the war to Russia, that'll get some Russians to put pressure on Putin to rethink the war against us. And Elizabeth Buhmiller, this all comes against the backdrop. Just in the last couple of days, some whispers from Speaker McCarthy and other Republicans that it might be time to reevaluate American support for Ukraine. That's right. But I was going to ask Richard a question. What do you think of the shifting White House strategy, the shifting red line of Joe Biden, who starts out with no

F-16s, no tanks. And he says no, he says no. And then he says, yes, yes, yes. It's in the early days of this war, they were so afraid of being too tough, having Ukraine strike inside Russia. So how do you assess the White House shifting approach to this war, which happens seemingly weekly now? Well, you're right. The administration has been debating itself from the get go. I think there was a real concern that if we did certain things, it could trigger Russia and, quote unquote, escalation, even possible nuclear use. That concern, Elizabeth, seems to have receded. And I think what you're seeing now is the administration is saying, let's give Ukraine what it wants. Let's see how this offensive goes. If Ukraine can regain its territory good,

if we give them everything and they can't, then it sets up the situation for a new phase of U.S. strategy, which obviously involves diplomacy. But I think the administration has made something of a turn on that after debating with itself for, what, 15 or 16 months. You are seeing something somewhat different. All right. Richard Haass, thank you very much for being on this morning. Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, Elizabeth Bumiller. Joe, jump in. Yeah, I was going to say, you can't let, I got a question for Elizabeth now. Oh, I, I, I, I know you do. Elizabeth, Elizabeth, let us know. Okay. We, we should have asked her about Donald Trump in relation to Liv, which is actually, you know what's so funny about this, Elizabeth, is that Alex got in my ear and he said, you have to talk about Trump. I, of course, forgot because, well, you know, I'm like Dora. Dory. Is it Dora who's keep on swimming? Dory. Yeah. Dory.

I'm like Dory. I don't remember anything, Elizabeth, but you do. And that's why we have you here. So tell us the connection and how Donald Trump is so happy about this live PGA uniting. Thank you for asking. We had great reporting from Eric Lipton this morning about how much this benefits Donald Trump, this merger of the PGA and live. He has been complaining for years now that he is all of his that the PGA has has basically shut him out of tournaments at his golf courses. He's been very bitter about it. It got worse after January 6th when he was really ignored and and kept on the outside. But Liv had many tournaments at his golf courses, and he predicted a year ago that this would happen. So it benefits him financially. It

benefits his golf courses, and it just helps him with his base as he runs for president. Well, of course, he needs some good news, KDK, doesn't he? Because let's look at his Truth Social posting again. Poor guy still can't fix his all caps problem here. We really need to all chip in and get him a new phone. Well, I think we still have a moisture problem. Yeah. As Mika pointed out down in Mar-a-Lago.

You know, I think it was that pool draining. Yeah. That was the problem. Because I think he's I think he's actually very calm and wants to just write in not caps. I mean, I'm sure he'd like to say something nice and soft and flowery. But because the caps lock is it's coming out shouty and, you know, so unlike him. Yeah. It's unfair. Yeah. Someone in there. All right. Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, Elizabeth Bue Miller. Thank you as well.