Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/9/23

Episode Date: June 9, 2023

Trump indicted on 7 charges in classified docs probe

This to the television audience, I made my mistakes, but in all of my years of public life, I have never profited, never profited from public service. I've earned every cent. This is warfare for the law, and we can't let it happen. We can't let it happen. Our country is going to hell, and they come after Donald Trump. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think too that I could say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination. They're trying to destroy a reputation so they can win an election.

That's just as bad as doing any of the other things that have been done over the last number of years, and especially during the 2020 election. People have got to know whether or not their president's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got. So I just want to tell you, I'm an innocent man. I did nothing wrong. Donald Trump and Richard Nixon, each proclaiming innocence 50 years apart. Nixon was never federally indicted. Donald Trump was just indicted on seven charges.

We'll go through what we know about the federal charges and what happens next in the case. Plus, we'll explain why this indictment from a Florida grand jury is significant when it comes to a venue for a potential trial. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, a predictable response from many Republicans who are rallying around the former president, blaming everyone but him for this indictment. We'll also have the reaction from Trump's Republican rivals in the 2024 presidential race. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, June 9th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have former U.S. senator now on NBC News and MSNBC political analyst Claire McCaskill, the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, former White House press

secretary now on MSNBC host, Jen Psaki. Former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg. And NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss. So NBC News can now confirm former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a grand jury, a federal grand jury in Florida in connection with special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into his handling of more than 100 classified documents discovered last year at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. Two sources familiar with the matter confirmed the indictment, one adding that Trump received a summons to appear in U.S. District Court on Tuesday. This is the first time in American history a former U.S. president will face federal charges.

The sources say Trump has been indicted on seven charges, with one source noting, that does not necessarily mean seven counts, because multiple counts can be associated with each charge. A spokesperson for the special counsel declined to comment. A separate source said the indictment is under seal, which is why the government cannot yet comment. But sources tell NBC News that the charges include violation of the Espionage Act, conspiracy to obstruct and making false statements. Willie. Former President Trump is expected now to surrender to authorities and appear in a U.S. district court in Miami on Tuesday at three o'clock in the afternoon. The U.S. Secret Service official telling NBC News Secret Service personnel will meet with Trump's team today to begin security and logistics planning for his movement to appear in federal court. This is Trump's second indictment just in the last two

months. He also faces, of course, those state charges in New York where he is pleaded not guilty to 34 counts of falsifying business records in a hush money case involving adult film actress Stormy Daniels. So, Joe, we'll get into the reaction to all of this from Republicans. We'll get into the political implications of it. But we have to stop and just say what an extraordinary moment this is that a former president of the United States for the first time in our country's history has been indicted on federal charges and not just the former president of the United States, but a man who now seeks to return to the White House. This is happening in the middle of a presidential campaign.

And let's be really clear. We've been saying on this show, I think since 2019, that if he lost in 2020, he would continue to seek office because he would use it as a shield against any possible indictments. Of course, there's the Justice Department guideline that says if you are a sitting president, you can't be charged with a crime. And that acted as a shield. We remember during the Mueller investigation with Mueller saying, well, there are all these examples where he probably committed obstruction of justice, but he's president and so we can't charge him with a crime. So even before he ran for president, we were saying he's he's going to run

and he's going to run it for no other reason. So we can say that every one of these charges that he knew were coming were witch hunts. The thing is, the American people really aren't buying that. If you look at one poll after another, and this is so important, if you're watching other networks and you're you're watching people celebrate a man who has led an insurrection against the United States of America, led to a lot of people who are in those riots going to jail and lied about American democracy, has trashed American democracy, has trashed the United States military, has trashed America's intel services. Yet they continue to flock around him. Maybe they need to know if they're doing it because they're scared that a majority of

Americans think he should be indicted. Even 60 percent of Americans said he should have been indicted in the Stormy Daniels hush money case. In another poll, 62 percent of Americans think this is a serious crime. And an overwhelming majority believe that if he is indicted and charged with a crime and ultimately found guilty, he should not be allowed to serve as president of the United States. Now, that's not with the American people. I do, though, with all that to the side, though, Willie, I do want to say that we always say two things can be true at the same time um this this this can be something that had to be done because in america no man is above the law and and that's extraordinarily important for every american to understand for every american to know

and at the same time we have have crossed a line here that is extraordinarily dangerous for the future. And you are now going to see Republicans trying to seek retribution, trying to indict Democratic presidents. If independents run in the future, you may see the same thing. And so it is it is extraordinarily dangerous. But we are given the worst of two options as a nation. And I think Michael Beschloss, again, is I will say this is this is this is a dark day for America. And if anybody thinks I'm I'm being glib or are are are are not completely straightforward in saying that, they don't understand. This is something I feared for a long time. I remember having the discussion where

people were talking about indicting George W. Bush because of supposed war crimes. I said, OK, that's great. What are you going to do four years from now or eight years from now when Republicans try to indict Barack Obama for war crimes, for the drone warfare, for whatever. But here we are. And I'm sure you agree with me. It is a bleak, dark day for America, but also a day that we knew had to come. I mean, Donald Trump, I think perhaps one of the most dangerous political and constitutional norms he's broken through is this one, that a former president is actually indicted by the Justice Department. Sure is. And, you know, the other thing, Joe, is that it's a shame.

The reason it's a dark day is because it's come to this. You know, this was not just something that came out of thin air. This is not just a, you know, some D.A. trying to indict Dwight Eisenhower, one of the most honest leaders in American history in 1958, let's say. You know, this is there has to be evidence, you know, you and I, Mika, Willie, everyone else on our panel, we've got faith in our system. And, you know, you can't just say that there was no evidence that led the Justice Department to be interested in this case, or that there was no evidence that led a grand jury in Miami in a state that is steadily more of a red state, just as you were saying, surrounded by Trump supporters in the state of Florida. If we have faith in our system, we have to say, you know, this is a reaction to

evidence and a serious charge. And if we really believe in our system, then if President Trump, ex-President Trump, is not guilty of what he's being indicted for, then a trial will bring that out and he will be found not guilty. Yeah. And, you know, Willie, Michael brings up such a great point. This is a grand jury, a grand jury in Florida that brought these charges, just like when people were talking about a witch hunt in the E. Jean Carroll case. That was a jury of Donald Trump's peers. So these are Americans. This isn't this isn't like, you know, George Soros and his immediate family or whatever right wing racist anti-Semitic conspiracy theory they want to drum up like these are a jury of peers that are indicting him. Yeah, I remember in the E. Jean Carroll case,

you had prominent United States senators questioning now the jury system. That's been one of the bedrocks of our legal system because it didn't go Donald Trump's way. In this case, we'll get into it in a few minutes. That's been one of the bedrocks of our legal system because it didn't go Donald Trump's way. In this case, we'll get into it in a few minutes, but some of the Republicans are painting this as Joe Biden going directly after his political opponent to try to knock him out of the presidential race. But of course, this not just comes from the Justice Department, but from an attorney general who separated himself to avoid the appearance of any partisanship and gave it to a special

counsel who then gave it to a grand jury. And here we are. So, Chuck Rosenberg, let's get into some of the legal questions around this. Donald Trump's own attorney last night in a television interview confirmed that the charges in here, though the document, the indictment is sealed, are around the Espionage Act. What else do we know about what Donald Trump might be charged with when he's arraigned on Tuesday? Right. Well, so based, Willie, on public reporting, the unlawful retention of documents in violation of the Espionage Act, there seems to be a conspiracy charge. And I'll talk about that in a moment.

And there seems to be also a charge related to an obstruction of the investigation, perhaps even witness tampering. Why is that important? Well, second thing first, obstruction sort of evinces a consciousness of guilt. And one of the things prosecutors always have to prove at a trial is that a defendant acted intentionally, willfully, and not by accident or mistake. So if you're obstructing the underlying investigation, if you're concealing documents or urging witnesses to tell a false story, that proves consciousness of guilt and helps prosecutors on the other things that they have to do, proving intent. With respect to conspiracy, I often charge that as a prosecutor

where it was applicable, Willie, because it gives me certain evidentiary advantages. If you and I, for instance, plot to rob a bank and we include Mika in the plot and you case the bank and Mika waits outside in the getaway car and I go inside the bank and rob it, we're all guilty of a conspiracy because we had an unlawful agreement. That is an agreement to do something that the law forbids. And if any one of us takes a step in furtherance of the agreement, the conspiracy charge is complete. But it gives prosecutors evidentiary advantages because anything that the one of the three of us say, you, Willie, Mika, or me, anything that one of us says in furtherance of the conspiracy

is admissible against all of us. And so the devil will be in the details. I'm eager to read the indictment. I hope it's a speaking indictment and it lays out in some detail what the charges are. But obstruction, conspiracy, and espionage act violations are all extraordinarily serious and confer on prosecutors some evidentiary advantages. Chuck, let me ask you this,

because people are looking you this, because, you know, people are looking at this and you can't blame them. It's just the latest in a series of challenges that Donald Trump has had, whether it's the two impeachments, whether it is the Mueller investigation. Add on top of that, of course, the Manhattan charges. Add on top of that, the E. Jean Carroll case. Add on top of that the E. Jean Carroll case. And here we are here. It's very easy to look at this case and go, oh, well, this is just another in a long line of legal challenges that Donald Trump is going to be facing for the rest of his life. If you could, I'd love for you to explain how this is so different because it's in federal court.

One of these charges I read this morning could carry with it a possible eight-year term. Donald Trump may be typing in all caps right now, but he understands the gravity of federal charges against him. He also understands he could spend a significant amount of time in jail if found guilty on all of these charges, which may actually make him a bit more flip moving forward in these deliberations because he could spend the rest of his life in jail if charged on all of these counts. Could you go through all of that for me, if you will, and explain to our viewers just how different a federal case is than all of the state cases or Mueller investigations or impeachments? Yeah, absolutely, Joe. And I'm going to add one word to what you

said. It's not just a federal case. It's a federal criminal case. So when we think about Mr. Trump's legal lows over decades, there are almost always civil cases often brought in state court. But they're civil cases. And civil cases aren't about liberty. Civil cases are about money, right? If you lose a civil case, you tend to owe somebody else money. If you lose as a defendant in a federal criminal case, you're talking about liberty. To your point, Joe, you can go to jail and you can go to jail for a very long time. So I don't want to get ahead of this. He's only been charged at this point, not even arraigned, certainly hasn't been tried and hasn't been convicted or sentenced. But the reason this is so serious and the reason this is so different is that if you lose in court as a defendant in a federal criminal case, you can go to jail.

And so civil cases are serious. If it was me on the short end of one of those, it would keep me up at night. If I was on the short end of a federal criminal trial, I would be a basket case. These are extraordinarily dangerous times, in part because of what Mr. Trump did. But it's also going to be Mr. Trump in a court of law facing a jury of peers who's going to face the consequences of what he did. By the way, I agree with something that you said at the very beginning of the show. It is a solemn day as prosecutors. I never, never celebrated a conviction or a sentencing. In my view, no matter what a defendant did, it was always a sad day. And this is a sad day. But the person who caused it is Mr. Trump.

So Claire McCaskill, then Jen Psaki, I want to hear your thoughts. This is a really important day, something that's never happened before. If you listen to Trump World, you would think that something terrible happened to a great man. At the same time, this is a man who's been found liable of sexual assault, defamation. He's been indicted in Manhattan. And from what we know, the facts in the documents case are very real. You know, it's interesting because there's this hue and cry that somehow he's being treated differently and it's not fair and presidents shouldn't be indicted. And I'd like to gently point out that he has been treated differently in this way. It's given him the benefit of the doubt at every turn. You know, for a normal person

who would walk out of a skiff with sensitive documents to hide them, to lie about them for a year and a half, that would never happen. They wouldn't take this long. They wouldn't give him every opportunity to give the documents back. They wouldn't give him many, many opportunities to cleanse himself of this very serious mistake. But rather than taking that opportunity, he defied it and lied and brought other people into the plot. And what's fascinating to me also is that the Republicans that are coming to his defense have no idea what the evidence is. Right. It's very scary. And one thing they all have in common that are defending him, they're from bright red places. They're living in a primary world, not a general election world. And I need to point out to

everyone that presidents, if you become president of the United States, you have to live in a general election world. You don't win based on a primary. And that's the fatal flaw to the Trump strategy. And once again, Jen Psaki, these Republicans who are crying foul right now are the same ones who really don't have an argument. For example, what is it? Is Biden the mastermind of a DOJ onslaught against the former president or is he falling off bikes and unable to complete a sentence? Which is it? I know. I mean, one, I think it's really important for people to understand. I mean, Joe Biden is respects the rule of law, but also respects the separation of branches of power. And so when we're looking at

how solemn today is, I mean, he nominated Attorney General Garland, who's operating independently, who also named Jack Smith. We all got to this moment. And the president was criticized by including members of his party for being slow, for not pushing the Department of Justice farther. He did that because that's how the system is supposed to work. And we are here because the justice system was doing its job. We'll see how it concludes. We don't know yet. But I was thinking last night about my former White House colleagues,

my colleagues I spent so much time with. You know, when this news broke at 715, 730 last night, Mika, they didn't have a statement prepared. They weren't in a war room. Some of them may have been getting in their cars. That's typically when you finish the senior staff meeting. They did not know this news in advance either. That is how the system is supposed to work. And I think it's important for people to understand that. So, yes, what we've seen to just echo Claire from Republicans who have spoken to this, some exceptions, I mean, Asa Hutchison a little bit, is really this, you know, attack of the justice system, attack of our institutions that have been fundamental to our country for so long. No legal strategy, no understanding of what the charges are. They're trying to, again,

delegitimize the system and politicize the system, which frankly is the opposite of what President Biden and the Justice Department currently is trying to do. So, Jen, to your point there, the only statement the White House put out was to refer reporters to the Department of Justice. Right. That's all they did. This is, we are hearing from Republicans, their number one argument, at least for now, is this is President Biden's DOJ going after his top competitor, saying this is a banana republic, saying that he's trying to bring down Donald Trump before next year's election. But this is certainly an inflection point for this election. But also, we shouldn't just lose the moment in history here.

This is now a federal charge for a former president on top of a state charge. It's jarring. And there are probably more coming. Georgia still looms this summer, and we don't know where January 6th investigation may take us to. Attorney George Conway is joining the conversation. George, let's bring you in and get your reaction to this historic moment and your assessment of these charges now being brought forth in Florida. Well, I want to dissent a little bit from what some of what was said earlier, at least partly. I don't think it's a sad day for the country. I think it's a solemn day. I think it's a momentous day. And I think it's an important day and a significant day and a very serious day.

But the sad moments, the sad point was that we had a president who was such a brazen criminal, who launched and inspired an insurrection, who stole government documents, classified documents, and then tried to conceal them and tried to obstruct justice. And then we have millions of Americans who still want to put him back in the White House. And we have a Republican Party where virtually all of its major figures are so spineless that they can't simply say, we don't support this criminal. And that's the sad thing would have been, the terrible thing would have been, the worst thing that could have happened to a republic would have been if this man was never charged, that he was let go. And as Claire pointed out, they didn't want to bring this case. The government dragged its feet. They wanted him to give the

documents back. He jerked NARA around, the National Archives and Records Administration, around for over a year. He lied to them. He lied to the Justice Department. He had others lie to the Justice Department. He concealed the documents. He moved them around. And it took a year and a half for them to get a search warrant. Well, any of us would have been searched weeks after taking those documents. And anybody else would have been indicted long ago. When we saw that evidence in the unsealed search warrant in last August, there was plenty of there to charge somebody with. There was enough there that any of us, had we been a senior administration official

taking that volume of documents to our beach house, we would have been indicted long ago. So he's gotten every break they could have possibly given. And Attorney General Gardner didn't want to bring this case, but he has to. Yeah, I want to underline what George just said, Claire and I can tell everybody here that because we've seen documents I did when I was a member of armed services, I know Claire did in the Senate when she was as well. You go in there and man, they do everything afterwards when you walk out and skip it, hose you down. And I'm telling you, it is an intimidating thing. At least it was for me going in there. You understood what you what you were doing. You understood the importance of of keeping that information there, not passing it along.

I will tell you, there were briefings that I had armed services briefings that I had in like 1998, 1999, 2000, I still haven't told anybody anything about. I'm sure that the information was declassified years ago, but that's how much it has impressed on members and people in government about how critical this is. You look at former CIA directors that have been charged. You look at former generals that have been charged for doing far, far less than this. You look at national security advisors charged for doing far, far less than this. I mean, it's unbelievable. And I do want to say, I do want to add to what George said.

This is an extremely sad day for the reasons that I mentioned. But I want to add what George said. You have a guy that's been charged with violating the Espionage Act, the Espionage Act. He knows that he took classified documents he wasn't supposed to take. They know. They know he took those classified documents as well. They know. All of these people defending him know that this guy violated the Espionage Act and he lied about it.

They know he lied about it to the FBI. They know he lied about it to the FBI. They know he lied about it to the DOJ. They know he lied about it to the National Archives. They know he's been lying to them nonstop. They know and they don't care. So while we're adding up all the things that make this a grim day, let's put that near the top of the list. And also that 40, 42, 43 percent of Americans now know that this guy likely violated the

Espionage Act and they don't give a damn. So at the end of the day, Donald Trump's right. He could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and his supporters wouldn't care because what he's done is most likely he's violated the Espionage Act. We know the fact pattern here. We've seen it unfold and they don't care. So, yeah, I agree with George. I agree with George. The majority of Americans care and think he should be charged. But way too many Americans have no respect for law. They have no no respect for justice. And the bitter irony is making the people that have been

running around with their hair on fire for the past three or four years yelling law and order and law and order, law and order are the last people who give a damn about law or order when Donald Trump does things that would have any of us on this screen in jail already. And they don't care. Well, that's what makes this potentially have some long range ramifications that this country will have to confront. By the way, Merrick Garland didn't want anything to do with this. He put Jack Smith on it and separated himself. And we will find out exactly what is in there on Tuesday when Donald Trump is going to be reporting to the federal courthouse in Miami at 3 p.m. on Tuesday.

We've got the brightest minds on this story. Chuck Rosenberg, George Conway, Claire McCaskill, Jen Psaki, Michael Beschloss. Stay with us. We'll be right back after a quick break to continue our coverage on this historic moment. I can't imagine you ever saying, bring me some of the boxes that we brought back from the White House. I'd like to look at them. Did you ever do that? I would have the right to do that. There's nothing wrong with it. But I know you. I don't think you would do it. I don't have a lot of time, but I would have the right to do that.

I would do that. All right, let me move on. Remember this. This is the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff. Do you know that they ended up paying Richard Nixon, I think, $18 million for what he had? They did the Presidential Records Act. I have the right to take stuff. I have the right to look at stuff. Oh, my God. Joe, that's the famous interview from March 27th, where Sean Hannity was trying to

coach Donald Trump out of an indictment, out of implicating himself. But he indicts himself. And Donald Trump went in again and again and again. And we'll talk to Chuck Rosenberg about this, but he keeps citing the Presidential Records Act. He did it in that CNN town hall a couple of weeks ago when he said infamously, I took what I took, saying, yes, I did take all those classified documents. He's completely wrong. He either doesn't understand the Presidential Records Act or is just lying about it. But that interview was something. Well, he understands it.

There's been testimony that he understands it extraordinarily well. He actually walked through it with with several people who have testified about how much he understands the process of classification and classifying. He just, I, well, there's just no way, but he's just not that smart. He's really not. I mean, if he's a fascist, he's like a Hogan's Heroes, like a guard type of fascist. He's just not that smart. I mean, the thing is, the guy says George Conway, like Sean Hannity is saying, I know you wouldn't commit a crime. I can commit a crime if I want to.

OK, but Mr. President, I know you wouldn't commit this crime. I can commit that crime if I want to. Sean Hannity says, OK, let's move on. Talk about the wrong college campuses. I mean, there is so much there going to intent time and time again. And I say he's not smart because he said things in the CNN town hall meeting that are going to get him in legal trouble as well. Time and again, he admits he admits the intent to commit that crime publicly in public spaces. Well, that's absolutely right. And the best evidence that he has created that the best evidence against him is evidence that he has created by having the documents in his office, by having the documents in his home, by having by having by talking to lawyers who then

to try to get them to commit illegal acts and them refusing. And then a court holding that basically that he that there is no attorney client privilege because of he was trying to commit criminal acts. And you're right. He's just absolutely not bright at all. He's he's he's a dope and and and he but he is a stubborn dope. And that's the reason why he's here today. And he he had every opportunity, as we've been pointing out, to give these documents back. If he had invited Mara over to Mar-a-Lago in the middle of last year, a year ago, we would not be here today. We might not have even heard about the incident because it would have been just viewed as, oh, well, there were some there was some misplaced documents and he gave them back. It wouldn't it wouldn't be a big deal.

So, Chuck Rosenberg, there is such a fog of disinformation just flowing from so many sources over the last 12 hours or so about why this happened. What happened? Oh, it's just like what Joe Biden did. No, it's not. And we can get into that. It's Joe Biden going directly after his political opponent. No, we just explain why that's not true. And that Joe, that Donald Trump had the right to take these records under the Presidential Records Act. That is just not true. We've explained that many times over the last few months. Can you explain, because we do have to reestablish the facts here. Can you explain what the Presidential Records Act does say and what it does not say? Sure, Willie. So it is important to establish the baseline. The Presidential Records Act requires that presidents return to the American people through the National Archives documents generated by their administration. This routinely happens at the

end of a presidency. At the end of a presidency may be chaotic, but it doesn't obviate the need for a president and his staff to abide the law. And the law requires, the law holds, that the records of a presidential administration do not belong to the individual president. They belong to the American people. And the National Archives is the caretaker on our behalf. By the way, to George's point, I think it's an important one. Without the obstruction, without counseling witnesses to lie, without hiding documents, without concealing evidence, you

may not have a case at all. All of that underscores a defendant's guilt, his intent. And when you lie or obfuscate or obstruct, it suggests that the thing you are obstructing, the thing you are obfuscating was a crime. When a judge, a federal judge, found that the attorney-client privilege had been obliterated and that the government was entitled to speak to one of Mr. Trump's attorneys, which, by the way, is an extraordinary thing. I can count on one finger the number of times that happened to me in my public prosecutorial career. That's an extraordinary

thing to allow the government to peek behind that curtain. It's because there were underlying acts of obstruction. And so the Presidential Records Act is clear. The records belong to the American people, not to the president. And trying to obstruct NARA, the National Archives, and its work to retrieve the documents and then counseling witnesses to lie is a serious, serious federal crime. Yeah, you know, Mika, I just I'm communicating with Richard Haass, our golf correspondent. And young Richard asks this. He says, one big question, mystery. Why did Trump take and hold the documents? What was the motive? Why would he do that? The answer goes back to the first thing we said is

he's a dope. Right. But but also more to the point. And this is what he he hasn't understood. He doesn't understand where he is now, what arena he's just walked into the middle of. OK, he's he he thought they were his and he thought that nobody could tell him they weren't his. And when he even when even though he knew he was violating the law, he thought as a bully that he could hold the documents, that he could keep the documents. This is a guy that's bullied people his entire life. He's always stayed five minutes away from from imminent destruction.

And he survived it his whole life. And so he thinks this is just like fighting the New York Post, leaking documents to the New York Post about how he's great having sex. He thinks this is leaking to the Daily News, changing his name so they can say, oh, that Donald Trump is a man about town.

What name did he use to be that publicist? John Miller. John Barron. John Miller. John Barron. John Miller. John Miller. He thinks that this is like the Mueller report, that he can just push all of this aside. And I'm serious. He's been doing this since the mid 1970s and he's gotten away with it. Any lawyer will tell you if there is,

if they're a dumb country lawyer like me especially, there's a reason to stay away from the federal courthouse whenever possible. I mean, it's frightening when you walk through those doors. It's all business. It's the reason Giuliani would lie outside and make all of these outrageous claims about stolen elections and go inside. The federal judge would say, are you suggesting there's widespread fraud in this election?

And Giuliani go, no, no, sir. No, sir. I am not. Trump thought he could bully people. He's now going to find out and he's going to be delivered the harshest lesson of his life that you can't bully federal judges. You can't bully the feds themselves. And he's going to pay for this. He may pay for it with his liberty unless he he cops it out. He's going to have to plea or I'm predicting he's going to get charged and very likely will spend time in jail. So I want to poke through one thing you said. I, you know, a dope, a bully, both potentially true. But he he knew they weren't his. He knew. And there are there's reporting that shows it was explained to him. There are documents he assigned to declassify certain documents. He knew they were not.

Well, what I said was he knew there was like in his mind what he said to Hannity is how he was thinking. I said right after that, he knew he was committing a crime. But in his own screwed up reality, he can do whatever he wants. Where he bends reality, he thinks he can do it. It doesn't matter. He thinks the laws apply to everybody else but him. So then here's my question, Claire McCaskill, as gravely serious as a federal indictment would be. The law has its own timeline. And then there is the political timeline. And I don't think they match up quite well. I think as much as the far right is claiming

the DOJ is being weaponized, I think Donald Trump, knowing his past patterns, will weaponize this himself and drum up the base. Any concerns about the conflicting timelines? Well, I think that certainly the special prosecutor understands what's happening over the next year. So will they look at that? Well, they're going to try to move this. They're ready to go to trial. The federal government never indicts until they're ready to go to trial. I know, but then there are all these experts saying it could be a year before this goes to trial. The federal government never indicts until they're ready to go to trial.

I know. But then there are all these experts saying it could be a year before a lot of that depends on the question. A big question that's not been answered yet. And that is what judge gives the case. The judge has more control over the timeline than Jack Smith or Trump's lawyers. And the judge, if it is a judge that understands the value of it going quickly. But let me say one thing about why he did this. I think also we need to realize he did a fundraising plea within an hour. I know. Learning. That's why I'm asking. And this is usually it's about money. I think in his weird brain, if he had documents nobody else had that he wasn't supposed to have, that meant they were worth something. I know. Why does he have this is a monetizing thing for him. It's all a

grift. So, Jen, let's talk a little more about this point about this comes as a campaign is going. Yeah. And we have had two indictments already, more potentially coming from the Trump perspective. Yes, he's going to use it for fundraising. Yes, this might help on the Republican primary. Yes, at least so far, some of his GOP rivals are even standing up to him, although it allows them to bring up the indictment. So it helps a little bit. It helps them, too. But just the mechanics of how is he going to campaign next year if he's coming in and out of a courtroom, whether it's New York or Miami? How's he going to do this? Well, I mean, I think he's betting it could be useful to him with his face. It is certainly possible that he could have an ankle bracelet on at the convention.

A number of legal experts, including the former FBI director, has said that recently. I want to just go back to the documents for a second, because it is true. And we don't know this right now. And I don't know when we'll know this, that it could be that he was showing off for fundraiser for rich donors, that he just thinks he lives by a different set of rules. Could be more nefarious. What is also true, and I'd be interested in what the Gulf correspondent thinks of this, is that he is making a great deal of money from his financial deals in Saudi Arabia. What has been reported is that some of these documents that he may have showed others are about Iran war plans and nuclear secrets. Well, that's a whole different ballgame.

Guess who cares about those? Saudi Arabia and a lot of countries in the Gulf. So we don't know that, but that is something that is not a 0% chance that's a possibility. Joe. Yeah, I just said from the beginning, I know Mika has too. With him, it's always about the money. It is. Always follow the money. It's always about the money. It is always follow the money.

It's always about the money. So it's something he could have sold. Yeah. Well, Jen, I won't speculate on it. I'll just say it's always about the money. And if maybe you don't sell it, maybe you just have it. Maybe you just pass on information to other people. And that helps you create even a closer relationship. So but anyway, we won't speculate on what it is. But but I do know it's not speculating when you say with Donald Trump, it's always about the money. So, Michael Beschloss, let me end with you on this very historic morning, morning after, and just get your get your final thoughts. What should Americans be thinking about today as they absorb this news, digest it?

They should be sorry that someone like Donald Trump became president if he is guilty of these charges. And they should have faith in our system. You know, the sad day would be if he did these terrible things that he's accused of, and our system somehow couldn't get its act together, and this guy got off scot-free or got elected again without coming to justice. You know, the other thing is, this is really surreal. I mean, before the last seven years, who in our group this morning could have imagined that we would be talking plausibly about a former president of the United States willfully taking documents, being told that they had to come back by the archives, lying about it, saying no. And we're talking about the possibility that he might have sold these things for money, possibly to hostile countries.

If we had brought this up, let's say we were talking in 2015, I would have said, you know, this is fine for some thriller, but that doesn't happen in real American life. Look how far we've come. Who could imagine Claire McCaskill that a president of the United States would be charged with federal crimes under the Espionage Act? That is. Directly taken from some some some thriller and unfortunately, instead of a thriller with us, it's a tragedy. You know, I've been watching the plumbers on HBO, and I'm constantly reminded that it's not the crime, it's the cover up. And that's really this. It is. It wasn't him walking with those documents. It's how he handled it after the fact. And no one would ever think a president United States would be that stupid, that egocentric, that focused on something of value that only he could have, that he would do something this serious. And that's really what the jury is going to hear about. All it takes is one juror to hang a jury. Um, all it takes is one. So these prosecutors, let's not forget these prosecutors have a big task. They have to convince all 12 beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump did what appears to be obvious that he did, but it's,

you know, buckle up. This is going to be quite a while. Yes, it is. Michael Beschloss, Chuck Rosenberg and George Conway, thank you all very much for being on this morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe, much more on the first ever federal indictment of a former American president, including reaction from Donald Trump's 2024 GOP rivals. Meanwhile, Republicans on the House Oversight Committee are doubling down on accusations of corruption against President Biden and his family. We'll speak with the ranking Democrat on that panel, Congressman Jamie Raskin, who says there are no grounds to escalate the investigation. Plus, the Supreme Court delivers a victory for voting rights advocates, reaffirming a landmark civil rights law that was thought to be in jeopardy.

We'll have the details surrounding yesterday's surprise decision. Also ahead, live reporting from Ukraine as Kiev launches its long expected counteroffensive against Russia. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Making news this morning, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues to monitor American air quality this morning as smoke from Canadian wildfires drifts across the country. President Biden said he's asked Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to continue to update him on how the smoke might be affecting U.S. air travel and proactively manage the situation. The White House says Americans can check their local air quality at airnow.gov. People can also look up recommendations for how to stay safe from cdc.gov. But most people

say wear a mask outside and don't go outside if it's really bad. A senior officer in Ukraine's military tells NBC News that Kiev has officially launched its counteroffensive. The Washington Post reports Ukraine's military intensified its strikes yesterday near the front lines in the southeast as it begins to push into Russian-occupied territory. Moscow's defense minister said yesterday that Ukraine sent up to 1,500 soldiers and 150 armored vehicles into the region of Zaporizhia, though his claims could not be independently verified. According to the Post, that region has long been considered the likely location of a new Ukrainian campaign to unfold over the upcoming

months. We'll have a live report from Ukraine in our next hour. And in a surprise ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Republican drawn congressional districts in Alabama as a violation of the Voting Rights Act. The court ruled five to four backing civil rights activists who say the new districts discriminated against black voters. Chief Justice John Roberts and Trump appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberals in the majority. The map of the seven districts will now have to be redrawn. The White House celebrated the unexpected win, and NAACP President Derek Johnson wrote in a statement, quote, this decision is a victory for black America and a triumph for our democracy. A proper democracy cannot function without the black vote.