Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/1/22

Episode Date: July 1, 2022

Rep. Cheney defends January 6 Committee work in primary debate

Sunrise over New York City on a beautiful Friday morning. It is six o'clock on the dot on the first day of July. Good morning. I'm Willie Geist. Joe and Mika have the morning off. It is a busy Friday morning. We're following new concerns of possible coercion and witness pressure. After the revelation, Donald Trump's political organization and allies are covering the legal fees for some of the witnesses in the House investigation into the January 6th attack. Plus, Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney of that committee defending her work there during last night's Republican primary debate in Wyoming as she fights to keep her seat in Congress.

And the latest in the debate over abortion rights. President Biden says the Senate should make an exception and suspend the filibuster and its rules to allow new protections to make it through Congress. But does he have the votes to pull that off? We'll discuss it. And a brutal six months for financial markets as Wall Street closes out one of its worst periods in more than a half century. CNBC's Brian Sullivan joins us in just a moment to look ahead to the next six months.

With us this morning, we've got U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye, and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. It's great to see you both. Why don't we dive right in with those new legal and ethical questions being raised about whether former President Trump may be trying to influence witness testimony related to the House Select Committee's January 6 investigation. According to The New York Times, Trump's Save America PAC and his allies have paid for or promised to finance the legal fees of more than a dozen witnesses who have been called in to testify. Financial disclosures show in May alone, Trump's Save America PAC paid about $200,000 to different law firms. The Times notes more than a dozen witnesses also have received free legal advice and had attorney fees paid for by the American Conservative Union's First Amendment Fund, which consults with Trump's team about whose

fees to cover. That is according to Matt Schlapp, the organization's chairman. As we have learned, the House Select Committee asked witnesses whether anyone has tried to influence their testimony. But unlike witness tampering, which of course is a crime, there is nothing illegal about a third party covering legal fees for a witness. Meanwhile, Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney defended her work on the January 6th committee during a primary debate last night while her top opponent defended Donald Trump. Five candidates took the stage in Sheridan, Wyoming, including Cheney and the Trump-backed Harriet Hageman. Recent polls show Cheney facing a big uphill battle in her reelection bid after she was outcast by Republican leadership in Washington for refusing to go along with the big lie and for co-chairing the January 6th commission.

The former president's false claims about a stolen election and Cheney's work to refute them both were on the agenda during last night's debate. People need to know something about me. I will never put party above my duty to the country. I will never put party above my duty to the Constitution. There's a real tragedy that's occurring. And the tragedy is that there are politicians in this country, beginning with Donald Trump, who have lied to the American people. The truth matters. And the claims that Mrs. Hageman is making about the 2020 election are the same claims for which the president's lead lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was disbarred. We're not a democracy, we're a republic. Our republic is not in danger because of President Donald J. Trump.

President Trump was an excellent president for the United States of America, and especially for the state of Wyoming. The threat to our republic really comes from other sources, including the fact that right now we're seeing that we have two different systems of justice in this country, where we have one system of justice where you have people like Hunter Biden, or Hillary Clinton, or even Joe Biden, who are not accountable or held accountable for the decisions and the bad acts that they that they undertake.

So Eugene Robinson, Harriet Hageman there, who is leading most polls, some of them by a sizable margin, though there's still some time here before the people of Wyoming go out to vote in that primary standing and defending Donald Donald Trump there, drawing equivalents to Hillary Clinton, which, of course, in this case, given what we've heard just in the last week alone, is laughable. We heard something similar in Arizona two nights ago in the governor's debate there, where you have a candidate standing and defending Donald Trump. Liz Cheney, as we've said many times, is just point blank putting her career on the line by doing what she's been doing over the last year and a half or so.

And she doesn't seem bothered by that. No, she's not. I mean, she she she knew the job was dangerous when she took it. I mean, she knew what she was getting into when she stood up for truth instead of Donald Trump. And she knew that this would make it very difficult for her to get reelected in Wyoming, because the Republican base is still with Donald Trump. And it's unclear at this point whether that's Trump leading the base or the base leading Trump. I mean, it's — you know, at some point, you have to look at those voters and in the face of mountains and mountains of truth revealed not just by

the January 6th committee, but by, you know, events over the last six years about Donald Trump, who he is, what a danger he presents to our democracy, to our republic, to whatever you want to call it. And the Republican base is unfazed by that because they want what Trump continues to sell. And so this is going to be very difficult for Liz Cheney. Now, there's some slippage. Trump is seeing some slippage among big donors, obviously. You know, some leading Republicans are getting nervous about the idea of him still essentially being in charge of the party. And right now, the likely candidate in 2024, we'll see about that.

But it's tough for Liz Cheney. You know, maybe she can convince enough Democrats to cross over and vote in the Republican primary and give her a boost. But she's got a real uphill climb. Yeah, there's one poll, Caddy K., that has Heigman up by 30 points or so on Liz Cheney. But as Gene said, that gap has closed in the last couple of weeks. But it's still obviously she's running like the underdog. She's running like she's the challenger here. It remains extraordinary, though, that you can sit and listen to the testimony that we've heard over the last three weeks or so in front of this January 6th committee, some of it just in black and white about what the president did in and around January 6th and still be able to stand on a stage,

defend what he did, and then go and look yourself in the mirror that night or say, you know, good night to your children with a clear conscience, truly. But it's what you have to do still to win these primaries in most Republican races. Yeah, I just spent some time out in Wyoming talking to people, both supporters and detractors of Liz Cheney's. And it's been so interesting on this trip I've done around America over the last month. I, as you're suggesting, Willie, thought that this was entirely cynical, that people were using the idea that the election was stolen just to try and curry favor with Donald Trump. Having spoken to people in Wyoming for a week, I think people genuinely believe it. I mean, I think when you raise a point, as Liz Cheney did,

that whatever the point is, no, the election was not stolen. Rudy Giuliani was disbarred. There is always, as we heard in that clip, a comeback. Harriet Hageman saying, oh, well, Hunter Biden wasn't investigated. But people are fervent in their belief that Donald Trump won the 2020 election in Wyoming, those I spoke to, and they are really opposed to Liz Cheney. Now, most people there agree that there will be some Democrats. And I interviewed one who said she was going to hold her nose and vote for Liz Cheney in the poll box because she had never voted Democrat in her life. But this time around, it was that important because it's an open state and you can vote either way. And so they think her numbers will probably get up to about 30 or 40 percent. Perhaps it'll be closer than it's looking at the

moment. But the degree to which Liz Cheney has sacrificed her political career by going on the January the 6th committee, by voting to impeach Donald Trump is pretty clear out there. It would be remarkable if she managed to be reelected. And she is fully cognizant of that. And it's one thing to stand up in Washington and talk about the January 6th committee's work and Donald Trump trying to steal the election. It's a very another thing to do it in Wyoming at the moment where the mood against her is is so powerful. And you're absolutely right. There are, of course, millions and millions of Americans who genuinely believe the election was stolen because of information they've been fed through their media channels. But a politician who theoretically should know better is cynical in feeding that back to them so that he or she can

can win an election. President Biden, we're hearing now, likely will deliver a speech on the January 6th committee's findings once the House panel wraps up its investigation. That's according to White House officials. Sources say the goal of that speech would be to emphasize what Biden believes is at stake. Should former President Trump or his allies return to power in Washington? For more on this, let's bring in NBC News correspondent Josh Letterman. Josh, good morning. A busy week for this president as he returns from the NATO summit in Madrid yesterday. Big news there. But let's talk about this speech first. When do we expect to hear it? And what do you

think is the idea behind it? Why would the president do it? Well, it won't be until after the January 6th committee has finished their probe, Willie. And really throughout this hearing process, we have not seen President Biden piping in from the sidelines with running commentary on every new development from the hearings, shocking as they may be. And that is really by design, because the White House feels like President Biden's use of the bully pulpit on this particular issue is most effective if he is not seen as weighing in on the incremental developments, but instead saves that power of his voice for really the big key moments for once the major conclusions have been drawn and the country is in a period to reflect on what they've learned. That's when they say President Biden will come in with a speech that they are discussing having after the committee finishes its investigation, where the president can really outline the stakes here. Put this in the context of the fight between democracy and autocracy that he speaks about so often, that battle for the soul of America that he and our friend John Meacham like to speak about. And there's another reason

that the White House really wants to wait and pick their moments for President Biden to be seen out front on this issue. And that's the Justice Department and Merrick Garland, the attorney general, already under enormous pressure, as many Democrats and even some Republicans like Adam Kinzinger are openly expressing frustration with the slow pace, at least outwardly, of investigations from the Justice Department. The White House wants to make sure they are doing everything possible to inoculate that investigative process from any perception of interference by the White House. And that is why this speech is being planned for after the major conclusions have been drawn by the committee. They've done their hearings and President Biden can start to use this to frame the midterm elections and the real threat that he will describe if Republicans are allowed to retake Congress and President Biden, former President

Trump, would be reelected in 2024, Willie. Yeah, the White House has been happy to let these hearings speak for themselves for the time being, and we'll try to put a bow on it at the end. At that NATO summit yesterday, Josh, as I mentioned, President Biden criticized the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, said he supports making an exception to the Senate filibuster rules to get abortion rights through Congress. Here's what he said. I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law. And the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that. And if the filibuster gets in the way, it's like voting rights. It should be. We provide an exception for this. They accept the requiring exception to the filibuster for this action.

An exception to the filibuster. When asked to clarify, the president said he is in favor of making an exception to the filibuster to protect privacy rights, a central component of the Roe decision. Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema both support codifying abortion rights into law, but oppose changing filibuster rules to do it. So, Josh, here we are again talking about scrapping the filibuster, at least making an exception in this case for abortion rights. The White House, though, careful to talk about it as an issue of privacy rights. That's right, Willie. And this is one of those moments where President Biden came in front of reporters with some news to make. He knew he was likely to get a question on that and was ready to declare his support for a carve out to the filibuster for these abortion and privacy rights. He'd previously expressed support for carving out

an exception to the filibuster on voting protections. Now, President Biden says this should extend to these privacy issues. And when he talks about privacy issues under my underlining that Roe versus Wade overturn, what he's talking about is the concern that the Supreme Court could go even farther and start to look at other precedents that are also based on those privacy protections, like same-sex marriage, like access to contraception, and even like consensual sex between adults of the same sex. So this was more of a nod to the president's base than any real legislative strategy,

because, as you point out, you know, stop me if you've heard this one before, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema are still as opposed to a carve out to the filibuster, even for this narrow issue of abortion and privacy as they are to any other issue. And that means that Democrats, they don't have the votes to go ahead with this. But we do expect the president to keep pushing on this issue publicly, which is really all he can do right now. And to that end today, in just a few hours, President Biden will be meeting virtually with Democratic governors from those states that have really rushed to shore up protections for abortion rights in the wake of this Supreme Court decision. It is one of the ways that the White House is trying to cast a focus on how the fight really now does shift to the states, both to those where the Justice Department,

others will be challenging some of the restrictions that may be put into place, but also to the Democratic or left-leaning states that are going to protect abortion rights and which are now going to become the safe havens where the Biden administration is bracing for so many women from no abortion states to be traveling to these legal abortion states to seek out care. There are concerns that those states' public health systems could be inundated by that influx of new patients. That is something the White House is also hoping to help states prepare for in the days ahead, Willie. Another busy day at the White House. NBC's Josh Letterman, thanks so much for capturing it all for us this morning. We appreciate it. The Supreme Court capped off a week of landmark decisions yesterday by limiting the EPA's power

to curb carbon dioxide emissions. By a six to three vote, the court ruled the Clean Air Act, first established in 1963, does not give the environmental agency the authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants that contribute to global warming. Writing for the conservative majority, Chief Justice John Roberts conceded that even though regulating a transition away from coal would be a, quote, sensible solution to the crisis of the day, the EPA does not have the authority to do that. In her dissent, Justice Elena Kagan condemned the court for appointing itself, quote, the decision maker on climate policy, said she could not think of many things more frightening. President Biden also blasted the ruling, which experts say could hurt the White House plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by the end of the decade. For more on this, let's bring in CNBC's Brian Sullivan.

Sully, good to see you this morning. How's the business world reacting to this? Well, it's a big blow potentially to the clean energy agenda, which, by the way, could be a major economic driver as well, Willie. I mean, let's not forget that there are trillions of dollars globally that are looking to be invested in clean energy alternatives, wind, solar, hydro, you name it. This could be, not will be, but it could be a blow to that. It also may be a more wide sweeping decision with regards to what they call the major questions doctrine. I'll get to that in just one second. But the decision to your point was six to three and effectively said that unless Congress expressly authorizes something in the text of a law that regulatory agencies, whether in this case it is

the Environmental Protection Agency, are not allowed to interpret and change policy that will have to the basically the court's summation, widespread sort of policy and economic reactions. Why this matters for the remainder of the economy is that if you take this concept of this major questions doctrine that Chief Justice Roberts is enacting here, Willie, you can you can stretch that out well beyond environment, well beyond this case and say that agencies, whether it's the Securities and Exchange Commission, the FCC, the FTC, have just been widely reduced in their ability to create rules. Yeah, it makes it raises the question of what's the EPA there for then, if not for this. Gene, you're writing about this in your new column this morning.

You call this ruling from the Supreme Court utterly catastrophic for the environment. What what are the implications? What's the fallout of this? Well, look, the fallout is that the Supreme Court is limiting the ability of the EPA to do what Congress told it to do, what it's supposed to do under the Clean Air Act, under the Toxic Substances Act, under the legislation, the environmental legislation that's been passed over many years, which is to, you know, clean the environment and to get pollutants out of the air and out of the water. And what the court, I believe, is trying to do here is a matter of ideology more than policy, because it's trying to sort of cut what it calls the—or what conservatives call the administrative

state down to size and to say Congress really needs to, you know, legislate stuff like this and not leave it to the agency to do, I respond, good luck with that. I mean, the EPA rules are developed, you know, by experts and scientists and people who know the data and this and that, and good luck trying to get Congress to go through that sort of process and come out with anything that's meaningful or intelligent. But a question for Sully, which is, in this case, the rules in question, which were kind of moot anyway, because there were Obama-era rules that never went into effect, and the Trump-era rules never went into effect. And there really wasn't anything concrete for the court to decide here, but they decided it anyhow.

But the whole point of what the Obama administration was trying to do was to get these existing power plants to switch from coal to natural gas and cleaner fuels. Isn't that happening faster, actually, than the rules would have made it happen just because of market forces? Well, I think you're right, Gene. Yeah. And I think that and I think that's one aspect to this. And I know that the headline for the Supreme Court seems pretty grim. And to your point, these laws actually were never enacted. In fact, they were based off a Nixon-era law that also was never enacted. But I think the court was trying to make a bigger point here.

But yes, you are correct. Market forces are working to say, guess what? With ESG, environmental social governance investing, we don't want coal. So the Wall Street money is not going to go there anyway. So the market is saying, you know what Wall Street money is not going to go there anyway. So the market is saying, you know what, these technologies ultimately are going to go away. They are bad for the planet. And so what we're going to do is we're going to put all of our Wall Street capital, global capital into things like either natural gas, maybe nuclear, we'll see, Gene, wind, solar,

et cetera. And the irony of it is right now is that coal is being used far more by China and India. We're seeing Europe kind of bring a little bit of coal back, probably in the short term because of Putin's insane war and their natural gas flows. But you are correct. The market will hopefully correct these dynamics. The one thing I would add, though, is that if you expand and I'm not a lawyer, I do have a law degree, but I'm not an attorney. If you expand that major questions doctrine, guys, you could get to a point where you could say, what power do these agencies have? The SEC is trying to limit climate disclosures or force companies to put their climate disclosures in their public releases. Is that null and void? Is it cap and trade system created by the EPA or other agencies? Is that now DOA because of this? This is going to have a lot more sweeping impact potentially than just this one case.

Yeah, it's clearly a continuation of the of the conservative theory that very many branches of government, agencies of government don't need to be there in the first place and can they undermine them as much as possible. Sully, while we've got you here, I think this is day one of the second half of the year. The first half of the year was pretty dismal for investors. What are you looking ahead to the second half? There's just been a report from the Eurozone saying that inflation has hit a record high of 8.6%, which doesn't suggest to me that we're kicking off the second half on particularly cheerful news. But what are you looking at? How's this second half going? And how's that inflation number doing? You're right, we're not. But it's Friday. We're heading into the 4th of July weekend. So I don't want to be the Grim Reaper. I want to be a little bit optimistic. You want to be a nice American

optimist at this point. That's right. That's right. Hot dogs. And we're going to have sleep also. And Willie and Gina, you guys all know what we're talking about. Sleep is key on these long weekends. All right. So here's what we're looking for.

We're looking for the Federal Reserve. It's sleep. We're looking for the Federal Reserve to pivot. Right now, the Federal Reserve, the nation's central bank, has been raising interest rates. We know that. They're trying to slow the economy, effectively pump the brakes on that huge truck that is the U.S. economy. They want to slow it down without driving into a ditch, which would be a recession. What we're looking for is that slight pivot, probably toward the end of the year,

where the Federal Reserve indicates to the American people and to Wall Street that it is going to either slow or stop its aggressive pace of interest rate hikes. That's going to be sort of the key to everything. It was the worst first half to a year for the stock market since Ali Ryan O'Neill and Ali McGraw starred in Love Story in 1970. So that that's that. How about that, Willie? There you go. That's how bad I even know what that movie is. That is Wikipedia. That's how bad the first half of the year was. Here's the upside. Here's the upside. And hopefully a love story in the end is that my I like to think that as the market has gone down 25, 30 percent this year, things can only look up longer term. You're

welcome. And that's a love story in and of itself. CNBC's Brian Sullivan trying to keep it positive as we headed the weekend. Sully, always great to see you, my friend. Thanks so much. The end of the Supreme Court session this year also meant the beginning of a new chapter in American history. All of the members of the court, I am pleased to welcome Justice Jackson to the court and to our common calling. Justice, yes, now Justice Katonji Brown Jackson officially sworn in yesterday to the Supreme Court, making her the first black woman ever to serve on the nation's highest court. Her swearing in comes after Justice Stephen Breyer retired after 28 years on the bench. Justice Jackson issued a statement following the ceremony, writing, quote, I am truly grateful to be part of the promise of our great nation.

I extend my sincerest thanks to all of my new colleagues for their warm and gracious welcome. Gene, it's nice to have at least one brief moment in America where you can put politics to the side and just say, wow, that was a beautiful moment in history. Yeah, it's a real it's a real milestone. And it, you know, just personally, it makes me proud. It's gratifying to see this step forward. You know, I pity her experience in the next few years on the court because I fear she's going to be there with Sotomayor and Kagan dissenting in a lot of cases, as the conservative majority just kind of does whatever it wants to do. But the fact that an African-American woman has reached the pinnacle of our legal ladder,

has reached the top there and is now serving in this office is an inspiration. I think it should be an inspiration for the whole country. And as you said, a nice note to end what has otherwise been a pretty dismal Supreme Court session on. Yeah, a day for history yesterday. And as you say, now the real work begins still ahead this morning on Morning Joe. The latest out of Ukraine as Russia launches new missile strikes overnight in Odessa, killing more than a dozen people, including children. The very latest in a live report. Plus, David Ignatius says NATO is united on Ukraine, but plenty could still go wrong. David joins us ahead with his latest piece for The Washington Post. Also this morning, after months of being detained in Russia, WNBA star Brittany Griner

expected to appear in a Moscow courtroom today. The latest on the fight to bring her home. And millions of Americans are traveling this holiday weekend. We will take a look at what to expect if you're hitting the roads or heading to the airport. You're watching Morning Joe on a Friday morning. We'll be right back. 6.32 in the morning. Beautiful live picture of the White House on this Friday morning. The trial for WNBA star Brittany Griner began today in a Moscow courtroom. The appearance comes more than four months now after Griner was arrested at a Russian airport where officials said they found vape cartridges containing cannabis oil in her luggage.

Griner faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted, something legal experts tell The New York Times is all but certain, despite the calls for her release from the United States. The State Department considers Griner wrongfully detained by Russia. Overnight in Ukraine, at least 19 people were killed when Russian missiles hit near the port city of Odessa. Ukraine's state emergency services say at least 30 others, including three children, were injured in that attack. Officials say one missile hit a nine-story residential building, which is home to around 100 people. The other missile hit a nearby recreational center.

The attack comes a day after Russian troops withdrew from Snake Island, a pivotal island in the Black Sea. Joining us now live from Kiev, NBC News correspondent Ellison Barber. Ellison, good to see you today. These attacks seem to be coming more frequently deeper inside Ukraine. Yeah, I mean, it is an ongoing situation. And from the initial reports, we're getting a very disturbing one. As you said, officials say at least 19 people are dead, dozens wounded, including children. Ukrainian officials say Russian missiles hit an apartment building as well as two recreation centers. We understand, according to local officials, that at least 152 people lived in that apartment building. They say dozens are still unaccounted for. They are going through the rubble because they are afraid more people might be trapped. I mean, this comes on

the heels of an Amnesty International report accusing Russia of committing a war crime in Mariupol as it relates to the theater that came under attack when people were sheltering there. Since the full-scale war began in February, Ukrainian officials have accused Russian forces of committing more than 15,000 war crimes. In late May, Ukraine's prosecutor general told reporters that their office is receiving up to 300 reports of war crimes every single day. Russia routinely denies targeting civilians or civilian infrastructure, but the evidence that that is a lie is overwhelming. And we've seen it from Kiev to Kramenshchuk. I spoke to a man just a few weeks ago who recently had fled Mariupol. We talked to him days after he'd made

it out of that city. He talked about how under Russian occupation, people there are being forced to capture and kill pigeons just so they have something to eat. They're taking water, he says, from their boilers because they don't have good access, very limited access to clean drinking water. He said when he was trying to leave the area, he almost died after Russian forces grabbed him, yanked him out of the car, put him on his knees and held a gun to his back. He said the only reason the trigger was not pulled was because a van that had children and a lot of people in it pulled up next to him. And for whatever reason, he said that the Russian soldier paused and then just let him go. So what's happening in Odessa, it is coming on the heels of Russian forces leaving Snake Island. They have claimed that they left as a gesture of goodwill.

But the UK's Ministry of Defense says, given the different attacks that Ukrainian forces have launched on that island, particularly the garrison and other areas where they were using it to kind of get extra resources in, that they were forced to leave this area by the attacks that were coming from Ukrainian forces. Ukrainian forces are celebrating that as a victory that is very close to Odessa. So this attack coming right after is really coming on the heels of another significant military development that was positive for Ukraine, negative for Russia. Willie. And even propaganda around that, the Russians saying, no, we're just leaving Black Island to open shipping lanes for products coming out of Ukraine.

NBC's Alison Barber live for us this morning in Kiev. Alison, thank you as always. Joining us now, columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius. David, it's good to see you this morning. We've been talking to military experts about these attacks, like the one on the mall a few days ago that killed at least 18 people, probably many more. And they say this is pure psychological warfare. Russians telling the Ukrainian people, we can still do this. Yes, you've repelled us from Kiev. Yes, you've pushed us to the east. And it may seem like the war is there, but we still have the ability to terrorize you. David, we've lost David's shot here.

We're going to work on that. But, Katty, I'll just pick up on the point with you that there was sort of this feeling over the last couple of months that the fight had moved to the Donbass, to the east, where, of course, there is fighting going on. But now Russia, even just in the last week especially, targeting these facilities like the mall, full of civilians facilities like the mall full of civilians, like residential buildings full of civilians. Yeah. And Russia does this when things are

happening that it wants to almost retaliate for. That mall was struck when the G7 was meeting residential facilities as NATO expands. And things have actually been going better for Russia in the east of the country. They have been making more gains. Ukraine has been struggling. Both sides are starting to hit up against supply issues. Russia, the hope is from the West's point of view that the sanctions in Russia will start to make it hard for Russia to resupply its military. We don't exactly know. The intelligence is not as good as one might think on this. But that's the hope from the West's point of view, is that the sanctions will hit and Russia will run into problems resupplying its military, particularly because of things like the semiconductor ban. But at the moment, the Russians seem to be doing pretty well,

comparative to how they were doing, certainly in the beginning of the war, in the east of the country. But every time the West does something like expand NATO or hold a meeting recommitting to the Ukrainian effort, then Putin's default seems to be to take action against civilians. It's the same playbook that he used in Syria. There's no particular reason to be surprised by it. But it's hard for Ukrainians who felt they were just starting to get back to life as normal and then you get hit again. And I think there's something of a kind of time and supply issue that we're going to start coming up against. Is the West going to carry on being committed to supplying Ukrainians with as much weaponry as they need? Not just weapons, but with as much weaponry as they need to hold off the Russians? And is Russia going to manage to keep its stocks alive in the face of these sanctions?

And that's what Western analysts and diplomats and leaders are kind of looking at. At what point does Russia seriously become diminished by the sanctions? Because at the moment, it doesn't seem to have affected them as much, perhaps, as Westerners had hoped that it would. And the answer to your question about Western support yesterday, anyway, from President Biden as he left the NATO summit was, yes, $800 million more of military aid headed toward Ukraine. While we work on David Ignatius's technical problems, we're going to take a quick break. When we come back, we'll get a live report from Beijing as China's president is marking an important anniversary with his first trip out of the country in more than two years. Plus, new reporting on evidence former President Trump and his allies are trying to influence witness testimony to the January 6th committee. We'll explain that. And Delta pilots are making a

statement just as we hit a busy holiday weekend. We'll have more about the many issues travelers are facing today and in the days ahead as you get out on the road and to the airports. Morning Joe's coming right back. Happy to say we got Davidid ignatius back up he's of course the columnist and associate editor for the washington post david your new piece for the paper is titled nato is united on ukraine good but plenty could still go wrong david let's start with the good and what we saw in the last couple of days just an extraordinary strengthening of the alliance, a commitment of military spending from the member nations and the addition of Finland and Sweden. Willie, it was that overused word historic NATO summit, the addition of two powerful countries,

Finland and Sweden, bolsters NATO in the north. NATO is moving east, I think, in terms of its center of gravity. There will be U.S. troops now stationed in Poland for command headquarters. There will be additional U.S. troops going to the Baltic states, going to Romania. There'll be more American destroyers, fighter planes. And our European allies were all basically speaking the same script about sticking with Ukraine. The worries that some might be defecting were not in evidence at the NATO summit in Madrid. So what could go wrong? Unfortunately, there are a series of things that I think the U.S. and its allies need to think through very carefully. The first is just

what happens on the battlefield. We saw overnight missiles lobbed into Odessa, a city on the coast that hasn't seen much fighting, civilian loss of life, just as a terrible attack on the shopping mall earlier in the week. Those things are daily occurrences for Ukraine. They sap morale. They make this war so hard for the Ukrainians. We need to make sure that these NATO weapons are getting into Ukraine and the numbers in a timely way so that the Ukrainians can keep up the fight as their morale is attacked by the Russians. Something has to be done clearly about energy prices, the high level of energy prices if it continues.

Again, SAP's strength among among Ukraine supporters. There was talk about doing something about that, both at the NATO summit and the G7 summit earlier in Germany. But there's no specific plan yet. And then finally, the question of how Ukraine is going to have access to the Black Sea to ship its grain. Ukraine and Russia from the Black Sea supply 30 percent of the world's grain. It's crucial in terms of the world's ability to feed itself that that grain be able to pass out. Again, a lot of talk at these summits this week about addressing food shortages, but no specific action plan yet. So, you know, my summary, Willie, is there was a lot of good news. NATO is holding together. Seeing this fight is

crucial for the future. But there's still a lot of ways you can see the West losing as Putin sits in Moscow, lobs his missiles, bides his time, doesn't seem to be in a rush. And so somehow the pace of commitment's got to be stepped up in the West. David, the famous David Petraeus question, tell me how this ends. Tell me how or what the thinking is about how anyone might end Putin's practice of just sort of lobbing missiles at civilian targets in Ukraine whenever he has a fit of peak or he suffers a loss or just feels like it. It seems to me that could go on indefinitely, despite what's happening on the battlefield in the Donbass or near Kersan or in the actual war. But he's not going to run out of dumb munitions anytime soon or ever and has this ability to just strike civilian targets at will. And that, it seems to me, could go on for years and years.

What's the thinking about how you turn that off somehow? So, Gene, the standard answer I hear at the Pentagon, the White House, is that's for Ukraine to decide. President Biden has said that he believes this conflict should end in a negotiated settlement. But when those negotiations begin, what position Ukraine takes, whether Ukraine might agree to some temporary holding of its land by Russia in exchange for a ceasefire. Those are all questions for the future. And the White House tries to make clear that's not for us to decide. It's the Ukrainian people who are fighting and dying who will have to make the decisions. I think there is a hope that as the West steps up its aid to Ukraine, puts in weapons that really can go right at

Russian command and control on the border, maybe weapons even that can go over the border. If Russians are firing missiles, they shouldn't be invulnerable just because they're a few kilometers back. That if that weapons flow continues, if technology controls on Russia continue, they don't, in fact, in Moscow, have an inexhaustible supply. At some point, they're wearied. The economic effects of the war begin to hit them. There are some U.S. and British intelligence reports that the damage that's being done to the Russian

military, their exhaustion of supplies is more serious than we've been able to report here in the West. It's impossible to fact check those, but I know that the intelligence agencies take a view that Russia is hurting. So the answer, Gene, would be that you just keep doing what you're doing. At some point, the price will be unacceptable for Putin. He may not come into a formal peace agreement, nor may Zelensky. But fighting at this level of intensity isn't likely to continue indefinitely. It's just too costly for both sides. At some point, there will have to be some concessions. David Ignatius, thanks so much for being with us this morning. We always appreciate it.

We'll be reading, of course, in The Washington Post. Today marks the 25th anniversary of Hong Kong being handed over from British rule back to the Chinese government. President Xi Jinping made the trip to the city to mark the occasion, his first trip off the Chinese mainland since January of 2020 before the pandemic began. Join us now live from Beijing, NBC News foreign correspondent Janice Mackey-Frayer. Janice, it's good to see you this morning. What's the significance of President Xi's trip to Hong Kong? Well, this is highly symbolic, Willie, not only because it's his first international trip since the pandemic. He swore in the new leader in Hong Kong, John Lee, who's a former police officer who was handpicked by Beijing

and was also behind the imposition of the national security law there that many say has created a police state. In many ways, Xi's visit seals a victory over Hong Kong. The protest movement has been all but silenced. It wasn't that long ago that we were there covering protests that were sometimes drawing two million people to the streets. Now, hundreds of activists have been rounded up, arrested, facing trial. Journalists, politicians, media outlets have been shut down. And the image of Hong Kong has been seriously altered. But this is an important victory for Xi Jinping in a politically significant year, because later this year he will enter a third term in power. And all of this being very closely watched in Taiwan, where the

government has rejected repeatedly this same one country, two systems of rule that they say has eroded rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. And of course, so much tension has been building over the future of Taiwan with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the sense that China is watching closely and taking notes not only to see about an eventual military move on Taiwan, but also where the U.S. stands. And in that sense, the messaging from the Biden administration has been confusing for Chinese officials. President Biden has at times suggested that the U.S. will do more to help Taiwan militarily, only to have White House officials then walk his comments back. This mixed messaging is getting attention here in Beijing.

I sat down recently with Zhou Bo. He's a former senior colonel in the People's Liberation Army and now with a think tank at Tsinghua University. The American government is still talking about a one China policy, right? But in my observation, they will always talk about one China policy, but the content of one China policy is changing. So with such kind of remarks from a president for the third time, definitely something has changed and it's in the wrong direction. Could someone talk about something unintentionally for the third time? That's my answer. So I don't believe the United States wants to have a war with China in the Taiwan Strait.

That said, however, it is doing still all kinds of things that are considered to be provocative to the mainland. That is the problem. If China has to go to war to safeguard its sovereignty, China may just take unpeaceful means as a last resort. Another point of disagreement is the status of the Taiwan Strait. China sees it as sovereign territory, whereas the U.S. sees it as international waters. To that, Zhou Bo said that there is no such thing as international

water and international law. Quote, this concept is fabricated by the United States. Willie? Janice, my sense is speaking to business leaders here in the U.S. that they feel U.S.-China relations are really at a low point, that there is almost no communication happening between Chinese officials and American officials at the moment. Put this in the context of what that means for security in Taiwan, but more broadly, what it means for American businesses and for American investors in China and for the relationship more generally. Well, the relations are near or low. There's a lot of talk here, of course, of a new Cold War,

but a kind that is different from the Cold War of the past with the former Soviet Union. Zhou Bo, too, that said that years ago between enemies, there were still two points that the U.S. and the Soviet Union could discuss, one of them being the eradication of smallpox. And these days, there are still just two issues that the U.S. and China seem to be willing to discuss. That's climate change and public health policy with the pandemic. So the sense is that there is not a bright future for U.S.-China relations. And the business environment here has been steadily deteriorating, not only because of ongoing tensions over trade, over tariffs, but also because of the COVID restrictions here and what has been seen as

a suffocating environment for any business to try to thrive, let alone foreign businesses. And a lot of foreign companies are now having trouble attracting people, especially people with families, to locate here because of the environment around COVID restrictions. So all of this is playing out, of course, in the economy, in the sense here that there is not much upside for U.S.-China relations, even when it comes to economic reparations. And all of this on the 25th anniversary of being handed over Hong Kong from Great Britain back to China. NBC's Janice Mackey Frayer reporting for us from Beijing. Janice, thanks so much. Still ahead this morning, a spokesperson for Mark Meadows is denying any attempts to influence the testimony of Cassidy Hutchinson during Tuesday's revealing

January 6th committee hearing. The statement to Politico coming as a response to a report by our next guest, Betsy Woodruff-Swan. We will dig into the allegations of witness tampering, as well as what comes next in the panel's investigation into the attack on the Capitol. Morning Joe is coming right back.