Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/16/24

Episode Date: July 16, 2024

FBI investigating Trump rally shooting as potential domestic terrorism

Look, I've never seen a circumstance where you ride through certain rural areas of the country and people have signs there, big Trump signs with a middle sign saying F Biden and the little kid standing there putting up his middle finger. I mean, that's the kind of stuff that is just inflammatory and a kind of viciousness. It's a very different thing than to say, look, I really disagree with Trump's way he takes care of taxes. That was just part of President Biden's wide ranging interview with NBC's Lester Holt. We'll have more of the big moments from that sit down, including the phrase the president admits was a mistake to use. Plus, from never

Trumper to running mate, we'll go through J.D. Vance's evolution on Donald Trump that landed him on the 2024 Republican ticket. Meanwhile, the former president picked up another legal victory with a judge he appointed while he was in the White House tossing out his classified documents case in Florida. We'll have expert legal analysis on that ruling and what could be next for the case. Good morning. It is very good to be here. And welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, July 16th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Peer Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, the president of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's

Politic Nation. Reverend Al Sharpton is with us as well. All right. Two days after an assassination attempt during a rally in Pennsylvania, former President Trump made his first appearance at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee last night. Trump's right ear was visibly bandaged as he entered the convention hall. The crowd was cheering as the former president walked out during a live rendition of Lee Greenwood's God Bless the USA. Meanwhile, new details are beginning to emerge in the assassination attempt investigation. According to senior officials, forensic technicians are working 24 hours a day at the FBI lab in Quantico, Virginia, analyzing the cell phone, laptop, computer and of shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks. They successfully gained access to his phone earlier in the day,

but the search of his electronics have yet to reveal a motive. This, as we're learning, the FBI is now investigating the shooting as an act of domestic terrorism. Authorities found explosives in the car used by the gunman and more than a dozen guns were found in a search of his family home. Three officials say the shooter's father called police following the shooting of Trump to say that he was worried that both his son and his AR-15 were missing. The FBI is probing whether some ammunition was brought and bought in the days before the shooting or whether it was delivered to the home. You know, Willie, I just showing this shot right here. I mean, the overhead view of all of this is still it doesn't you know, the more times we see it, the more shocking it is that they actually had a building where there was a straight line between the shooter and the former president. So many things about this is so shocking.

And, you know, yeah, it was just directly ahead of it. And then you look at what happened after the shooting, how long it took them to get him covered up and protected. There are, you know, as we get further away from this, there are more and more questions about what the Secret Service was doing, not just, you know, pertaining to protecting the perimeter, but also protecting the former president after the first shots rang out? Yeah, it's the question we've been asking since the immediate moments afterward. If you look at that layout in the map we just had up there, how just over a football field away from an elevated position could a 20-year-old

man climb to the roof and just get a clean, open shot on the former president of the United States? It is a stunning failure. We're going to talk in some detail here about that in just a moment. But this is only by the grace of turning his head. Thank goodness. Is Donald Trump still alive for the sake of his own sake, of his family, of the country that he's still here because he turned his head. That was an open shot. And by the way, we're getting some new information here at NBC News. Four officials telling us rally goers alerted local police to a suspicious person near a section of the rally prior to the gunshots ringing out. Lines up with a lot of the videos we've been seeing. Local police searched for the man on foot, but were unable to find him until he was spotted on the roof of that nearby building a short time later.

During the pursuit, local police told the Secret Service they were looking for a suspicious person. However, it was not clear what time the Secret Service is notified and if it was before Trump took the stage. There are some videos out there. The New York Times has one on their website right now of people while Donald Trump was speaking in the minutes before he was shot pointing up to that rooftop and saying there's somebody up there with a gun. NBC News senior White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell has more now on the investigation. Take a look at what happened. Though stunning and unexpected. Authorities had already considered the gunman's rooftop perch a worry witnesses say they spotted

a threat that day we're like hey man there's a guy on the roof with a rifle but the secret service had actually identified the building near the trump rally as a potential vulnerability in the days before the event according to two sources familiar with the agency's operations. But officials say no officers had been posted there. A key question is why. At the White House, Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas said he expects, within days, to choose the head of an independent review from outside the administration. I am committed to going externally of the department and externally of the government so that no question of its independence can be raised. Secret Service officials say they had designated that local law enforcement would secure that building.

Any type of missteps that were made or miscommunication that was made has to be addressed. A major shift affecting independent candidate Robert Kennedy, who has been repeatedly denied government security. The president has directed me to work with the Secret Service to provide protection to Robert Kennedy Jr. Kelly O'Donnell reporting there. Let's bring in NBC News national law enforcement and intelligence correspondent Tom Winter, NBC News law Enforcement Analyst Evie Pampouras. She has experience serving in the Secret Service's Presidential Protective Division and former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC

contributor Barbara McQuaid. Good morning to you all. Tom and Evie, you and I were on the air together Sunday morning in the hours after this took place. Tom, I'll start with you. A question that doesn't feel like it has a lot more answers than it did 48 hours ago, which is what more do we know about this shooter and a potential motive? Last time I saw you, I was hopeful that between the cell phone that they were able to recover, that they would be able to get into that. It is our lives. It doesn't tell a lie. You know, your web search history is your web search history. Your apps are your apps and your messages are your messages.

And I was hopeful that perhaps off of that, they would be able to determine not just the how. I think that's becoming into more focus. You laid out some of the reasons, the purchases of ammo. Last night, we reported that a Home Depot receipt was found on him, a purchase of a ladder. They're trying to determine whether that ladder that was purchased leading up to the shooting was the one that he used to get on the roof. So those type of details are coming through and are becoming more clear. But the why? And I know and I get it because I get the vitriol online. Somebody shot at Donald Trump. What other reason could it be than some sort of a political reason? That's what people are saying. And I think it's important to remember,

first off, the last presidential shooting we had, John Hinckley Jr. did it to impress a Hollywood actress. We've seen a number of incidents happen over the years where people thought the motive was clear and it turned out to be a complete 180 based on the evidence. And that's where the FBI needs to go with it. Then we found out yesterday

that they had a preliminary review of the cell phone. Investigation is still ongoing, obviously, and there was really nothing on that that led them to the why. And I think that's a real challenge. And going forward here in this investigation, they're talking to the family. Every indication so far is that the family has been cooperative, but they're kind of running out of leads at this point. And so I think they're either hoping that somebody comes forward or that they find some other piece of evidence or a needle within needles in a haystack to try to figure out why this happened.

I will caution people that it is possible that we might never know why this individual got on the roof that day. And I would also caution people, people think, well, it's anti-Donald Trump because this person doesn't like them because their views are on the other side of the political spectrum. It is possible that Donald Trump and there's a bit of a theory in law enforcement. Is it possible that Donald Trump was not conservative enough for this individual? It runs the gamut. And I think it's important in this situation. This is the way that we approach our reporting. Everything's on

the table. Let's figure out what authorities have. Let's do our own work, talk to our own people. You saw some of that in Kelly's piece right there. And then from from that point, we can start to piece together why this happened. So, Joe, as we've been reporting the last couple of days, the shooter here, a registered Republican, but also someone who gave fifteen dollars when he was 17 years old to a progressive group that gets voter turnout for Democrats. So everyone's sort of able to ascribe their their priors and their own theories to that using those two truths. I guess. Yeah. Yeah. I just seen the video. It's hard to it's hard. I keep getting shocked by it.

It's it's shocking. We may not know the why for some some time. But but, Tom, the question I have is how? How? How did the Secret Service allow someone to have a straight line of sight to a former president who may be the next president that that that an AR-15 could reach when the Secret Service and law enforcement obviously knows an AR-15, as we've reported time and time again through the years, is the weapon of choice of disturbed young men. And it's within range there. Why weren't there sharpshooters on top of that building? Why were people yelling for almost 90 seconds, there's a shooter on top of the building?

What the hell was going on there? Here's where they're yelling. There's a shooter up there. And 90 seconds. And Tom, I want to show you another video. And, you know, I would love to hear from you, even two on this. Look how long, look how long Donald Trump is exposed.

What are these Secret Service people doing? Look how long he is exposed to a second, third, fourth shooter. Show that video again. A second, third, fourth shooter. I mean, the thing is, the Secret Service has always been trained. When you hear a shot, when you have a threat, get on top of the president, get on the top of the person that you were protecting and stay there. Here, look. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, nine seconds. I'm counting right there, Tom.

Before the edit, who trained these people? How how could anybody in a leadership position in the Secret Service still have a job this morning? Well, I think there's probably a reason why they still have a job is that they have a job to do with respect to the RNC. I completely understand your point. I think looking last night at the at the video that we saw of Trump moving through the crowd at the RNC, it appeared to me to be a very different approach. The amount of Secret Service agents that were between Trump and the crowd at the RNC.

There was no point where there appeared to be any sort of extended gap between kind of human to human. And as far as the agents, you know, essentially elbow to elbow and Donald Trump as he's moving to the position that he ultimately took. And this is inside a building where there is no outside exposure, where everybody had to go through a magnetometer. That's a controlled space. So I think that kind of underscores obviously a change with respect to all of your questions, they're all the exact questions that we have, Joe. You know, we hear so often about the ability of the Secret Service to jump in, to move somebody out of the scene, to get them in the car, get them on the way. I think there's a lot of questions as far as the timing of that. Back to the original component of it. And Tom, Tom, I'm so glad you

talked about the car, because not only did they give a second, third, fourth shooter that could very well have been there nine seconds while he was up on the stage where his head was actually higher than all of theirs. But then he did something that the Secret Service, that well-trained Secret Service members never do. They let him stand up and wave to the crowd from the car. Now, of course, every politician is going to want to do that to say, I'm OK, I'm all right. But I always remember, I always remember after 9-11, George W. Bush ordering the Secret Service to fly him back to Washington, D.C. And finally, Secret Service members saying, I'm sorry, Mr. President, this isn't your plane. This is our plane. Our job is to protect you first. We saw the same thing on January 6th when President Trump wanted to go up to the Capitol. The Secret Service said no. But here

we have people around him that are exposing for nine seconds. And then he gets to the car and they let him stand up once again and expose his head, which, again, is what a politician would do. He stands up and waves back to the crowd there. You could see his head the whole way. But I guess I should just ask you this. Have you ever seen that before? Have you ever seen a group of Secret Service people so fail the person they were supposed to protect? Well, I think one of the natural answer to that is we've so rarely seen this. And so the question might be, is the Secret Service being adequately trained? So if you're a police officer, you're dealing with calls every single day. If you're an FBI agent. But Tom, isn't this what they train for their entire life if you're going to protect the president of the United States? Isn't this what they're trained to do their entire

life? Sure. I mean, look, there's a difference between when you're doing it in a training exercise and there's a difference when it's real life. And so I think there's going to be a lot of questions about whether or not the Secret Service is in a position. I know there are people inside the tactical community that believe should people be rotated in and out of the Secret Service, people that deal with tactical situations more often. And so should that be something where you're not just in the Secret Service, but you're getting more real world type of experience? I think of in New York City, if this incident happened in New York City, you would not only have, I would posit that this incident would not happen in New York City, but of course the resources available in Butler County, Pennsylvania,

are different than the NYPD's. But the people that would be doing this with the Secret Service from the NYPD are kicking in doors every single day on crimes. They're in high-risk situations all the time. And so is this a question where the Secret Service, the people that are doing this type of work, do they need to be cycled in and out of other different types of environments so there's more real-world training? I mean, the last time they actually, real-world experience, the last time they really had to deal with this was the Reagan shooting. Now, I know that people in the Secret Service are going to say, look, you have no idea the type of training that we do. We go through all these type of scenarios. We drill on it all the time. And I have no doubt about it. I think to go back to some of the original videos that

you were showing there, a little bit more of my expertise and a little bit more of my reporting with respect to what happened on the roof. It is our reporting from four officials and my colleagues, Jonathan Deenston, Julia Ainsley, that in fact, they were aware of this person. He was acting suspiciously around the magnetometers. He was acting suspiciously around the crowd. The crowd picked him out. There was a communication back to the command post. What happened there? The Secret Service has its own radio system, its own radio frequencies. It's encrypted. There's all sorts of good reasons for that. But what was the communication between local law enforcement and the Secret Service? And was the threat acted upon quickly enough? Were there also police assets that

were there that they thought maybe this individual was part of the police? Or should there have been a much stronger uniformed police presence? And was it upon the Secret Service to say, hey, this area is a vulnerability. We don't have the agents to cover it. That's not necessarily our job. But we want a uniformed officer that can see another uniformed officer at every single time. And nobody gets on that property and nobody gets on that roof. Again, all questions that we're asking, all questions that will need to be answered. But when you do look at that map, as you pointed out at the beginning of the program, it does raise serious questions. And I think that's the reason why Secret Service is under the microscope. OK, so you serve as a Secret Service agent for 12 years.

You've been on the inside. You protected President Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama. You've worked for several presidents. Let's take it in two parts, which is before the shooting, how this guy got in the roof. I know that was technically outside the perimeter. But as we talked about the other morning, there are about three or four buildings there. You might want to just clear all of those buildings. That's number one. And then number two, the response to it.

We've seen videos since then where a balloon pops, where someone says there might be a gun and a president is rushed off the stage. So you can take that first and then work backward from there, however you want to do it. But there are two pieces that are being questioned pretty seriously this morning. OK, actually, there's three. I want to talk about the the investigative element and then, you know, their tactical training. So we'll touch on that. I think let's start first with the before he's seen, he's spotted, he appears suspicious, right? This is where communication comes in. To your point, as far as having manpower, where you spread people around to verbally pass the message, that you won't be able to do. That's

going to take massive manpower, but that's where honestly your radio comes in. Every secret service is notorious for the what? Speaking into your into your mic piece. So every site that you do, you have a security room command post and you put the agent there, Secret Service, and then you also have liaisons, other all the other law enforcement entities. They have their own representative in there. So let's assume we're the security room here, the command post here. I'm Secret Service. You're state police. You're local police department where it's the point where I look to you. Hey, Tom, tell your guys, blah, blah, blah, blah. Hey, Rev, tell your guys this and this and this. You're passing the information. That's the whole point so that each representative of every agency is there so you can

do this real quick because I have my own radio frequency that I'm using. You have your own comms. You have your own comms. We're not all on the same radio. So that's going to be a question. Was there communication made? So local law enforcement spotted this person. Civilians are saying, hey, police officer so-and-so, did you see this man? That law enforcement person should have gotten on his radio. Hey, team, I'm seeing this. We're reporting this. And the indication from our reporting is that that communication did take place. So they pass that to the U.S. Secret Service.

So then the U.S. Secret Service is passing it to their team. Now, I will say this. When you're at a site, you do consistently hear suspicious person. Yes. I just want to put that out there. What does that mean? I what is suspicious now? Suspicious person with a big backpack that looks like it can carry an AR-15. Very different conversation on the radio. So what was put out there?

Because you're not going to shut down a whole site because you hear suspicious person in a site of thousands of people. So we move next to the to the next part, which is he spotted on the rooftop. What's going on there? We don't know at what point it's speculation. Did he get up there before post up hold? Did he get up there afterward after Trump was on stage and what happened there? Now, you do have your C.S. element. That's counter sniper response. From my understanding, there were two teams. If it's two teams, it's two two-man teams. So where would they post it? Typically, they'll spread out. And what they're doing is they're always canvassing the area. Now, did they spot, did the CS team spot the shooter on the rooftop? There's speculation coming in that they did see him but maybe it's possible they did not engage

immediately to engage a threat on a rooftop like that you you have to first make sure it's a threat just because it's a man on a roof it doesn't mean you engage so could they see him could they see his weapon i've done it's called cs response where you're actually tied to the snipers the snipers are up on the roof or wherever they are and they will tell you hey pompers because that's what they would call me on the radio we see go to grid whatever we have these maps we work off um and we separate the the area and these zones go to zone two whatever uh we third floor here there we see somebody at the window we're not able to understand what it is. Go.

And then that team or that element, I would physically go and find out what's going on. So you would do that if you could not see a weapon or anything like that, because you can't engage someone who's not a threat. Maybe it's a spectator who decided to go up on the rooftop and wants to watch. You can't shoot him. Now, if they had seen the weapon, now the question comes in, again, all speculation, did CS response get confused perhaps with local law enforcement? Often at these events, because of manpower issues, you will bring a local CS team. So I will say

police officer, the police department, do you have your own counter sniper teams? And they may say, yes, we have, we're going to give you ours and can use ours in conjunction with yours. That to my understanding hasn't been verified yet, whether local CS response was present or not. If they were, you should know where they are positioned. Everything is detailed. I mean, the amount of paperwork that you do in the U.S. Secret Service, maps, diagrams, layouts, I mean, it's done to the nth degree. So everybody knows, hey, local people, local police departments, state police, they're here, they're here, they're here.

We are here, here, here. So that everybody knows where everybody is. Now, could there have been a bit of a confusion where our CS team, excuse me, U.S. Secret Service CS team says, hey, we see someone on the roof. Could that be local? And was there confusion there where they maybe weren't sure? Can I jump in for one second, Evie? Before we even get to all that, I think the question a lot of people watching this still have this morning is is why wasn't that building secured? I know technically, again, it was outside the perimeter, but it's 130 yards away. I mean, you would think on a farm where there's only a handful of buildings, we're

not talking about midtown Manhattan, you would lock down all those buildings, especially when there's a clear shot to the stage. 100 percent right. That should be secured. But I will tell you, because U.S. Secret Service resources are so finite, I mean, they fly agents. I wouldn't be. I'm in New York. I started a New York agent. I would be flown to Waco to all over the country to fill in spot. It's spots. It's costly. If I were doing that site common practice, I would say police department so and so secure that building. It is on you. Now you speak to them and you convey what secure means. Being a local police officer sometimes is vastly different from doing security.

But I'm just telling you, you would designate it to them. Now, they, understanding what they need to do, and there might be speculation, did they understand, not understand? I will tell you, secure building means secure building. So did they put the manpower there? Why didn't they put somebody on the rooftop? Did somebody, you know, it's a hot, sunny day. I would hate to presume that, hey, they don't want to put somebody on the rooftop because it's a hot, sunny day and they don't want to they don't want to be overly exposed to the elements. But they had them on other rooftops so that, you know, they could do local PD, local, not CS, CS, CS responses used to being on those rooftops. They know what to do. So if I designate a local police department to secure it, I should be able to trust to some

degree that they secure it. Now, as a side agent, could you have gone in again? I don't know what the team on the ground was because I've done outer perimeter. And when you do these assignments, your feet hurt because I literally go from one point to another, to another, to check, to check, is this person where they need to be? Is this person where they need to be? So also you're going to have that element sequence. At the end of the day, it is on secret service. Did you do your due diligence and make sure everybody was where they were supposed to be? So we want to get you on the aftermath we're looking at here in just a moment.

But Joe, go ahead. There's just no satisfactory answer for why that building wasn't secured. Look at this. Look, look, look. Nine seconds. Nine seconds. He's exposed to the crowd.

Nine seconds. Still exposed. You're going to put your hand over his head? Look at this. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Get on top of him. Again, like they have done. Look at at that that's not Jonathan Lemire I I'm hearing about resources finite resources I'm hearing that RFK jr. his last name, Kennedy. Kennedy doesn't have Secret Service. We have been, before this shooting, a nation on edge. Political rhetoric more violent than any time since the 1960s. This cannot be a question of manpower. This cannot be a question of look, look, look,

what are they doing? Again, let me say that is what a politician is going to do. That is natural instinct to say, I'm OK, I'm all right. I understand why the president did that. I do not understand why the Secret Service around him allowed him to do that. And with a nation on edge, with so much at stake, with a high level of threats out there against both candidates, the consequences of this for this nation existential. How how how are we depending on Butler County police officers? To protect a presidential candidate and protect America, because that's what you're doing. You're protecting America. And there are so many things here. The further we get out from the shooting, the questions become all the more disturbing. There is no nice way to put those guys right there. You see those guys right there. Those guys stopped, stopped an untold amount of violence right there. You're looking for heroes. There aren't a lot there. Those guys were the heroes that stopped the killing of a president.

That stopped political violence, the likes of which we haven't seen in a really long time. And there is just simply there. And again, this, Jonathan, there are no good answers. They need to come up with their best answer. It is still going to be inadequate. It's still going to be terrible. The fact that there weren't snipers all on top of that building, Secret Service people or other people protecting Donald Trump is just again, this is just beyond shocking, beyond irresponsible. And and and everybody involved in the planning of this should lose their job. I mean, to your point, I've had we've had moments of political violence in recent years. January 6th, the assault on Paul Pelosi, the attempted kidnapping plot of

Governor Whitmer. And now, of course, this and the mind reels what would happen if that Donald Trump had not moved his head an inch or so in the moments before that shot was fired. There are certainly going to be, as we heard yesterday from the Homeland Security Secretary and others, that there will be a thorough investigation of the Secret Service response to this, certainly an investigation into what happened that day. We still don't know a lot about the shooter's motives. And you're right. I mean, any politician, particularly one who has a showman's instincts like Donald Trump, would want to reassure the crowd that he or she is OK to pump his fist and to yell fight. That doesn't excuse, though, doesn't explain how he was allowed to do so. There was radio. You can hear it on the audio that someone's saying

shooter down. OK, but at that moment, there's no way to know there was only one shooter. It still remains. It's sort of impossible to explain why Trump was allowed to to gesture like that and to have such a clear shot. Also, speculation he was he was then put into the waiting vehicle, exposed to the crowd. He wasn't hidden as well as he could have been. Barbara McQuaid, you as a former U.S. attorney, of course, have processed a lot of crime scenes. There are a lot of questions that you still, I'm sure, have about what transpired on Saturday. Talk to us about those and what you think the status of the investigation is now. Yeah, I think one of the things that the FBI needs to look into not only is the motive, but whether there are any other participants in the planning of this.

Did this shooter have anyone he was talking with? Did anyone else provide him with access? Did anyone else know what was happening? That's incredibly important because they want to understand whether he acted alone. And if there is a cold paper trail, so to speak, on his phone, that can be very challenging. This case reminds me a little bit, you may remember there was a mass shooting in San Bernardino and the FBI had trouble getting into the shooter's phone and they desperately wanted to get into that phone. And I know there

are a lot of people who say, well, you know, the event's over. People have been killed. That's it. But what's so critically important is finding out whether there are others who are part of a network, you know, with the ability to communicate with people anywhere in the country and anywhere in the world. Is this an ongoing threat because others are involved in the scene? So I think that's something to look for. I also think in terms of the response of the Secret Service, I share the outrage that the roof left insecure, the response after the shooting. And I think one serious question that needs to be asked is whether the Secret Service is adequately resourced. One of the challenges that all law enforcement executives have is the resources and how to spread them. Secret Service has spread

incredibly thin during a presidential campaign. People are sent all over the country and people who have not worked together before are suddenly thrust together in various places in rural communities. And so relying on local police in Butler County, who I'm sure are doing the best they can under the circumstances, but really could benefit from the professionally trained Secret Service who does this every day. And so I think Congress needs to look at how they're funding Secret Service to ensure that we do have adequate protection to protect America, as Joe has said. So before we go here, let you explain what you think you're seeing in the aftermath. He's grazed by the bullet. The agents rush in. Then he does stand up for an extended

period of time, exposing himself, pumping the fist. What is your trained eye see as you watch this? Look, all valid points. Each protectee is uniquely different. So you all talked about and Joe said it, you know, it was said Trump is a person. He's a showman. He's going to do that. Could you be more aggressive with your protectee? Yes. I think perhaps over time, agents are so conditioned to allow their protectees to move and do things. And maybe that assertiveness and aggressiveness needs to be amped up a bit. I agree with that. When you look at the stage and actually around the stage, you see this kind of like type of flag draped around the stage. That typically and I'm presuming again that that's some type of concrete or steel or something typically steel to stop a bullet.

So when Trump hears the shot, he goes down immediately. They come up, they go on top of him. They hold when they get up the movement of getting up. It should be get up and move. It shouldn't be let him move. Let his head be exposed, because those are all valid concerns. You're yes, the threat is down, but you don't know how many other threats there are. You don't know if there's a network of people. Could that move much more swiftly? Yes. And again, when he's going into the vehicle, here's the thing. Anytime you're moving outside from a stage to a dais, to the White House, to the vehicles, those are the most vulnerable movements. So called arrival and departures, that's when you typically, your protectee is the

most exposed. So you want to get him from the stage into that armored vehicle as quickly and swiftly as possible. The other concern is, does he have other wounds? The wound that you saw is his ear. But if we go back to Reagan years ago, when he had been shot, it appeared there were no wounds on him. But when his detail leader in the car got in, he was actually searching Reagan. Reagan's like, what are you doing? He's like, I'm I'm checking you for gunshot holes. And he actually found a gunshot inside Reagan. The detail agent found that.

And he said, hey, forget the White House. We're going to the hospital. And you go to a trauma one. Pick that type of hospital that can handle those type of trauma wounds. So, Tom, last word to you in this conversation here. Where does the investigation not only into the shooter, but into the shooting itself, how this possibly happened? Where does it go from here? Understandable, the outrage on all sides that this could have happened, that this individual did this. The questions about the Secret Service and all of it. I think, unfortunately, it's going to take time. It's going to take time. The FBI is committed, they have said, to putting together a detailed timeline, hours, days, weeks, months leading up to the shooting

with respect to the shooter, Thomas Crooks. That's the first thing. They also said they're going to look at what happened that day on the ground. So it appears to me that the FBI is going to do a little bit of a, hey, what was happening in the background? Who saw what? Who did what? And that could be helpful for any sort of independent review that the Secret Service and the DHS secretary says that they are committed to. That review has to happen because any time this does happen, I think to Joe's point, it's Donald Trump today, it's another politician tomorrow. And given the threat environment that we are in and the threat stream for Donald Trump, as far as what people are saying about him, they're making threats that the Secret Service is looking into.

That is strong. It's not all just Joe Biden, threats against Joe Biden. And for sure, there are threats against President Biden. So when you look at those two things together, this is not going to get better from a threat perspective. So the protection needs to be looked at for sure going forward. And I think you're going to see a big a threat perspective. So the protection needs to be looked at for sure going forward. And I think you're going to see a big change in that. As far as the investigation into the shooting, we've been told there's no indication of a foreign component of that. Certainly want to, I think the FBI wants to get to a point where they rule out definitively that there was anybody else who had any sort of knowledge or involvement in it. So that's

something that's going to be important. A question I continually get, just so we're clear about this, on the voter registration, Republican, and the donation. There's a lot of talk online, and I've already gotten questions just being on today. Well, there's another person named Thomas Crooks that lives in Pittsburgh, and that must be who donated. To be clear to everybody, the FEC document that has this donation, this $15 donation, a one-time donation, which could be for a hat. I mean, we don't know

what that donation was about, but the one-time donation for $15, the address on the FEC document matches the shooter's home address where the FBI has been searching and we've been doing live reports outside of for the past several days, matches the zip code. And so that's why we were able to say what we're able to say. What specifically is behind that? And we obviously don't know how he's voted, right, because we would not ever have that information. So we don't know what this person's ideology is. And I think there needs to be probably an open mind on that front. With respect to the Secret Service, we'll continue to ask questions. I'm sure there's going to be probably an open mind on that front. With respect to the Secret Service, we'll continue to ask questions. I'm sure there's going to be some things that have been reported or people have said over

the last couple of days that may turn out not to be true, that the Secret Service was aware of or local law enforcement was aware of. So just keep an open mind as we move forward in this. NBC News National Law Enforcement and Intelligence Correspondent Tom Winter. Thank you very much. NBC News law enforcement analyst Evie Pampouras. Thank you as well. Thank you. Thank you all so much. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we're going to talk to the Reverend Al Sharpton about the calls to tamp down the rhetoric on the heels of Saturday's shooting. Plus, former President Trump's classified documents case has been dismissed.

We'll talk about Judge Aileen Cannon's decision and what's next for special counsel Jack Smith. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. Former President Donald Trump is weighing in on whether Saturday's shooting has changed him. Speaking to ABC's Jonathan Karl on the phone yesterday, Trump said, quote, I don't like to think about that. But yes, he went on to say the incident has an impact. As for his phone call with President Biden in the wake of the shooting, Trump said their talk was very nice and that the president, President Biden couldn't have been nicer. Meanwhile, NBC's Lester Holt asked President Biden about the political rhetoric in the wake of Saturday's shooting, specifically

a recent phone call to donors in which Biden said he wanted to put Trump in the, quote, bullseye. Look, the truth of the matter was what I guess I was talking about at the time was there was very little focus on Trump's agenda. Yeah, the term is bullseye. It was a mistake to use the word. I didn't say crosshairs. I meant bullseye. I meant focus on him. Focus on what he's doing.

Focus on his policies. focus on the number of lies he told in the debate. Focus. I mean, there's there's a whole range of things that look, I'm not the guy that said I want to be a dictator on day one. I'm not the guy that refused to accept the outcome of the election. I'm not the guy who said that won't accept the outcome of this election automatically. You can't only love your country

when you win. And so the focus was on what he's saying. And I mean, the idea. But have you taken a step back and done a little soul searching on things that you may have said that could incite people who are not balanced? Well, I don't think, look, how do you talk about the threat to democracy, which is real, when a president says things like he says? Do you just not say anything because it may incite somebody? Look, I have not engaged in that rhetoric. Now, my opponent is engaged in that rhetoric. Now, my opponent is engaged in that rhetoric. He talks about there'll be a bloodbath if he loses, talking about how he's going to forgive all the, actually, I guess, suspend the sentences of all those who were arrested and sentenced to go to jail because of what happened in the Capitol. I'm not out there making fun of,

like, remember the picture of Donald Trump when Nancy Pelosi's husband was hit with a hammer, going, talking about, joking about it? This doesn't sound like you're turning down the heat, though. You've talked about the... No, no, no, no, no. Look, when I'm turning down, we have to stop the whole notion that there are certain things that are contrary to our democracy that we're for. The idea of saying that I didn't win the election, when every court in the land, every court in the land, I don't know, 20 appeals, including this conservative Supreme Court, said we won. The idea of having a loyalty pledge from all the folks who are in a Republican, not all Republicans, the MAGA Republicans, saying that, no, we lost the election and flaming the people and say, I mean.

So what can you and what will you do, at least things you can control to lower down the temperature, the rhetoric out there? Continue to talk about the things that matter to the American public. It matters whether or not you accept the outcome of elections. It matters whether or not you, for example, talk about how you're going to deal with the border instead of talking about people as being vermin. I mean, those things matter. That's the kind of language that is inflammatory. You know, Rev, I want to get to a couple of things. You had a conversation yesterday with Joe Biden that I think is newsworthy. You held a press conference on Sunday talking about the need

for America to come together and to be unified. You were praying for President Trump, his health, his safety moving forward. I want to get to all of that in a second. I bet we just need to talk about that line of questioning from NBC's Lester Holt, it was an important question to ask about what President Biden said in a private fundraiser to donors. And it's a question I would have asked. I think any of us would have asked that question. But to ask that question without any context about the politically violent rhetoric that Republicans have been engaged in for close to a decade now. And we could talk about Nancy Pelosi. We could talk about the assassinations of

Chairman Joint Chiefs, the hangings of Mike Pence. We could go on and on and on. And we could talk about it on both sides. Again, a good question to ask about what he said in a private fundraiser. A good question to ask. I would have asked the same question. But to ask that question absent of any context seems to me to be you talk about a phony moral relativism. It was just screaming throughout that part of the interview. And I must say, I was I was shocked. No, I totally agree. I think that the comparisons are not there. I think the rhetoric needs to be brought down.

But clearly, I don't think that President Biden has engaged in that kind of rhetoric that would in any way incite people to do things like we saw January 6th or the attack on Pelosi's husband. But at the same time, I think we have the moral obligation to be consistent. You cannot stand up against what happened to Pelosi's husband or what happened on January 6th and then act like it's all right what happened to Donald Trump. And I think that that is part of the challenge that we have is we must be against all violence. We must be against all kind of situations that would harm people. Otherwise, we become like the people we're fighting. Right. You speak out against politically violent rhetoric on both sides. You speak out against the violence, obviously, on all sides. And again, that's why I

say it was an important question to ask, even though he said it in a private fundraiser, as opposed to standing before a crowd of Republicans and mocking Nancy Pelosi's husband, who was brutalized and almost killed. So let's move from there over to an important phone call that you got from President Biden. You know, President Biden has been saying he's staying in the race. He's staying in the race. And Democrats are saying, well, let's see if he stays in the race. You got a phone call yesterday from President Biden, and he was very blunt with you and sent you a message he wanted you to send along to us and everybody else. No, I got a call yesterday afternoon from the president, and he said, I want you to know clearly, Al, I am running. I'm not going anywhere. The things that you and I have

worked together on in terms of civil rights and voting rights. I am not leaving the field until we protect them. He was very adamant, very strong, and wanted to reassure me no matter what we were hearing, he was not even thinking about not doing the end of, not finishing his term in terms of his reelection and finishing another term. He said, I'm on my way to Nevada now. I'm going to continue campaigning. And I just want to be firm on that. And I think he was very sincere. Those that are speculating and you hear rumors every day, he'll be out by the end of the week or he'll be out next week. He was making it very clear. I'm not getting out.

I'm in this for the long haul. And I told him I appreciated hearing that. And I also told him that I had taken this position about all of us being morally consistent, he said, which is the right thing to do. It certainly is. And so memo to Democrats who continue to think they're going to get a broker convention. The president United States says that's not the case. And it looks like that that is, in fact, the decision that he has made. Finally, Reverend Al, I want to talk about what you did on Sunday.

Now, you've known Donald. We can say Donald because we knew Donald before he was president. We, of course, call him President Trump. But you knew Donald when Donald was Donald, as did I, before he was president of the United States. So, obviously, when you held that press conference talking about the need for everybody to come together, it had to do with politics. It had to do with healing this land as as we read about in the scriptures. But it also it was personal for you, wasn't it? Very personal. I called Mayor Eric Adams and Reverend A.R. Bernard and other leading clergymen and say, this is Donald Trump's hometown. He was attacked last night.

We need to do something publicly to call on people to say that they want to pray for his full recovery and for the family of the man that was killed and those two that were wounded. And many people say, why are you doing this? Donald Trump and you are opposite on every issue. And we are. He mocked me just three weeks ago saying, oh, they're going to name Fort Bragg, Fort Al Sharpton. There's nothing to do with we must have boundaries in our political discourse, then we in no way will have any insinuation of violence, let's known, celebrate some violence. And I said when I saw that. Rev, really quickly, you were also a victim of an assassination attempt, weren't you? Absolutely. I was leading a peaceful march in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, about a racial killing. A man came and stabbed me on the chest. And I remember looking down. I thought the guy had brushed past me. I saw a knife. I pulled it out. And I know when I looked

at Donald Trump, I know what it is to taste your own blood. It traumatized my kids. It traumatized me. So beside all of this, we cannot see. Yes, I oppose everything Donald Trump politically stands for, but I'm not going to let him turn me or anybody turn me into being insensitive for the human dignity and human rights that we fight for. And that's why Sunday was important. And we need to put boundaries on those of us in public saying, wait a minute, there's a point where we've got to stop inciting or even acting as if we're normalizing political violence. I've been a victim of that. Mr. Trump is now. I remember when I was a kid, Joe, that I saw George Wallace was shot, who was saying segregation now and forever.

And civil rights leaders like Reverend Joe Lowry went and prayed for him. There's a tradition of those of us that could say we cannot stoop that low, no matter who our political opponent may be. And that's what I'm urging everyone to do in terms of Donald Trump. I'm vehemently opposed to his politics, but I would not want to celebrate what happened to him on Saturday. Now, Reverend Al Sharpton,

thank you very much for being on this morning. And coming up, we're going to go over Republican Senator J.D. Vance's history of criticizing Donald Trump and how they came to be running mates. Also ahead, we'll be joined by the former assistant director of the FBI's counterintelligence division for insight on how the bureau is conducting its investigation of the assassination attempt on Trump. Plus, former Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson will join the conversation.

Morning Joe is coming right back. I'm not surprised. It comes from the immunity decision the Supreme Court ruled on. And Clarence Thomas, in his dissent, said that independent prosecutors appointed by the attorney general aren't legit. That's the basis on which this judge moved to dismiss. The basis upon which the case was thrown out, I find, specious because I don't agree with Clarence Thomas' dissent and or the Supreme Court decision on immunity. President Biden reacting to Judge Aileen Cannon dismissing the classified documents case against Donald Trump. That was in the interview with Lester Holt last night. Judge Cannon, who was appointed by Donald Trump, released her 93 page decision early

yesterday. She stated her ruling is based on the grounds that the appointment of and funding for special counsel Jack Smith are illegal, unconstitutional. Joining us now, former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg and former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuaid back with us as well. So Chuck, I'll start with you.

Just your reaction to what you read in those 93 pages yesterday from Judge Cannon. Yeah, I think there are two questions. One is easy to answer. The other one is a little bit harder, Willie. You know, question one, is Judge Cannon's decision an outlier? Easy. Yes, it is. Absolutely. Every other court and every other judge who's looked at this question has ruled that the appointment of a special counsel or independent counsel or special prosecutor, whatever the term was at the time, was constitutional, lawful and appropriate. The second question I think is harder. Is she right? In my opinion, no. I think she has it wrong. I think the appointment was constitutional and lawful. She is, as I mentioned earlier, on sort of an island by herself legally. But whether or

not she turns out to be right is to be determined. We know that Justice Clarence Thomas agrees with her view. This is a case that might be heard by the Supreme Court, might I say, because if Mr. Trump wins office again, he could dismiss the case and moot out the entire question. But it seems to me that she got it wrong, that whether or not she is sustained ultimately by the Supreme Court to be determined. So, Chuck, obviously, there's precedent for a special counsel appointed by the Justice Department from Watergate, Iran Contra, of course, Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation. So on what grounds is Judge Cannon making this argument? Yeah, simply this. And if you were to boil the 93-page decision down to a couple of sentences, I think this would be it, that the appointment of Jack Smith was unconstitutional because he is not properly an officer in this case. In other words,

that Merrick Garland, the attorney general, doesn't have the authority to appoint someone with the plenary authority that Jack Smith has. In order for Smith to execute the duties of this office, he has to be nominated by the president, confirmed by the Senate. So the appointment was unconstitutional and improper. Barbara McQuade is certainly a remarkable moment here for the former president when the four cases were brought against him. This one was perceived by most legal experts as one that was frankly a slam dunk. The documents, the classified documents were found in his bathroom. And yet here we are, where that case, in this moment anyway, does not exist. So give us your reaction to what happened yesterday and where we could go from here in terms of an appeal and its timing. I was actually very surprised to see this decision come the way it has.

I know that there has been criticism of Judge Cannon because of some of her prior rulings, but I'd like to impute good faith to judges. But in this case, it really flies in the face of precedent, including the Supreme Court case where they looked at these very same statutes. She says it was dicta, but the court certainly reviewed it and said that the appointment of Leon Jaworski during Watergate was appropriate under these very same statutes. So I think it's a it's a disturbing decision and it ends the case. Now, certainly the Justice Department has the ability to appeal this to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and says that DOJ has approved the appeal to do that. They also have another avenue to go here, which is to allow a U.S. attorney, the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida,

or even in some other district, if they could establish venue, to refile the case immediately. That would dispense with lengthy appeals and be able to proceed with the case right away. But I think that it seems more likely they'll go the appellate route for a couple of reasons. If they were to proceed with the U.S. attorney in Southern District of Florida, it seems likely that this case would land right back before Judge Cannon, who may simply look for some other way to off the case, whether it's, you know, prosecutorial misconduct or presidential immunity or some other basis. And so perhaps the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals is an opportunity not only to appeal and reverse

this decision, but to get the case reassigned to a different judge who might be a little friendlier for him than Judge Cannon has been.