Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/25/22

Episode Date: July 25, 2022

Jan 6. committee is considering a subpoena for Ginni Thomas. Jonathan Lemire leads us in today's discussions 

It's not just me that is saying that Donald Trump is unfit for office. It's other entities owned by Rupert Murdoch. It's the New York Post and their editorial on Friday. It's the Wall Street Journal said the same thing after our hearing on Thursday night. So I'm going to continue to be guided by making sure I do my duty and making sure that the American people understand the truth. Republican Liz Cheney had a lot to say over the weekend about former President Trump and her work with the January 6th committee. Meanwhile, more signs from Mike Pence that he's trying to break away from his former boss. The pair were on separate stages this weekend in

Arizona. Plus, no sick days for President Biden. He was staying busy at the White House while recovering from covid. We'll have the latest on his health. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, July 25th. I'm Jonathan Lemire. Joe, Mika, and Willie all have the morning off, but fear not, we are in good hands. With us around the table, we have former aide to George W. Bush, White House and State Departments, Elise Jordan, the professor at Princeton University, Ed E. Claude Jr., the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, and NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hilliard.

Also with us, the founder of the conservative website The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes. We have a lot to get to, and we're going to begin this morning with the latest developments from the January 6th Select Committee over the weekend. Vice Chair Liz Cheney, one of only two Republicans serving on the committee, went on Fox News yesterday to defend the committee's work. Here's how she responded to a question about why Capitol Police weren't better prepared for the attack. It's an entire focus of the investigation. You will see in our report, you will likely see in upcoming

hearings. And so it's certainly something that we're going to be very focused on. But what we aren't going to do, Brett, is blame the Capitol Police, blame those in law enforcement for Donald Trump's armed mob that he sent to the Capitol. Kevin McCarthy decided not to participate in the committee, that somehow the House of Representatives cannot investigate the single worst attack on the United States Capitol since the War of 1812. Cheney also discussed the committee's interest in interviewing Ginny Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The committee is engaged with her counsel. We certainly hope that she will agree to come in voluntarily, but the committee is fully prepared to contemplate a subpoena if she does not. I hope it doesn't get to that. I hope she will come in voluntarily.

We've certainly spoken with numbers of people who are similarly situated in terms of the discussions that she was having that you've mentioned. So it's very important for us to speak with her. And as I said, I hope she will agree to do so voluntarily. But I'm sure we will contemplate a subpoena if she won't. Ginny Thomas sent several text messages to Mark Meadows, former President Trump's chief of staff, questioning the results of the 2020 election. She also exchanged emails with Trump's lawyer, John Eastman, who pushed an illegal plan to overturn the election. And she sent emails to almost 30 lawmakers in Arizona, calling on them to help overturn Trump's loss in that state.

Last month, Thomas responded to speculation that the committee would call her to testify, saying, quote, I can't wait to clear up misconceptions. I look forward to talking to them. Her lawyer, though, has pushed back against voluntarily talking to the panel, asking lawmakers to give, quote, better justification for her testimony. Meanwhile, Cheney and other members of the committee commented on whether they plan to make a criminal referral to the Justice Department about former President Trump. There is a massive difference between I'm going to prosecute the last administration for political vengeance and not prosecuting an administration that literally attempted a failed coup. That is a precedent I'm way more concerned about. I sure as hell hope

they have a criminal investigation at this point into Donald Trump. I have no direct knowledge of the status of their investigations. But what I'd say is I can tell the Department of Justice is watching our hearings closely. The committee has not decided yet whether or not we'll make criminal referrals. That's something we take very seriously. And I would also say that the Department of Justice certainly is very focused based on what we see publicly on what is the largest criminal investigation in American history. Members of the committee fanning out over the weekend on television just a couple of days after they make that primetime case, at least wrapping up at least this section of their hearings. Give us your assessment. Did they

do that? And what would it mean if the Department of Justice did take this step? There was plenty of there there to these hearings. I was I follow this as closely as anyone watching the show. And I was surprised by some of the revelations and just reliving it in real time and remembering the fear of that day of January 6th of the Capitol under siege was just so powerful. And you can see where it's had slight impact so far, perhaps deadening Donald Trump's appeal just a teensy little bit with his most active supporters. And so I do think it made a difference. I think that this month of lag time is going to be an interesting window to see what happens with some of the primaries and Donald Trump and his decision to get into the race and whether he announces. But they need to pick it up again in September because there's still plenty of unanswered questions. So, Richard, there's sort of two audiences here, right? There were, of course, Merrick Garland, the Department of Justice, but also, as Elise said, Republicans. Polls suggest that, yeah, this has had a little bit of an impact. Trump is still the favorite. Let's not sugarcoat

that in 2024, but his popularity has dipped some. Do you think, though, the other audience, the Department of Justice, were they listening? Well, I think they're listening because obviously the committee had access to material that they haven't had access to. It's why they requested all the transcripts. But I think it's a really complicated set of calculations for them about whether they want to take it to that point, whether they're worried about a jury trial, whether you could ever find a jury that would convict him. I think it's a real question for the country whether these hearings are better, Jonathan, as what you might call a civics education that influenced the country. And by the way, I think most important might be independents, people who might vote in a general election rather than Republican primaries,

whether that's the most important or whether you think it is the legal aspect of this. And I'm unpersuaded yet, not being a lawyer, it's easy for me to talk, but that the legal path is necessarily the most important, but might be in some ways is the political path. And that's where the hearings might be most important. So, Eddie, we're going to probably have about a month before the committee resumes. They say they're going to have some sort of hearing when they put out a preliminary report in that intervening month. Liz Cheney is facing a primary in the state of Wyoming. She is, of course, in many ways become the face of the committee, a Republican, obviously opposing to Trump. She's down in the polls. What will it mean?

What does it tell us if between now and when we see this committee again, she's defeated to her reelection bid? Well, let us know that the problem isn't just simply Donald Trump, that this is throughout the country, right? And we have pockets of the country that actually agree ideologically with Trumpism

and it's evidencing itself in our politics. But I want to go back to something that Richard said. Yes, the politics is important. I think so. But the fate of rule, the rule of law is also important. If it turns out that there is an individual or an office, the presidency that is above the rule of law, what happens downstream? And I think the question around Donald Trump that I think the committee has laid out very clearly, and even the question around Ginni Thomas, right? What do we do with these folks who believe that they stand outside of the sphere of the rule of law? And how does that then play itself out

among everyday ordinary folk who in some ways bear the burden of the rule of law in some ways? I'm just not sure we're there yet. And I think, again, normally, again, not a lawyer, but you'd build the case up and you'd go out, you'd first look at other people around him. I just don't think the Justice Department is there yet. And I don't think they need to be there yet at the question of whether to go ahead and go after the president personally. I just think that's premature. Let this thing play out. So at the top of the show, you heard Congresswoman Cheney refer to the two editorials from Rupert Murdoch-owned news outlets against former President Trump. One from the New York Post, the former president's favorite newspaper, and the other

from the Wall Street Journal. The journal editorial titled The President Who Stood Silent on January 6th begins like this. No matter your views of the January 6th special committee, the fact it is laying out in hearings are sobering. The most horrifying to date came Thursday in a hearing on President Trump's conduct as the riot raged, and he sat watching TV, posting inflammatory tweets, and refusing to send help. It continues. Mr. Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he had a duty as commander-in-chief to protect the Capitol from a mob attacking it in his name. He refused. He didn't call the military to send help. He didn't call Mr. Pence to check on the safety of his loyal VP. Instead, he fed the mob's anger and let the riot play out. In the 18 months since, Mr. Trump has shown not

an iota of regret. Character is revealed in a crisis, and Mr. Pence passed his January 6th trial. Mr. Trump utterly failed his. Meanwhile, the New York Post went even further with its editorial with this headline. Trump's silence on January 6th is damning. They write in part this. There has been much debate over whether Trump's rally speech on January 6th, 2021, constituted incitement. That's somewhat of a red herring. What matters more, and has become crystal clear in recent days,

is that Trump didn't lift a finger to stop the violence that followed. And he was the only person who could stop what was happening. He was the only one the crowd was listening to. It was incitement by silence. It concludes, his only focus was to find any means, damn the consequences, to block the peaceful transfer of power. There is no other explanation, just as there is no defense for his refusal to stop the violence. It's up to the Justice Department to decide if this is a crime. But as a matter of principle, as a matter of character,

Trump has proven himself unworthy to be this country's chief executive again. Charlie Sykes, I'm going to guess you don't disagree with much of that. I want to get your take on it. But more than that, give us your analysis of the significance of where these editorials appeared. And two, Rupert Murdoch owned outlets. He, of course, also owns Fox News. They have been extraordinarily friendly to Donald Trump throughout most of his tenure. There seems to be signs that may be changing. Well, first of all, Jonathan, I do agree with those editorials, and I think that they are really very much on point, although I guess my one quibble would be, you know, Donald Trump was in fact not silent on January 6th. He was on the phone and he was putting out tweets that were targeting Vice President Mike Pence. It was worse than a dereliction of duty. But I guess most of us on the panel today are old enough

to remember when newspaper editorials actually had some real clout or significance, or maybe they never did. But it is significant that Rupert Murdoch's publications would publish these editorials. But the reality is that Fox News is far more influential than the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal or The New York Post. I mean, this may be influential with the donor class. But as Eddie mentioned about the Wyoming primary, we need to understand what the mood is among the Republican electorate. And night after night after night, Rupert Murdoch's news network is broadcasting, you know, Trumpist Trumpist propaganda. And as long as and as long as that bullhorn is employed to prop up Trump, I don't think you're going to see an appreciable difference.

But but it certainly is interesting. And I also thought just to make a note here, you know, Fox News had not reported on those editorials until Liz Cheney brought them up on Fox News yesterday. So once again, Liz Cheney, rather remarkable performance, pointing out that the boss of the folks, the owner of the company, in fact, has taken this particular position. But I wouldn't read too much into it in terms of the impact that's going to have, except that we do have the drip, drip, drip of Republicans thinking, you know, can we just move on from this freak show? Yeah, it's also about backing a winner. We should recall that Murdoch and a lot of news corp organizations were actually slow to support Trump in 2015. They had a lot of criticisms about him and only came aboard once it was clear that he was the overwhelming favorite. We saw Vaughn over the weekend dueling rallies, both Donald Trump and Mike Pence in Arizona. And one was a lot bigger than the other. Give us your assessment as terms

of what you saw. What does it mean right now about this split in the Republican Party? And I think, you know, actually, the extension of Charlie's point, he's not silent a year and a half later. You know, this rally came less than 24 hours after this final public hearing. And yet you don't hear a former president up there denying that he did nothing over the course of more than three hours

to quell the violence around January 6th. You don't hear him denying that he pressured former Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the election. You didn't hear him denying that he placed phone calls to members of Congress who objected to the results or that he pressured former Vice President Mike Pence to not certify the election. You didn't hear him denying that he placed phone calls to members of Congress who objected to the results or that he placed calls, including to local officials in Arizona. There is no denial. The one thing he did deny, I should note, is that he threw food. The other part of his speech,

though, he was trying to undercut the reputations of Cassidy Hutchinson, of Sarah Matthews. He was putting more questions out into the ether. And at that rally there, he was making himself the martyr here. This is a man who, yes, just an hour and a half away from where former Vice President Mike Pence was also campaigning, is setting himself up as a martyr for the Republican Party and power of the future. As opposed to Mike Pence, this is the clearest choice path. We're talking about voters. Ultimately, voters are going to be the ones to decide on August 2nd in Arizona. You have these two candidates, Karen Taylor Robeson and Carrie Lake, new faces to politics. One, Karen Taylor Robeson with Mike Pence, with Doug Ducey. On the other hand, Donald Trump, Wendy Rogers, Kelly Ward,

a cast of other far right Arizona figures are standing next to Carrie Lake. Ultimately, it is the voters on August 2nd that are going to be choosing that path there. And the last thing I want to note, it was a Mike Pence tweet. As he was leaving Arizona and Mike Pence was flying in, he said, quote, if the Republican Party allows itself to become consumed by yesterday's grievances, we will lose. Those are the two paths. Well, yeah, and that's what the Republican Party right now, at least, is grappling with. There's Donald Trump refused, even as his position as the favorite for 24. He refuses to talk about 24.

He's only talking about 2020. A lot of Republicans fearful that he's going to jump in and declare his president's his presidential candidacy before this year's midterms. Would it be an unwelcome distraction, to say the least. Well, I mean, talk about turbocharging the Democratic electorate and really ensuring record turnout of Democrats if you have Donald Trump putting himself out there as a 2024 contender. Specific with Arizona, I'm fascinated by the Senate race there and how it's going to play out with so many wings of the Republicans battling. You have the whack Republicans, then you have, you know, more of the Republicans battling. You have the whack Republicans. Then you have, you know, more of the moderate McCain Republican wing. And then you've got the progressives who are fighting with moderate Democrats, too.

And so how do you see that Senate primary and eventual Senate race playing out? You know, it's interesting. Unlike the governor's race, the reason we're paying so much attention to it is because Mike Pence and Doug Ducey felt that they had a candidate to go to Karen Taylor Robeson in the Senate race. And the reason we're paying so much attention to it is because Mike Pence and Doug Ducey felt that they had a candidate to go to Karen Taylor-Obson in the Senate race. They're not jumping in because Jim Lehman, Blake Masters, even Attorney General Mark Brnovich, they have been playing to Donald Trumpism here, leaving another path for voters or even these more mainstream Republicans that we used to think of in that sense. They haven't had a path to go to. And so that's where I think a lot of the question is, all right, it's going to be Trumpism versus

Mark Kelly come November. With the litmus test of receiving Trump's support being whether or not you believe the 2020 election was up and up. From Arizona to Florida, top Republicans flocked to the Sunshine State over the weekend for two major conferences. On Friday, the state GOP held its annual Sunshine Summit, headlined by Florida governor and presumed 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis. Unlike in past years, the event was largely closed off to the media, with DeSantis only opening the conference center's doors to those who would give him positive coverage. The next day, former President Trump headed to Tampa, where the conservative student organization Turning Point USA was holding a summit of its own. There, Trump spoke for nearly

two hours, railing against the January 6th committee and any other groups looking to hold him accountable for his actions. There's never been a politician treated. There's really never been, probably in terms's really never been probably in terms of a large scale and length of what's going on it just never ends but there's never been a president treated like this there's never been a politician and for the most part there's just about never been a person treated like this Charlie Sykes I'm disappointed that you didn't have an entrance like that for today's show with smoke sparkles and sort of maybe

fire uh but setting that aside we'll do better the next time there it is uh give us your take on just where things are about trump and how he continued backward looking but yet seemingly embraced by the vast majority of the party well yeah i i regret that I don't get that kind of an introduction as well. Look, you know, one of the big questions is the Republican Party has a collective action problem. Everybody seems to be looking at everybody else like you're going to do something about this, right? You're not going to let this happen again, right? You don't want to be the one who's going to throw yourself on the political hand grenade like Liz Cheney did. So, you know, I mean, there's a lot of focus on

whether, you know, Ron DeSantis will run and whether he'd be able to take him on. I mean, there are some polls suggesting that he might be competitive, but he's competitive in a one-to-one race. What if, in fact, we have a replay of 2015 and 2016, where you have all of these candidates in the race, and Donald Trump may not be Trump may not be as popular as he once was, but he could run the table with the kind of numbers that he has. And I think what you saw in Florida and in Arizona, though, is this continuum in the Republican Party where Donald Trump is not just embracing MAGAism. Think about the people that he's associating with on the continuum. And it's a long continuum in conservative Republican politics these days, Donald Trump is associated with the craziest possible, you know, extremes out here. When

you're talking about Kerry Lake, when you're talking about Wendy Rogers, when you're talking about going down to the TPUSA, that he is demanding fealty to the most extreme aspects of MAGA-ism. And obviously, going down and speaking to a group of young people for nearly two hours and venting his grievances is a pretty good window of what Republicans might face over the next two years. So I guess the question is, is there's a lot of talk behind the scenes among the donor class, among the elected officials. Can we move on from Donald Trump?

But who's going to do it? I have to say that I think it's very unlikely that Mike Pence is going to win the Republican nomination. Is Ron DeSantis actually going to pull the trigger on all of this, knowing what a scorched earth campaign it will be? I mean, Republicans have to ask themselves, does anybody think that Donald Trump would accept a defeat in Republican primaries any more than he would accept a defeat in a general election? And what would that look like? Yeah, and that fealty to Trump that he is demanding has led to some Senate candidates, which many in the GOP are starting to nervous, become nervous that they may not grab this upper chamber like they had fought perhaps a few months ago. Charlie Sykes, next time we'll get you the smoke machine.

Thank you, my friend. NBC's Vaughn Hilliard, thank you as well. Russian missiles hit the city of Odessa just hours after Kiev and Moscow reached a deal to resume exporting grain from the Ukrainian port city. Regional officials say two cruise missiles hit the port on Saturday, destroying a docked Ukrainian ship and other military infrastructure. Officials say two other missiles were shot down by Ukraine's air defense. President Zelensky denounced the attack and said that it, quote, destroyed the possibility of a dialogue with Russia. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also condemned the strike, saying that it cast serious doubt on Moscow's credibility to that agreement. Meanwhile, new details are emerging about the harrowing conditions of hundreds of Ukrainian

fighters and civilians faced when they were trapped inside a steel factory in the port city of Mariupol for 80 days. This was an extraordinary piece that ran over the weekend in The New York Times. It writes that the plant was becoming a horror show. Civilians and soldiers were short of food, weapons, and medicine to treat dozens of wounded troops. Soldiers were dying from even minor wounds. Inside the field hospital at the plant, the wounded soldiers looked pale and death-like. Crammed into a dark and dust-filled bunker, most relying on the concrete floor. Night and day, Russian ships and artillery units pounded the factory, while Russian jets

fired rockets and bunker-busting munitions that began to degrade the bomb shelters. Despair set in. People in the bunkers went weeks without seeing natural light or breathing clean air. People became irritable and cruel, occasionally fighting, said a woman who sheltered there with her daughter. Some became so desperate for an escape, they began to drink from the bottles of alcohol-infused hand sanitizer installed during the COVID pandemic. And I encourage everyone to read this piece. It is gut-wrenching to say the least. Richard Host, though, let's start with that missile strike. It comes as a short time after the governments in Russia and Ukraine seem to strike a deal to

allow more grain to come out of that country. Ukraine, of course, one of the breadbaskets of the world, real fears of not just rising prices, but a real food shortage in Africa and other places. And yet, as we've seen so many times before, Russia's word can't be trusted. It's not quite clear, though, Jonathan, why the Russians engaged in the diplomacy with the United Nations in Turkey. This deal was announced. And as you say, within 24 hours, the Russians have violated it. So what's going on? Was this, was the whole thing a tease? Was the whole thing a show? Was this a mistake? Someone who wasn't authorized to do it?

Was it a one-off? I mean, kind of honestly, we don't know. And I think the UN and Turkey are going to try to resurrect this deal. It's important, not just for Ukraine, but for the world. We saw already food riots in Sri Lanka. As you said, big parts of Africa have food shortages. The combination of inflation and the lack of foodstuffs is severe. We could have another Arab Spring in the Middle East. So the stakes here are enormous. The bottom line is we don't quite understand why this deal unraveled within 24

hours of its being signed. What is the Russian or Putin agenda here? I think we're going to find out in the next couple of days whether this thing can be revived. If so, good. If not, then we are where we were. One other big piece of news over the weekend was the Zelensky interview with The Wall Street Journal. And what he basically said was, we are not interested in a ceasefire. We are not interested in any situation that gives a pause so the Russians can rebuild while they sit on our lands and rebuild militarily. And I thought that was really interesting. It showed essentially that we're open to diplomacy, obviously, but not diplomacy that hurts us and helps the Russians. On that point, though we're now here at the end of July, before we know it,

winter will be here. And there's a real sense, the U.S. officials I speak to say that there will be this pause for six weeks, two months, whatever it might be, where there won't be able to be much fighting because of the conditions. And the fear is if the Russians, whatever territory they have at that moment, they're probably going to be able to keep. So the clock is ticking. Sure. And I think that's likely to happen anyhow, because both sides are going to have trouble sustaining this level of intensity. So I think you'll have this open-ended war going into Russia, but the intensity of the battle will begin to dial down. The other thing that's going to happen, though, as we get closer to the winter is the question of how the Europeans react to gas

cutoffs. Russia's clearly going to do it, and there was a bad development there. The fall of the Draghi government was a real crack in Western solidarity, because the alternatives to him are a bunch of right- populist pro-Russian forces. So really dangerous questions in Germany about some of their staying power. Putin has clearly decided that time is his friend, that he can use time to test the fabric of Western solidarity, to grind Ukraine down, to grind NATO down. And I think I think we have to, again, reset our calendar, reset our clock for what will be a long war, because Putin has decided it will help him.

Well, Richard, and that's what I wanted to ask you about. Are we just looking at a long-term insurgency in these contested areas? If President Zelensky doesn't want to concede any territory, and then Vladimir Putin doesn't show any signs of slowing down his assault, then is this just going to be an ongoing conflict without resolution where the West is fueling and shipping in arms and then also Russia is able to reconstitute their forces too? Well, Russians may have some trouble. It's not clear where they're going to get the help from. That's the one area where the sanctions might be making a difference. But the short answer to your question is yes. Look, this war has been going on since 2014.

This is not so much a new war, but chapter two of an existing war. And what you could have is actually a conventional war with military on military engagements, but that as you suggest. In some areas, you could have more of an insurgency where Ukraine doesn't send traditional military units, but essentially tries to undermine Russian occupation from, you know, in the way that insurgents have done it in time immemorial. So my guess is we are ultimately going to move towards that, both a classic war and something of a guerrilla war simultaneously, quite possibly for years to come. And certainly right now, no shortage of commitment from the United States to continue to send money and weapons that way. But Europe, that will be a greater question as the year goes on.

And also down the road in the United States, whether we have the, you know, this is big bucks, billions and billions of dollars. And what will be really interesting in both parties, we've already seen signs of it in the Republican Party, whether you have people saying enough for Ukraine, we've got real problems here at home. We've done more than enough for them. We've got to focus on ourselves. I think a version of the old guns versus butter debate could well open up in this country at some time. Again, it's something Vladimir Putin is hoping to see. As a U.S. official put to me over the weekend, the money is not running out, but it's not unlimited either. 1992 Planned Parenthood versus Casey is decided.

With the Supreme Court limiting abortion rights, I knew we needed more women in Congress. And I haven't quit fighting since. Funding for rape kits. Federal employee paid leave. Diverse female chair. Today, the Dobbs decision overturned Roe. But being at the forefront of women's rights has taught me we can fight back and win if we just don't quit. I approve this message because it also taught me.

You cannot send a man to do a woman's job. Abortion rights are front and center in that exclusive first look at Congresswoman Karen Maloney's new ad ahead of New York's Democratic primary on August 23rd. She's running for re-election against her colleague, Congressman Jerry Nadler, after their districts were redrawn into one. And Congresswoman Maloney joins us now. She is the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Congresswoman Maloney, thanks so much for being here. Let's just have you start by talking about that ad. Why did you feel like that is what you wanted to put out there as a central point of discussion for this race against two people that New Yorkers are used to both having in Congress? Well, first of all, thank you for showing the ad.

And I think it shows that I have the energy and drive to go to Washington, be in Washington and fight for all women and all progressives during this time of row. The Republican majority has, they used to chip away at our rights. They've literally bulldozed them into the ground. And we need more women, Democratic women in Congress that will fight for legal, safe abortions, a clean environment, and end to gun violence. It's a really challenging time with the Supreme Court, these decisions we need people with experience and fight. And I think actions speak louder than words,

and my ad shows that. Congresswoman Maloney, you really are launching an attack of sorts on Congressman Nadler by saying, you know, heralding your bona fides when it comes to abortion rights. Do you think that he has not been as strong of an advocate as he should have been during his time in Congress? I think women fight harder. And when a woman's at the table, the agenda changes and change doesn't come easily. But it will come if you never give up and women will never give up on the rights for women. Congressman Maloney, let me let me press you a bit on that. What do you actually mean by the claim that women fight harder? I'm asking the question in the context of a broader kind of criticism of the Democratic Party as not fighting hard enough in this in this particular environment.

How will you distinguish yourself as someone who will fight aggressively in light of the forces that seem to be trying to undermine our democratic polity in this moment. So, A, explain to me what you mean by women fight harder. And B, what is the nature of the fight that you understand that's in front of you, in front of all of us, in light of the forces that are trying to undermine the republic at this moment? Well, I think the fight for abortion rights, for a clean environment and then for gun safety. I think that that I've been raided repeatedly by outside rating organizations, GovTrack and the Committee for Effective Congress's first, second or third most effective member for getting things done,

actually accomplishing things, not just talking, but getting things done. And I have been in the fights in the street, just got arrested last week or week before last, and also in the back room. And I can tell you in the back room, when the doors are closed and the cameras are off, the people who stand up and fight to the death for women's rights are women. And we need more women. We're half the population. We're underrepresented in Congress. We need more Democratic women there in the fight every single day. Congressman Maloney, let's switch gears here. Obviously, the heat of the last week or so has been a fierce reminder of the impact of climate change across the globe. Yet one of your Democratic

Senate colleagues, Joe Manchin, just a week or so ago, stood in the way of the president's climate change agenda. What is your message to him? And what is your message more so perhaps to Democrats who are staring at Washington and see your party ahead in charge of the White House and both houses of Congress and can't get something done on something so fundamental and dangerous? Well, we did get it done in the House. The challenge is the Senate. And ultimately, we need to elect more Democratic senators who will fight for climate change and also for LGBTQ rights, for women's rights. And basically we need to elect Democrats who will vote for policies that will combat climate change.

It's literally a life and death. And this midterm election is coming up and we should send more Democrats to the House and the Senate who will fight not only for the environment, but also for gun safety laws, sensible gun safety laws and women's rights equality and safe legal abortions. All right. Well, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, chair of the House Oversight Committee, thank you for joining us this morning. Richard, on climate change, record temps across the U.S. this weekend, but Europe really buckled under with the heat that they faced just a few days ago. It's alleviated a

little bit in some places, still punishing in places like Spain, Portugal, more in the south. Talk to us a little bit about what you're seeing of climate change across the globe as a national security issue, but also, frankly, as a human rights issue. I think the bottom line, Jonathan, is we're losing the fight against it, that the world now is going to meet for the 27th time this November in Egypt to talk about climate change. And the problem is we're talking about climate change

while climate change is getting worse and worse. And domestically here, we just recently had a set of decisions. You just talked about the legislation that didn't pass, the Supreme Court decision, hobbling the administration's ability to regulate through the EPA. What's happening nationally and internationally around the world is we're falling farther behind, and I increasingly don't think that politics or diplomacy are going to deliver answers, and I think we're going to have to maybe start hoping that technology gives us certain breakthroughs. We're going to have to spend a lot more money on adapting to the results of climate change. But this is one of the most

frightening things out there. You know, here it is. We're in the third decade of this century. It's still possible that I think even likely that before this century ends, this will be the defining issue of the era. It'll create tens and tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of refugees. It'll affect the adequacy of food. It will affect disease. It will affect lifestyles. We are getting a hint. And it's not just the future. It's increasingly now. And the inadequacy of the political response nationally and internationally, to me, is one of the most stunning features of the moment. And there had been a sense, you know, obviously President Trump pulled out of the Paris climate change treaty and that there was a sense that U.S. was going to get back on board, Eddie, to be a leader on climate change once Joe Biden took office.

And but as Richard just pointed out, it's not it's members of his own party have sabotaged that effort, as well as the Supreme Court, which really gutted what the EPA can do. How does this change? How does the political will catch up to, as Richard says, what will be over the next decades, century, almost certainly the defining issue for our present and future? Absolutely. We have to begin to identify the oversized role of the fossil fuel industry in our politics. We have to identify and criticize our own addiction to fossil fuels. I mean, just on the New York Times today, the Republic of Congo is now going to auction off parts of its rainforest. $500 million is going to go into their coffers because they're going to auction off the rainforest that sucks up the carbon that helps us live. And so unless we begin to understand the stakes, right, we are definitely in peril. No, there's lots of things we can do. We can use trade

agreements to tax, you know, stuff made with coal going across international lines. We can try to preserve the rainforest. Nuclear power. Why is there no serious debate in this country and around the world about expanding the use of nuclear power? It does not emit any greenhouse gases. The inconsistency here is just market. And we're going to have to live with fossil fuels for decades, but all fossil fuels are not equal. Natural gas is not the same as coal. We're going to need a fossil fuel transition. There's so much that can be done, and there's so much that isn't being done. This is really one of the, to me, almost baffling, frustrating issues out there. And I think everyone says, well, it's up to the other guy.

You've got to do something. We're not going to do it ourselves. And even if we do it ourselves, it's not going to be enough. But in the future, generations are going to look back on these years and say, what the hell were they thinking? How irresponsible were countries around the world? No more important conversation and one we will keep having in the days ahead. Wow. Cooperstown. I always try to live my life in a way that supports others, that makes a positive influence in the world. And if my story can remind you of anything, let it remind you that when you believe in someone, you can change their world. You can change their future, just like so many people who believe in me to everyone that believe in me

from my family to coaches, to teammates, to fans no I could not have done this without you my Hall of Fame plaque represents each one of you and I'm going to thank you guys for the rest of my life

thank you very much and God bless you all. The National Baseball Hall of Fame welcomed seven new members yesterday, including that guy, Boston Red Sox great David Ortiz. Big Papi sharing those parting words with some 35,000 baseball fans gathered in Cooperstown, upstate New York. Ortiz, on the strength of a 20-year career that included 541 home runs and three World Series titles, becomes the first career designated hitter to be inducted in his first year on the Hall of Fame ballot. David Ortiz, the most popular person in my house among my two children, way ahead of me, Richard Haas. It can't be overstated what he did for the city of Boston they obviously had an 86 year the Red Sox 86 year championship drought

the comeback against your New York Yankees in 2004 which Ortiz led changed that but this is the moment where you're I'm giving you a chance to be classy even Bronx Bomber fans even though Ortiz was undoubtedly a Yankee tormentor during his career, a great ambassador for the game, an incredible clutch hitter, and a well-deserving Hall of Famer. It was great yesterday watching him, even for a Yankee fan. He brought joy to the game, and he brought class and just unbelievable talent. But I also have to add Gil Hodges. Finally, after all those Brooklyn Dodgers getting into the Hall of Fame,

one of the great first basemen in Major League history. Yesterday was a great day. You looked at people, got in. Minnie Minoso, Jim Cott. It was an amazing day yesterday of real talent. Yeah, real celebration of the sport. And Ortiz, certainly that smile lighting up the proceedings. But, Richard, here's your turn to gloat. Because while Red Sox fans kept an eye on Poppy and Cooperstown, boy, the team they're currently playing, not so great.

The defensive struggles continued for the Red Sox. They got swept by the Blue Jays this weekend. They lost 8-4 yesterday. This was a three-game set, mind you, that started with a Toronto victory on Friday by the final score of 28-5. You heard that right. It was 28-5. The Blue Jays almost set a record for most runs in a game. The Red Sox have now slipped to fourth in the American League East, just a half game ahead of

the once lowly Orioles. Baltimore was held at bay over the weekend by the, yep, division-leading Yankees. Here's Aaron Judge slugging his league-leading 37th home run in yesterday's 6-0 victory. That seems to be a daily occurrence. That is, well, that's not great, Richard, at least from my perspective. But here you go. So you were classy about Poppy. So now you get to brag a little bit. Yankees playing great.

28-5. At least your Red Sox got a field goal and a safety. It was impressive. Yankees judge is going to be the most expensive player in baseball for the Yankees for not having signed them up because he's having an unbelievable season ahead of Mickey Mantle's pace on home runs. Yeah, the Yankees are still in first, but Toronto's hanging in there. And Houston, my Yankees have a problem, which is they can't beat Houston. And I worry about that.

Yeah, no, I agree on the Astros. And it should be noted, the Yankees have had remarkably good health to this point in the season. They've lost a couple arms in the bullpen. Luis Severino's out for a while, and the Astros, and it should be noted, the Yankees have had remarkably good health to this point in the season. They've lost a couple arms in the bullpen. Luis Severino's out for a while, and the Astros are not going away. Richard Haas, thank you for your insight on both foreign policy and hardball.