Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/26/22

Episode Date: July 26, 2022

Biden slams Trump for watching Jan. 6 as police faced "medieval hell."

We're just going to roll right into the top of Morning Joe. Thanks for joining us. I'm Jonathan Lemire. Joe, Mika, and Willie are all out this morning, but we will soldier on. And thankfully, we have another great group with us, a team of all-stars, starting with former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Departments, Elise Jordan is here, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle, there he is, the host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, the president of the National Action

Network. Reverend Al Sharpton is here, former U.S. senator and now an NBC News and MSNBC political analyst, Claire McCaskill, as well as Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post. And he's MSNBC political analyst, Eugene Robinson, a terrific group. Let's get started. And we begin with President Biden taking a direct swipe at former President Donald Trump for his inaction during the January 6th attack on the Capitol. Every day we rely on law enforcement to save lives. Then on January 6th, we relied on law enforcement to save our democracy. We saw what happened.

The Capitol Police, the D.C. Metropolitan Police, other law enforcement agencies were attacked and assaulted before our very eyes. Speared, sprayed, stomped on, brutalized. Lives were lost. And for three hours, the defeated former president of the United States watched it all happen as he sat in the comfort of the private dining room next to the Oval Office while he was doing that brave law enforcement officer subject to the medieval hell for three hours, dripping in blood, surrounded by carnage, face to face with crazed mob that believed the lies of a defeated president. The police were heroes that day. Donald Trump lacked the courage to act. The brave women and men in blue all across this nation should never forget

that. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-cop. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-democracy. You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-American. President Biden doesn't talk about January 6th often, nor does he talk about his predecessor often. We heard him use the phrase, defeated former president, but also in a very rare moment, Claire McCaskill, he used Donald Trump's name,

which I think underscores the passion he felt about this particular moment. What was so striking to you about what, frankly, pretty unusual remarks from the current president? Well, I was I think it's good. He needs to say out loud the part that everyone is seeing in plain view. And he needs to really get on offense about this. I mean, the president has spent too much time in the last six months on defense. He needs to get on offense. And I thought yesterday was a good sign, especially in front

of a police audience where he was underscoring that they don't back the blue so much when it doesn't jive up with their political goals. So I thought it was terrific. And Reverend Al, he also said you can't be both pro-cop and pro-insurrection. I thought that was a very appropriate and timely statement. And again, remember, he's addressing here black law enforcement executives and many of us in the black community that have attacked and addressed police misconduct among some officers have been broadly labeled, particularly by people like Trump, as we're anti-police when that is not the fact.

And in fact, many blacks are now in law enforcement and are trying to get others involved. The anti-policemen are people that would brutalize and harm police and then act like they're the ones saying blue lives matter. So I thought that given his audience and the timing, it was more than appropriate. And I thought it was needed coming from the president of the United States. I think sometimes in the last few weeks, we underestimate the gravity of what we're looking at. We're looking at the attempt to overthrow an election to really turn around the whole process of a Democratic choice in this country. And I don't think that we emphasize enough the gravity of that. I think the president hit it on the head and he had to call the name of

who was leading that charge. It was about time. He really did need to directly address it, especially now when the country is so primed to talk about it and receptive after just hearing so much searing testimony and seeing those images again from the January 6th committee. And Mike Barnicle, I'm just going to ask you, President Biden took a while to directly attack Donald Trump head on about this. You know, it reminds me a little bit of how Eisenhower didn't attack Joe McCarthy for a long time and delayed and delayed just because he didn't want to give him any more sunlight. What do you think of how Biden has finally come

out with this attack? Well, you know, at least that's an interesting comparison, President Eisenhower and President Trump. I mean, President Eisenhower, at the peak of Joe McCarthy's rage and seeming popularity, was trying to figure out how to get everyone back from Korea and end that war in Korea. President Biden has been sort of consumed with Ukraine and pulling NATO together. And yet, what Reverend Al just said about the importance of what is going on in this country and the fact that a lot of people have underestimated it normally, naturally, because of every concern that a normal person has during theimated it normally, naturally, because of every concern that a normal person has during the course of the day. We're still confronted with COVID. You're

still confronted with the fact that maybe one or two or three of your children missed two critical years of school, the economy, gas prices. But what is happening to this country now politically is truly, truly damaging to the soul of the country. And Gene, I don't know about you, but in watching the clip that we just saw and listening to President Biden last night and the full talk that he gave, you can sort of sense a combination of rage at what is going on politically and disbelief that a political system that he's been a part of for 50 years, and sort of in a friendly way, dealt with the opposition for over 40 years, that things have so drastically changed, you wonder whether he recognizes the landscape that

we live in. Well, I think he probably recognizes it now, or he's beginning to. Remember, the reason he ran for president was what Donald Trump was doing to the country, was doing to our system of democracy, was doing to our traditions and our mores and the sort of unwritten constitution that accompanies the written constitution that allows us to function as a democracy. And Donald Trump was destroying that. I think President Biden believed that when he was in office, he could, that this would kind of self-correct, that Trump would sort of fade away and he'd be able to get the nation back on track, you know, whether it's heading in a liberal direction, a conservative direction, but back on track the way it was pre-Trump. And I think he's now realized, I hope he's now realized that, no, this is a deeper, more serious problem. And he needs to address it head on and he needs to address it aggressively. And so I was very, very happy to hear him doing

that. And President Biden's anger about this particular issue, evident by his insistence to go ahead and do those remarks despite having to do them remotely because of his COVID diagnosis. As for what former President Trump was and wasn't doing to stop the insurrection, member of the January 6th Select Committee, Congresswoman Elaine Luria, revealed new testimony yesterday showing how the former president edited a speech that was meant to condemn the insurrection. She tweeted this. It took more than 24 hours for President Trump to address the nation again after his Rose Garden video on January 6th, in which he affectionately told his followers to go home in peace. There were more things he was unwilling to say. Here's that video testimony that she released.

I'm not sure when those conversations began because they could have started early the next morning, but I believe they started that evening, on the evening of the 6th. I thought we should give the statement on the 7th and obviously move forward on transition. I sat with her, I spoke to Miller about trying to put together some draft remarks for Jan 7 that we were going to present to the president to try to say. We felt like it was important to further call for de-escalation. From what I understood at the time and from what the reports were coming in, there's a large concern of the 25th Amendment potentially being invoked, and there were

concerns about what would happen in the Senate if it was, if the 25th was invoked. So the primary reason that I had heard, other than, you know, we did not do enough on the 6th, we need to get a stronger message out there and condemn this, otherwise this will be our legacy. The secondary reason to that was, think about what might happen in the final 15 days of your presidency if we don't do this. There's already talks about invoking the 25th Amendment. You need this as cover. Do you recognize what this is? It looks like a copy of a draft of the remarks for that day.

And as you can see throughout the document, there are lines crossed out. There are some words added in. Do you recognize the handwriting? It looks like my father's handwriting. In my view, he needed to express very clearly that the people who committed violent acts, went into the Capitol, did what they did, should be prosecuted and should be arrested. It looks like here that he crossed out that he was directing the Department of Justice to ensure all lawbreakers are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We must send a clear message, not with mercy, but with justice. Legal consequences must be swift and firm. Do you know why he wanted that crossed out? I don't know. And that needed to be stated for they did not represent him or or the his political views in any form or fashion. He also has crossed out I want to be very clear

you do not represent me you do not represent our movement. Do you remember? Do you know why he crossed that language out of the statement? I don't know. Can you describe a little more for me about what Mr. Kushner was asking you to do? I don't remember if it was a video message or a speech he was going to give or something. But I know people were deciding like what he should say or what he should do and then um he knew since i'm always with him that hey if he asks your opinion you know try to nudge this along this will help everything cool down so that's what i did nudge it along in what way what does what does that mean to make sure he gives delivers this speech or whatever it was i don't know if it was a video or a speech or something it was either either it was within a few days of after January 6th. Was the implication that the president was in some ways

reluctant to give that speech? Yeah. OK, what do you base that on? The fact that somebody has to tell me to nudge it along. Claire McCaskill, let's remember, of course, that Donald Trump didn't want to give that speech. He only was pushed into it because of the growing chatter that the 25th Amendment might be invoked to remove him from office, potentially preventing him from running again. And even when he did, he water out the stuff that was maybe most important in terms of sending a signal to the country that he was not behind the insurrection. Turns out he was. Turns out he was happy about it. Turns out he was gleeful what was going on. And I think the most important thing about that speech, which hasn't been talked about very much, is that the people around him were willing to lie in this cover up on January the 7th, because there is language in the speech he gave that said, I called out the National Guard and the local police.

Well, we all now know he did no such thing. He didn't call the National Guard. He never picked up the phone to call anybody except Rudy and a few senators that he thought would do his bidding. So it is really interesting that Ivanka and Jared and all of them were anxious to lie and make him lie about what he did on the actual day of the insurrection. Claire's point about lying is everything. That's the whole problem with this whole Trump shebang. Everyone's been willing to lie for the guy for so long, constantly from the very beginning, as long as they can just cling to their little bit of power and enjoy their proximity to the president. And I was most struck just the video replay right then, Ivanka Trump and her testimony. Can you imagine

in 2016, did she imagine it was going to escalate to the point where she would be defending daddy's insurrection? And that's where it got. There were no guardrails and the people who were trying to enforce the law like Pat Cipollone weren't listened to. And Donald Trump was just trying to flout the law at every single point. And plenty of people were willing to lie for him. People were willing to lie for him and willing to amplify his lies. Someone should write a book about that. Call it the big lie. Taking notes on that, Brev. We might discuss that a little later in the show.

With this as the backdrop, the former president returns to Washington, D.C. today for the first time since Marine One lifted him away from the White House on the morning of President Biden's inauguration. You'll recall he skipped the inauguration, becoming the first modern president to do so, leaving early morning from the White House instead. Now, 552 days later, he's set to speak at a summit hosted by the America First Policy Institute at a hotel less than two miles away from the U.S. Capitol, the scene of the insurrection, and less than one mile from the West Wing. Trump's remarks will reportedly focus on, quote, private safety. The group was founded by dozens of Trump allies just months after the 2020 election. Joining us now to talk about this, staff writer at The Atlantic, our friend Mark Leibovich.

His new book is titled Thank You for Your Servitude, Donald Trump's Washington and the Price of Submission. Mark, congrats again on the book. What are you looking for from the former president when he makes his return to the nation's capital today well i mean i think it will be a triumphant return i'm sure when he goes before the american america first policy institute he will get a standing ovation that'll be a red carpet treatment uh... and really just step back for a second i mean just it is striking that

he is returning to basically the scene of what was, you know, when he left office basically within a mile of the biggest crime scene in America. It remains sort of the fixation of a lot of people in our government the way he left Washington. I mean, he left Washington with 25,000 National Guard troops in the street, which at that point was bigger than the force we had in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, this was, for anyone who lived in Washington or spent time in Washington, this was as chilling a few weeks as anyone has ever spent. And I think there was no sort of more eloquent testimony to the America that Donald Trump was leaving behind or the Washington that

he was leaving behind than the state of things on that day. And so just it's important to sort of take stock of him returning to Washington as a precursor, perhaps, to him returning to Washington for another term as president, which seems to be what he wants to do, because I think it's likely that in the next few months he will announce that he's running for president again. And that is also the backdrop of all of this, because as I say in my book, and you say in your book, and look, we all have books, right? This is like the lies have been enabled. I mean, the lies have become the truth in the Republican Party. And yes, you can call people out on it. You can ask Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner what Donald Trump was thinking when

he wrote this out or was going to think about doing this draft statement. And I think we all get the same answer, which is that, you know, he's trying to water it down and trying to pretend that January 6th never existed and trying to set the stage for his own return triumphantly to Washington as president. Mark, in servitude and in your first book, you write about Washington as kind of a giant high school, a giant club, this town. So how is this town going to react when Donald Trump sets foot back in this town for the first time? I mean, are people going to flee? Are they going to hide? Are they going to throw screw rose petals in his path? What's going to happen? I think in the venue itself, the rose petals will be flying. I think, look, I think a lot

of Republican Washington wishes that this event weren't happening. Anything that takes any attention off what the current president is going through, inflation and so forth, is not good for Republicans. And obviously you know donald trump is going to sort of jump right into that again so I i think look at the this is what what what happened the backdrop of what we were talking about many years ago it seven eight years ago when after the first book came out was kinda kinda comedy of manners in retrospect I mean the whole high school

analogy is have a luxury at this point. I mean, this stuff is for keeps. This stuff is for history. And again, Donald Trump's sort of contribution to history, what his legacy is, is largely tied up in not only what led to that day, January 6th, but, you know, the sort of memory holing of it that has gone on since then from the Republican Party, the effort to sort of pretend it never existed or pretend it was a normal tourist trip or something like that. And every

time he comes back, it draws attention to that day again. And I think it's something that most Republicans here would rather not talk about. Mike Barnicle, take it to Mark, but I'll also just note that we know the former president, furious that no one was there defending him during the January 6 hearings now he comes to Washington and gets to do just that well yeah and he does it in plain sight which is the most amazing thing of all I mean we can show all the clips we want of the January 6 hearings basically that's basically talking about things in the rearview mirror but here he is today coming to Washington, D.C. with his plan intact. He has never stopped.

And Mark Leibovich, I'm wondering, does it surprise you at all? I bet it doesn't, that you have a former president of the United States who will appear in Washington, D.C. today publicly intent, continually, continually publicly intent on his plan. One, to destroy the electoral system of our country by talking about the big lie that it was rigged, that it was fixed. And two, to continue trying to damage nearly every institution of government that has taken care of America and provided

for American citizens for over 200 years. He's going to do it again today in public. And my question to you, what level of astonishment do you have that so far, thus far, not a single major Republican figure has really stood up and taken this guy on? That is, first of all, it's low guy on that that is first of all it's low my level of astonishment because it's been happening for essentially seven years but i think it is striking i mean the silence around his return his rehabilitation from elected republicans from the putative leaders of this party has been striking, largely because they don't want it to happen. They want to be done with this guy in large part. I mean, obviously, there are some

exceptions and there are some exceptions in the other direction, the Liz Cheney's, the Mitt Romney's, the Adam Kinzinger's, who have been very outspoken in condemning him. But I think, you know, they could have gotten rid of this problem. I mean, it would still be a problem. I mean, Donald Trump is still going to have a lot of support in the Republican Party. But, you know, Republicans could have impeached him. They could have condemned him. They could continue to condemn him. The backdrop of complete silence and submission could be a lot less, you know, a lot less welcoming to Donald Trump and to what we think his message is going to be today, which is, look, I was wronged. I'm coming back and I'm going to get it right this

next time. So, yeah, again, I think this is what silence allows. This is what submission allows. And this is the path that Republicans have chosen. And Trump comes back to Washington, maybe slightly weakened, but still the overwhelming favorite to be the Republican Party's 2024 nominee for president. Mark Leibovich, thank you so much. His new book is Thank You for Your Servitude, Donald Trump's Washington and the Price of Submission. Ohio Republican Senate candidate J.D. Vance is receiving harsh pushback this morning after he suggested in a newly resurfaced video that people should stay in unhappy marriages, even if they are violent. Vice News published Vance's comments from last September when he was speaking to Pacifica Christian High School. He was

responding to a moderator who had referenced Vance's grandparents' relationship before asking what causes one generation to give up on fatherhood and others to stick it out. This is one of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is this idea that like, well, okay, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses, like they changed their underwear, that's going to make people happier in the long term. And maybe it worked out for the moms and dads, though I'm skeptical,

but it really didn't work out for the kids of those marriages. And I think that's what all of us should be honest about, is we've run this experiment in real time, and what we have is a lot of very, very real family dysfunction that's making our kids unhappy. In his best-selling book, Hillbilly Elegy, Vance describes his grandparents' marriage as chaotic and violent, even telling one story where his grandmother lit his grandfather on fire, who had to be saved by their 11-year-old daughter. Vance explains that their marriage improved by the time he was born, and he credits

them as being a stable force in his life. In a statement to Vice News, the Vance campaign responded in part, as anyone who studies these issues knows, domestic violence has skyrocketed in recent years and is much higher among non-married couples. That's the trick I reference. That domestic violence would somehow go down if progressives got what they want, when in fact, modern society's war on families has made our domestic violence situation much worse.

Any fair person would recognize I was criticizing the progressive frame on this issue, not embracing it. He added, I'm an actual victim of domestic violence in my life. I have seen siblings, wives, daughters, and myself abused by men. It's disgusting for you to argue that I was defending those men. So that's his lengthy statement, Elise Jordan, but obviously his remarks, so striking, raised a lot of eyebrows. What's your sense of it as to how reflective they are about where the Republican Party is right now about women? I think J.D. Vance is a troll. So I really don't want to give these comments more air than

necessary because that's what he wants us to do. He wants us to sit around and talk about the most incendiary things that he says as to where the Republican Party is. I don't even know if it's just the Republican Party, but a lot of these laws around the entire country that are coming to light. And I wanted to ask Claire about a law in Missouri that pregnant women can't divorce their spouses, even if they're being abused, if they're pregnant. And what is that? Can you explain that? Because in the aftermath of Roe versus Wade, reading about that law was very disturbing. Yeah, I can't explain it. I mean, there is no explanation for what Missouri is doing. They're going it's it is the home of government mandated pregnancy. the government telling young girls who have been repeatedly raped by a relative or a stepfather

that they must carry that child to term. It is the home of crazy when it comes to how the Missouri legislature has looked at women. But and I know, at least we don't want to give J.D. Vance a bunch of airtime on this. But I got to tell you, first of all, we've got to correct what he said. Domestic violence has not skyrocketed. Secondly, the idea that women having more power in this country has somehow made children worse, that the economic changes that have allowed women to escape violent marriages and protect their children. I am someone who has watched children die because of domestic violence, because the women did not have the ability to escape violence. So this notion that he thinks he belongs in the United States Senate today when he says that somehow women who are in

a violent relationship for the sake of their children should stick it out. It's disgusting. And Ohio needs to wake up because this is really scary, nutty stuff. This makes Trump kind of look normal in some ways. Well, I think, Claire, that Trump has normalized inconsistencies and outrage in the Republican Party. Let's not forget that the new leader of the so-called Christian right in 16 and 20 was Donald Trump, who was multiple married and who had a videotape of saying you can grab a woman's privates. And they totally act like that didn't happen. So why would we be shocked at a J.D. Vance talking one way about his grandparents in

a book and another way when he's sitting on a forum? They have normalized saying one thing one day, saying something the other day, talking out of both sides of your mouth and calling that some kind of moral standard. And this is what religion is all about. So to normalize this, Donald Trump has achieved that. It's how good you can lie, how good you can change your former position and sell it on people. It's an insult to the intelligence of Republican voters and voters that lean to the right, that really believe in what they believe. But these people believe in nothing but winning at any cost. They have no beliefs. They're not betraying their beliefs. They have no beliefs. And certainly looking at it through the political lens, this is another candidate who Republicans are growing nervous about. The J.D. Vance is someone

Ohio has become a red state in recent cycles, but he is someone who polls suggest is in a tight race with Tim Ryan. And Republicans in many ways have a lot of advantages for the Senate this year, but they fielded candidates who seem deeply flawed. Georgia, perhaps, and Herschel Walker, chief among them, giving Democrats hope they might be able to retain the Senate. Certainly, we're going to watch for the further fallout from these remarks. It's not going to be in a recession, in my view. The employment rate is still one of the lowest we've had in history. It's in the 3.6 area. We still find ourselves with people investing. My hope is we go from this rapid growth to steady growth. And so we'll see some coming down. But I don't think we're going to,

God willing, I don't think we're going to see a recession. That's President Biden yesterday saying he doesn't believe the GDP numbers being released this Thursday will indicate the country is in a recession. Joining us now, The Economist editor-in-chief Zannie Milton-Belgaz. Thank you so much for being here. Let's start there with the economy. Inflation, obviously, top of mind here in the United States, but globally as well. Give us a sense as to how nations across the globe are combating it and where the U.S. ranks in that fight.

So I think everywhere the concern is inflation, absolutely around the world. And pretty much around the world, there's fear of recession. As you heard, the president here worried about that. We may well see another quarter of GDP decline. Is it technically a recession or not is a question. In Europe, ditto, Germany may well see the second quarter of GDP decline. In Europe, the big question is what happens with gas. As you heard just today, the Russians have cut again the amount of gas they're allowing through the pipeline into Europe. That's the biggest problem for Europe. Is it going to face an energy shock that tips into recession?

And then in Asia, the problem with China is its zero COVID policy, which is keeping the clamper on the economy. So everywhere, recession is a problem. I think the U.S. is probably relatively is a problem. I think the U.S. is probably relatively stronger than many. I think I'm here now. This is an economy that doesn't feel like it's going into a deep recession, certainly. Certainly unemployment numbers still a bit more on what you just said there about the European economy primed to take another hit, with Russia announcing new plans to reduce gas exports. After already cutting back flows to 40 percent capacity, Russia's state-owned gas monopoly said

yesterday it would crimp exports again to 20% along the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. That's the world's largest subsea pipeline where natural gas from Russia is exported to Germany and then shared throughout Europe. Last week, limited flows resumed through Nord Stream 1 after an annual maintenance shutdown. Despite Russia claiming the cuts are due to technical problems, many world leaders have accused Moscow of using gas exports to wage a proxy war with the West. I think we probably should not take Moscow at their word for the reason for the reduction. But how worrisome is this? If it stays at 20 percent, and how is it a harbinger of what could be a dark, cold fall and

winter for Europe that could test resolve to stand with Ukraine? Unfortunately, yes. I mean, I think this is absolutely not a technical problem. I mean, it's a very coincidental problem that it happens now. The real risk is that if it stays at 20 percent, the Europeans can't build up the stocks in the way that they were planning to get them through winter if President Putin does cut the gas off. And I think given what he's doing now, it has to be at least a high expectation that he will play more war games with gas going through to the winter. And that is a real problem for Europe. Mike Barnett, I'll take the next question. Zannie, how would you describe an economy, the American economy, where people, when you talk to them, they complain about the increased cost of gasoline, the scarcity on food shelves

of some items, and the cost of meat and chicken, things like that. And yet when you ask them, but how are you doing personally, they say, well, personally, I'm doing okay. How do you explain the dichotomy of that kind of an economy? I think you describe it as a confusing economy. I think really pretty much any economist you talk to now, you take what they say with a pinch of salt. No one really knows what's going on.

There are signs that the economy is weakening. At the same time, you're completely right. The consumer is in strong shape. Unemployment is incredibly low. People still have a lot of savings from their stimulus checks and so forth. I think my take is it's slowing. Inflation is a problem. What happens going forward depends on what the Fed does. How much more aggressively does it raise interest rates? Will that then tip the economy into a

slight recession or into something steeper? And I think it's the Fed is really what there is to play for. Zani, let me ask this. A lot of times when we have these discussions, talk about the U.S., we talk about Europe and what Putin is doing and the impact. But we don't talk about what's going on in Asia and in Africa, which a lot of these decisions cause food shortages, oil shortages all over the continent of Africa and Asia. Talk about the impact of what is going on in the West on the rest of the world and how Putin is able to manipulate a lot of that to get allies like in Africa and other places only because he's using economic and some of his foreign policies to do what has been, in many ways, halted by people or by nations in the West. You're absolutely right.

One of the biggest shocks hitting people in the world right now is the soaring price for food and frankly, the food catastrophe in many parts of North Africa, because Ukraine and Russia are the biggest exporters of wheat in global markets and many other agricultural products. So there's a real challenge there. In the last few days, there's been an agreement, as you know, between the Ukraine and Russia brokered by Turkey to get some of the food out of Ukraine. But within hours, the Russians sent a missile to Odessa, the port there.

So no one knows if that's really going to stand. So one question is, will the grain get out? Will there be more supply for Africa? But the other, as you say, is the propaganda war, because the Russians are very effectively claiming to people in Africa that this is the result of sanctions and it has nothing to do with them. But of course, it does have to do with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. That's the real cause of all of this. But President Putin's foreign minister, Lavrov, is in Africa as we speak President Putin's foreign minister, Lavrov, is in Africa as we speak, going around African countries, basically saying this is all the West's

fault. It's all the fault of sanctions. And that message, unfortunately, is sort of hitting home. And there are many people outside the West who, if anything, blame the West for this. And that's a real propaganda victory for Putin. Certainly the economy dominating discussion in the UK last night in their first debate between the top two candidates hoping to be the UK's next prime minister. We are an outlier. Everybody understands that COVID is a one in 100 year event and trying to pay it back straight away, so quickly, that we actually damage our economy, that we end up causing a recession, that we end up in people being out of work, and that hard-working taxpayers who do the right thing have seen their taxes rise,

despite the fact that we promised in our manifesto not to do it. Hang on, Pfizer. I think that is what... You just mentioned three countries. Do you know what mortgage rates are in the US at the moment? Do you want to use them as an example? Their mortgage rates are almost 50% higher than mortgage rates in this country because they're borrowing so much.

I'm sorry, this is scaremongering. Canada actually has... This is project fear. You're seeing it. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and former Chancellor Rishi Sunak clashed in their first televised debate. The final election results are set to be announced by early September. It comes after current Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced his resignation earlier this month after several scandals and some of his own ministers quit.

Now, UK conservatives have a choice to make. They can pick a former chancellor who helped bring Johnson down or his loyal foreign secretary who stood by his side. So that seems like a pretty stark contrast. But give us your sense of how last night went, but where things stand in this race. So it was pretty fiery last night. You heard a disagreement there. It got it got even more fiery. They were really shouting across each other. There is a fundamental disagreement between these two. One, Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, believes that Britain doesn't have room to cut taxes, that it's got a huge debt burden and that inflation is the biggest problem and that that's what needs to be focused on. And only when that's brought under control can there be more tax

cuts. Liz Truss is very much in the kind of, you know, jam today and jam tomorrow camp. You know, Boris Johnson used to believe in, you know, having your cake and eating it. And she's continuing that. And she thinks the thing to do now is to cut taxes and that that's what the British economy needs to stave off recession, as you heard. They are really quite fundamentally different views. And so you've got a real choice there. But the weird thing in the UK, and this is the kind of crazy system we have, the people who are going to elect the next prime minister are not the country as a whole. It is the members of the Conservative Party. So the Conservative MPs whittled the list of potential MPs down to two. These two now go to

the Conservative members. This is a bunch of, I think it's about 180,000 people, disproportionately older, disproportionately male, disproportionately kind of somewhat to the centre-right or perhaps even further. They're not your average Brit, but they are going to be choosing the next prime minister. And so it's who appeals to them more out of these two. And as you can see, they're both trying to kind of be the heirs of Thatcher. It's really interesting. Liz Truss is trying to even look like Thatcher. And Rishi Sunak very much portrays himself as an heir of Thatcher, too. Yet they have these two very different views. Eugene Robinson, you know a thing or two about British politics. Hop in next. Yes. Zannie, you do have a crazy system there. At least you don't have

the electoral college. We could have a conversation about which system was crazier. Yeah, I know, I know. You have a constitution, but it's not written down. It's very weird. Anyhow, are there other differences besides the tax question? I mean, that is the fundamental question. But do they differ on huge issues like climate change, on attitude toward Russia and Ukraine, foreign policy? Are there other big differences or is it basically does it come down to taxes?

I think the main difference is on the economy and on tax. On the other areas you cite, there may be differences of nuance. But actually, the more interesting thing is that they're both, they both mark a shift on climate. I think that they're both going to be less focused on green than the Johnson administration was. And on Ukraine, I think they both will be continuity candidates. She's the foreign secretary. You know, the UK is very proud of its role in Ukraine, Boris Johnson's. It's one of the areas where Boris Johnson is perceived to have done very well. And I think they're both going to continue that. All right. We'll be watching this in the weeks ahead. Editor in chief of The Economist, Zannie Minton-Bettos, thank you so much for being here today. We enjoyed it. Worst wildfire of the year is sweeping across

northern California. NBC News national correspondent Miguel Almaguer has the latest from the front lines. This is what California's wildfire season looks and sounds like now. Exploding into the largest inferno in the state this year, the Oak Fire burning near Yosemite is also the most volatile blaze of the season, torching everything in its path. I appreciate how everybody's sticking together. It's okay. I still haven't absorbed this.

Even with 2,000 firefighters on the ground, the Oak Fire is raging out of control, destroying at least 10 structures, including newlywed Steve and Andrea Ward's home, which erupted into a fireball. She's looking over my shoulder, and, you know, this home that we had just gotten married at two weeks ago, it explodes. With 3,000 people forced to evacuate, 3,200 structures still lie in the path of the fire.

As the blaze breaks off and moves in multiple directions, firefighters are having a tough time staying in front of it. So now they're using the help of the air attack. But even a steady line of fire retardant isn't stopping the blaze. Visible from outer space, the suffocating blanket of smoke has now drifted hundreds of miles, choking the skies near the Bay Area. It comes amid deadly temperatures blanketing the country, 37 million under heat alerts. But it's the Pacific Northwest that could see temperatures rise as high as 115 degrees. Back on the fire line, some good news. The inferno is moving towards burn scars

like these, where there's little fuel for flames. You know, it's just stuff is the thing. It's just stuff, but it's still amazing to see what survives. For some, the damage is already done. California's most destructive fire of the year certainly won't be the last. NBC's Miguel Amalgar with that report, and clearly a result of climate change, Eugene Robinson, and you have written about this existential threat yet again today. Yes, I have. I'll keep writing about it until we start doing something about it. Look, we have to, we know what's causing it.

The carbon emissions, the carbon and other greenhouse gases that we put into the atmosphere that have warmed the planet, and we have to deal with that. But we also have to deal with the warming we've already caused, with the changes we've already caused, the megadrought in the West and the heat waves that you see reflected in these fires. We just had the heat wave here. It's coming to the Pacific Northwest next. The coastal flooding that we're seeing. This is not an American phenomenon.

We're seeing this sort of thing around the world. But specifically here, we're going to have to adapt to what we've done. We're going to have to rethink the way we manage those forests in the American West that are prone to fire. We're going to have to rethink how we keep people cool in these potentially lethal heat waves. We're going to probably have to erect some big barriers in front of some of our major harbors and cities to protect them from flooding. So we have to move on both tracks. We have to mitigate climate change, but we also have to adapt to it. Eugene Robinson, please keep

writing about it. Nothing could be more important. Thank you for being with us this morning.