Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/26/23

Episode Date: July 26, 2023

Speaker McCarthy appears to soften remarks on Biden impeachment

Good morning. As you look at a beautiful live picture of our building here at 30 Rockefeller Center in New York, it is Wednesday, July 26. This morning, indictment watch for Donald Trump continues. Special Counsel Jack Smith's grand jury did not meet yesterday. We'll get some expert legal analysis on what that could mean. And could we see something later this week? Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Kevin McCarthy caught between the far right and reality as the House speaker appears to clarify his impeachment comments about President Biden. We'll tell you what he said. Also had a significant ruling from a federal judge on the Biden administration's new border policy. We'll have a live report on that story. Plus, we are following a developing story out of Eastern Europe where Marine veteran Trevor Reed, who was released by Russia in a prisoner swap, you'll remember, is recovering this morning after he was injured

fighting for Ukrainian forces. Good morning again. With us, we've got MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle, the host of Way Too Early and White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, Washington bureau chief for USA Today, Susan Page, congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jack Yalamany. And here with us in studio, MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalas. Good morning to you all. And we will start with those new comments from House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who continues to suggest his party is close to launching an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. In an interview Monday night, McCarthy said it stems from the Republican led investigations into the Biden family's business dealings. Here's what he said on Fox News, followed by his remarks to reporters yesterday up on Capitol Hill. We've only followed where the information has taken us.

But this is rising to the level of impeachment inquiry, which provides Congress the strongest power to get the rest of the knowledge and information needed. Because this president has also used something we have not seen since Richard Nixon. Use the weaponization of government to benefit his family and deny Congress the ability to have the oversight. I believe we will follow this all the way to the end, and this is going to rise to an impeachment inquiry the way the Constitution tells us to do this, and we have to get the answers to these questions.

You understand what impeachment inquiry is? It's not impeachment. It allows Congress to investigate by giving Congress the full power to get the information they need. It's the way people should go about investigating. So let me put yourself in our place. It doesn't matter who's in the majority or not. So a little tough to hear that if you're in the car listening on the radio. Speaker McCarthy yesterday saying they're not talking specifically about getting all the way to impeachment.

They want to open an impeachment inquiry so they can get the evidence that that allows looking into these alleged crimes that they see. So, Jackie Alemania, as you cover this Congress on Capitol Hill, how serious are Republicans? And I'm not just talking about the Freedom Caucus or the Jim Jordans of the world about impeaching the president of the United States and how far can they actually get with this? Yeah, Willie, I'm not exactly sure what they would be impeaching him for just yet. And I don't think Republicans know that either. Of course, there's been a slew of unverified allegations against against Biden, specifically rooting from when he was vice president. You saw James Comer and Chuck Grassley sort of take a Hail Mary last week in releasing in its totality this form of a human confidential source that was relayed to the FBI several years ago that, again, alleged unverified allegations

that Biden was involved in some sort of bribery scheme in relation to Ukraine. We have previously reported at The Washington Post that the FBI had looked into these allegations. They didn't check out. It was closed. That happened under Attorney General Bill Barr. So, you know, you're going to see Republicans continuing to try to throw spaghetti at the wall here to sort of muddy the waters. But the veracity of a lot of these allegations does not yet quite match the explosiveness of a lot of the rhetoric and the claims that we're seeing. Of course, you're not this isn't going to deter Republicans from stopping these sorts of claims, especially heading into August recess. I think there is a desire here to kind of get as much out there in order to appease former President Trump, especially as we are all waiting for this

third indictment to land. And John, Jackie makes the important point that a lot of this was raised to the FBI, to the Justice Department, under the Trump administration, under Bill Barr, under people appointed by Donald Trump. And in fact, they didn't see any wrongdoing here. But that doesn't mean that Republicans, especially this oversight committee, are not going to plow forward with this. This could cause some problems, as you saw Speaker McCarthy trying to sort of walk the line there on the question of impeachment. Will moderate Republicans be willing to step out and take an impeachment vote on the president of the United States when they need to be reelected themselves? So I'll put the question to you. How far do you think they actually can get?

Could the House anyway be voted down in the Senate? But could the House anyway vote to impeach President Biden? Yeah, we should underscore what you just did, the idea that they have not, despite the speaker's claims, proven wrongdoing from the President. That is not the case here. First of all, the White House, of course, is pushing back strongly against all of this, saying it's just another political stunt, that the House Republicans are proving that this is what they care about rather than what actually matters to the American people. And they feel pretty confident, the White House does,

that if the House were to go down this path, it would backfire on them dramatically. We should also note that a bunch of Republican senators were asked about this yesterday, Senate's in session, and were pretty dismissive. So there's another moment where the GOP and the Senate is sort of acting as the grownups to the impetuous children there in the Republican-controlled House. And there's also a sense that McCarthy's talking about impeachment inquiry, And that might be as far as it goes, that this is a this is an olive branch, if you will, outreach to those far right members of the House who do want to push Biden out of office, who want to go through with a full fledged impeachment hearing. McCarthy, the sense is if he offers them this inquiry,

maybe they'll be satisfied. That will be enough. And he doesn't have to bring this to a vote to put those, as you say, moderate Republicans in a difficult position to have to cast a ballot on it. Frankly, it's not going to pass. It'd lose in the Senate anyway, and it could really backfire for Republicans coming next fall. Susan, you've been covering politics for quite some time. So let me ask you a question. What's the degree of difficulty for you and other people, other reporters covering the present day status of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives? You have Speaker McCarthy. You have a Freedom Caucus. You have people like Matt Gaetz and something called the 20. How many elements of

the Republican Party are there and how do you cover this? Yeah, well, it's been it's been a challenge, this new Republican Party. You know, there are there we used to be able to cover the leaders of the Republican Party, like Mitch McConnell. And I think that was a very serious way to cover the party. That's no longer the case. There are other factions that exercise some considerable influence. I don't know that President Biden will ever be impeached, but I feel confident that talk of impeachment will will be a factor for him for the rest of his his tenure in office. There was a, you know, talking about covering politics for a while when I started covering politics, impeachment and talk of impeachment was considered an incredibly momentous discussion, one of great seriousness. Now, talk of impeachment is like demanding a roll call vote on the House floor. It's become just another political tool that has undercut some of the serious impeachment

inquiries you've seen, like into January 6th. And just as someone said earlier, just muddied the waters. I think Jackie said this, just muddied the waters. I think Jackie said this just muddied the waters as we consider this this pending indictment of a former President Trump. And it's so often the case with these House Republicans is all about retribution for President Trump, as if there is some equivalency between what he was impeached for twice and what they're looking at President Biden for this morning. Meanwhile, Hunter Biden, the president's son, is scheduled to appear in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware. He's expected to plead guilty to two federal misdemeanor counts of failing to pay his taxes, a deal that would allow him to avoid prosecution on a gun charge if he meets certain conditions.

U.S. District Judge Mary Ellen Norica, who was appointed by Donald Trump, will consider whether to accept that plea agreement. So, Danny, let's walk our viewers through again, because there's so much swirling around Hunter Biden. What the House is looking at is something different, talking about his business dealings overseas and possible connections to the president, which have not been shown so far. What are we talking about here? Just remind our viewers exactly. Much narrower. These are two tax crimes to? Just remind our viewers exactly. Much narrower. These are two tax crimes to which he'll plead guilty to misdemeanors. And then in addition, he will enter into a pretrial diversionary program for gun charges. And what that means is pretrial diversion is kind of a one free bite of the apple. You enter into a program. Typically,

you're monitored by probation. You have to behave. You go to work. You do everything you're supposed to do. Maybe you go to counseling. Then you come back, usually in six months or however long, and the judge will dismiss the case. It is ordinarily as good as a not guilty. There is the rare situation where I will not rush to accept and offer a pretrial diversion in any case. The reason it's controversial in this case is this. In state court, pretrial diversion happens all the time. You see it for DUI cases, low-level drug cases. In federal court, it happens virtually never. I'm not even aware personally of either any of my cases or any of my colleagues' cases where pretrial diversion has ever been offered in the federal system. So no matter how you cut it, pretrial diversion as an offer is very rare in federal

court. Does the judge have any options today? Technically, yes. She can reject the plea agreement. That's always something you have to warn your client of. But I doubt that's going to happen in this case. It very rarely happens. Ultimately, the punishment is up to the judge. But when the government makes a recommendation, as it's expected to do here, which is no jail time for the misdemeanors, typically the judge follows it. Now, what I will say is in the federal system, if you're charged with misdemeanors, you have a pretty good chance of getting a probation-only sentence. But the reality is this. I'm aware of virtually no cases in the federal system where someone is charged with misdemeanor only crimes. Misdemeanors by themselves simply

are a they're just a rare animal in federal court. They are usually accompanied by several felonies, all of which will land you in prison ordinarily, even if you're a first time offender. So obviously, Danny, as you've heard many times, the accusations when we heard about this plea deal from Republicans is that Hunter Biden got off easy, that it's the Biden Justice Department. Again, this is a Trump appointed federal judge. We should remind our viewers from your point of view, clear eyed legal view, take politics out of it. Was this a fair deal? Was it a tough deal? Did he get off easy? It was an amazing deal. And frankly, if the government's going to start handing out pretrial diversion like this, I'm going to get in line because it's an amazing deal.

Like I said, it gets you just as good as not guilty. You can get your record expunged, at least in state court, depending on the state. It's as good as if you went to trial and won. So if the government is now in the business of ordinarily handing out pretrial diversion, then consider my hand raised. Now, I do understand the argument to be made that, look, in a tax case, this is something that might have been worked out. I understand that. And there's even an argument made, and I disagree with this, that under this particular subsection of the gun charges, now there are several different kinds of gun charges in this section. One is, for example,

do you have a gun and are you a felon? Well, Willie, that's something you can look up very easily. There's the person with the gun. We know that. And we look on the record. Is he a felon? Then he's disqualified. But this subsection is a little squishier. This is the part that says, are you a habitual user of drugs, including things like marijuana, virtually any illicit drug? If so, well, that's a lot harder to prove, right? I mean, arguably, you could go for the weekend to Amsterdam as a gun owner, partake in marijuana, and technically, under a reading of the statute, you may have violated it upon your return to the United States. I'm giving a ridiculous example, but it is true that that particular subsection

is probably less charged and harder to prove. But look, pretrial diversion for a gun case in federal court is an amazing deal. I don't care how you slice it. And if you disagree with me, show me the statistics of people charged under that particular statute of percentages of people who get pretrial diversion for gun cases. So is Hunter Biden the only one who could have gotten this amazing deal? I don't know about that. I mean, you know, I'm not going to go so far as to say that it was some kind of political influence, but it must be amazing lawyering. Look, it's the kind of thing that maybe and I wrote a column about this. Maybe it factored subconsciously or consciously into the government's mind. They have to consider whether they can get a conviction.

Well, factoring into that decision, do you have to think about, hey, this is a very well-known defendant. And if we try to seat a jury, we may have a hard time convicting this particular defendant. And I do agree that this particular subsection of the gun statute is harder to prove. But look, if you need to prove that Hunter Biden was an abuser of drugs,

I think there's a lot of video and photographic evidence that that was going on, including a book. So your. I think there's a lot of video and photographic evidence that that was going on, including a book. So your burden of proof might be a lot easier than it would be with an unknown defendant. But look, I understand the arguments that this is this kind of tax case might or might not have been brought. I get that. But I just can't back down from the idea that in federal court gun charges under this particular statute, pre-trial diversion is a gift from heaven. So, Danny, help our viewers understand what happened last night, I guess it was. There

was a strange moment where one side is accusing the other of impersonating someone else in a phone call to the court to introduce new evidence. What exactly happened there? Is this significant to this hearing today at all? There's a lot that's disputed and a lot that's not disputed. Here's what's not disputed. The House GOP filed what's called an amicus brief. It's a friend of the court brief. Now, when that happened, it included a lot of stuff that was not great about Hunter Biden. So Biden's attorneys looked at it and said, first, hey, listen, an amicus brief is a friend of the court. But who's what business is this of yours anyway? You're late. This is like coming in the night before the hearing. It's not really appropriate. So they got on the phone and they disagreed and they emailed back and forth nasty grams as lawyers do.

So then from there, it gets a little confusing. The phone call ends or the communication ends. And then apparently someone from Latham and Watkins office, which, by the way, is a top flight law firm. This is not a run of the fly by night law firm operating out of a out of a strip mall. This is a white shoe, fancy law firm, very competent lawyers. Someone from their office calls, not a lawyer, but a veteran staff member of the staff calls and says, according to her, hey, what do we do about this? There's a document that contains sensitive information. You're not supposed to file information like social security numbers, other tax information on the public record. So she calls and according to

her, she says, what do we do? Should we file a motion to seal it? Should we do something else? And according to Latham, that's all they did. According to the court, apparently the court clerk, what they did was much more nefarious. Apparently, reportedly, they called in and said, hey, we are the GOP. We're from the GOP's law firm. We accidentally filed this document. We need to pull it. We need to take it off the system. That's at least apparently what the court clerks are saying. It's going to come down to who does the judge believe. So if the judge believes that someone from Latham called up and said they were someone they weren't, that's going to be a

big problem for Latham. You were saying you find it, you'd be shocked or you find it unlikely that someone from a firm like that would impersonate someone else because of the potential consequences for this case. Yeah, I love it. Yeah, I love a good controversy. But when you think about it, just something is here's what I focus on. If if I'm a lawyer at Latham, if I'm a partner, a high ranking lawyer at Latham, and if even if I was going to do that, I'm not saying any of them would. But if I was going to call up a court and pretend to be somebody else, I don't think I'd farm that out to a veteran staff member because that's going to create a paper trail. It seems to me that this might have been

just a misunderstanding. I mean, oh, what a juicy controversy it would be if someone had called up and pretended to be someone they weren't. But I don't know that we'll ever get to the bottom of this. And that's the reality of litigation is sometimes you never find out the truth. I think you're just going to have someone from the clerk's office saying, hey, I believe they were representing themselves to be someone they weren't. And you're going to have someone from Latham's office saying, probably swearing on a stack of Bibles, that I absolutely did not do this. And the judge is going to have to decide. Now, if I'm the judge, I'm going to err on the side of not sanctioning people unless I have some

pretty clear evidence that sanctions are appropriate. So this may end up being a controversy for 24 hours. I wouldn't be surprised if the judge says, look, this is very serious, but I can't really find that anyone did anything intentionally. That's my prediction. I'm often wrong. Maybe we'll learn more at 10 o'clock this morning when Hunter Biden appears in court in Delaware. Danny Savalas walking us through it step by step. Great job as always. Thanks, Danny. The grand jury convened for the investigation into the January 6th insurrection and Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results is scheduled to reconvene tomorrow. That's likely the earliest we might see any action in that case.

Meanwhile, we're getting some new details this morning about one potentially key witness who spoke with special counsel Jack Smith's team. Former director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Chris Krebs, confirmed to NBC News he was interviewed by investigators who would not characterize what exactly he discussed nor when that interview took place. Krebs was at odds, you'll remember, with Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election because he insisted voting systems were protected, the election was secure. As the agency's director, Krebs focused on U.S. election infrastructure nationwide and any efforts to stop foreign government interference or hacking of the voting system. Under his leadership, the agency released a rumor control website that debunked

some of the false election conspiracy theories that Trump spread after losing the 2020 election. Notably, on November 12th, 2020, the agency issued a joint statement with other election security groups calling the election, quote, the most secure in American history. Five days later, Trump fired Krebs by tweet. So Jonathan Lemire, Chris Krebs, a frequent guest on this show, a guy who was adamant in real time in November of 2020 and thereafter saying this election was secure. We've taken extraordinary measures to make sure it was. And of course, that drew the ire of President Trump, who fired him by tweet, fired him by tweet. And let's remember that

Krebs, the agency that he helmed, touted both before and after votes were cast about how the safeguards they had taken to secure this election. Of course, 2020 being the first presidential election that took place after Russia's interference in 2016. So their focus was a lot on these foreign groups, any outside hacking attempts. But, of course, they looked at domestic ones as well. And, Jackie, it seems like Chris Krebs will play a pretty significant role in the Jack Smith, you know, his investigation as he pieces together this case. We should note that though we don't know when an indictment will come down, Donald Trump's team is preparing as if it will come down

tomorrow. They believe that is when it will happen. And they're deeply worried about the possibility of him standing in front of a Washington, D.C. jury. But that timing is fluid. What's not, what we do know, though, for certain, is that the mountain of evidence that Jack Smith is compiling. How big of a role do you think this Krebs piece will be? Yeah. And, John, just as we were discussing, you know, 10 minutes ago or so, this is really an exercise in reading the tea leaves, not just for us, but for the witnesses who are being called before the grand jury as well and their lawyers. But if you look at Smith's recent actions in the past month and the past few months, a lot of the people that he's been calling in have all had a part in the push to seize voting

machines, which was presented to former President Donald Trump and was a key part of the explosive Oval Office meeting that happened in late December that featured Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, former Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne, along with Trump's White House counsel Pat Cipollone, Eric Hirschman. and it was sort of a battle of the crazies versus the stable Trump lawyers who were advocating against implementing such a plan. But, you know, Rudy Giuliani, who recently appeared before the Justice Department for what we've determined was really a proffer session, told The Washington Post that a lot of the questions that had been asked during that conversation was about Sidney Powell and some of these plans to seize voting machines that prosecutors were particularly interested in that late December meeting. We know that Chris Krebs was someone who told the former president that there was

no election fraud, that the voting machines, you know, were not the issue. They were not, you know, culprits in giving Joe Biden more votes than former president, than the former president at the time who had, you know, very fairly lost to Joe Biden. And we also know that former New York City Commissioner Bernard Carrick, who was working closely with Rudy Giuliani and at times sort of aligned with Sidney Powell. Although if you ask a lot of these players, even Sidney Powell was too crazy for some of these outside of fringe lawyers. He is appearing actually next month and notably is handing over or handed over a privilege log amongst the documents in that log that was

included was a draft letter from POTUS to seize evidence in the interest of national security for the 2020 elections. So if there's one thing that is apparent, it's that Smith is interested in these plans that Trump was weighing to seize voting machines. But again, as you noted, John, that is just one small element in this broad universe of things that were swirling around at that time period. It is a sprawling case, and we'll see if that indictment comes down sometime this week. And on Chris Krebs, to his credit, in real time, he told the truth and wouldn't go along for the ride on the big lie.

The Washington Post's Jackie Alimany. Jackie, thanks so much. Good to see you. Still ahead on Morning Joe. New polling shows a majority of Republicans believe Donald Trump is the party's best bet to beat Joe Biden in the 2024 election. A vast majority. We'll break down those new numbers. Plus, a federal judge deals a blow to President Biden's immigration policy. NBC's Julia Ainsley joins us with her new reporting on that. And we'll talk to Susan

Page about a ballot issue in Ohio she says is a test case for the rest of the country. Also ahead, an update on the son of NBA superstar LeBron James after 18-year-old Bronny suffered cardiac arrest during a workout on Monday. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. November, Ohio voters will decide whether to enshrine abortion access in the state's constitution. State officials say more than enough valid signatures were submitted yesterday to get the measure on the general ballot. But now proponents face another hurdle. Republican lawmakers are trying to make it more difficult for voters to amend the state constitution. They've added their own ballot initiative to next month's special election, which would raise the threshold for constitutional amendments to 60 percent support instead of a simple majority. Early voting on that initiative already is underway. And Susan Page, you're

writing about this and how this very well may be an abortion test, a bellwether for the rest of the country pending the vote. Take us through some of the numbers here. This enjoys support. The abortion rights amendment enjoys popular support. But will it make its way through the statehouse there in Ohio? Yeah, we found overwhelming support in a USA Today, Suffolk University poll of Ohio by By 26 percentage points, people in Ohio, voters in Ohio, support this constitutional amendment that would basically enshrine the Roe v. Wade protections for abortion access to residents of Ohio. But as you said, the goalposts have been changed or they're trying to change the goalposts. The opponents are on August 8th, Ohio will have a special election. Imagine turning out voters for a special election in August, a special election that would raise to 60 percent the number

of the percentage of votes you need to install a new constitutional amendment. It's now 50 percent. The support we found for this amendment, 58 percent of Ohio voters. So just short of that 60 percent mark. But we also ask about this measure on changing the threshold. And we found that by two to one, Ohio voters said they oppose that idea. So if they turn out to vote next month, that will go down. And this measure will be the only abortion measure on a state ballot in November, Willie. And part of the reason, Susan, you say correctly, this could be a bellwether. The independent number in this poll is staggering. Eighty five percent of independent women support the enshrinement of abortion access.

Eighty five percent. So when we talk about the presidential election coming down to women voting in the suburbs of places like Columbus or Atlanta or Michigan, you know, Detroit, go go across the map and pick your city. Boy, that 85 percent number tells a big part of that story. And it's an amazing number. No group of voters have been more important as swing voters than independent-minded women, women who are not firmly aligned with one party or the other. This is an issue that clearly strikes with art and some history, I think, in Ohio in

particular to using a ballot measure to affect votes elsewhere on the ballot. You remember in 2004, Ohio, very contested in the presidential race. Karl Rove, the strategist for George W. Bush, encouraged Ohio Republicans to put a gay marriage ban on the ballot. And that was seen as crucial in a close election to defeating John Kerry, Ohio being a decisive state that helped reelect George Bush. Yeah, it is such an important state. And we will learn this fall if this passes. And it may tell us a lot about where the country is on this. Meanwhile, today, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas will testify before the House Judiciary Committee that comes later

today, as several Republicans have filed impeachment resolutions against Mayorkas, which high ranking Republicans, including House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, have publicly supported. Meanwhile, yesterday, a federal judge blocked a key regulation tactic of President Biden's immigration policy, specifically the administration's ability to require asylum seekers schedule an appointment for a hearing at a legal point of entry, as well as a requirement that asylum seekers prove they were denied asylum in another country while on their way to the United States. Joining us now, NBC News Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley. Julia, good morning. It's good to see you. So let's start with Secretary Mayorkas on what certainly will be a contentious hearing of the Judiciary Committee today up on

Capitol Hill. What do we expect to hear from him and from the congressmen and women on the panel? Yeah, Willie, this is not a hearing I think that the secretary is looking forward to. But so far, he's been able to battle these impeachments as they've tried to seek to impeach him over these border policies. In fact, we expect him to probably talk about what's going on in Texas just this week. We know that the Biden administration sued Texas over that string of border buoys that they have there in the Rio Grande Valley, which they call inhumane. We'll probably see a lot of questions from Democrats on that, what they're doing to keep a humane and orderly system. But then Republicans will continue to hammer Mayorkas on the border numbers,

although they don't have the wind at their back like they used to, Willie, because border numbers have come down so far. We've seen a 42% decrease from May into June because of asylum policies. But that's why that ruling yesterday is so critical, because when Title 42 went away at the mid-May, they put in place those asylum policies. Just

yesterday, a federal judge in San Francisco said that those are illegal, and he put a 14-day stay on it. But should that play out and they actually have to lift that policy, we could see those numbers rise again. But right now, given the state of the border, Mayorkas should be in a good position to defend those policies. But we know the closer we get into 2024, when you have states like Texas that are saying they need to take matters into their own hands, we know Republicans will use that, specifically those four that you named there, to really hammer home and try to show that Mayorkas isn't doing his job. But he's usually stays pretty calm, cool and collected

in these hearings, Willie. Yeah. And Mayorkas, we should remind our viewers, as we talked at the top of the show about Republicans threatening impeachment against President Biden, Mayorkas is a name that we've heard from Republicans for impeachment as well, along with Attorney General Merrick Garland. So you started to walk us through it a little bit there, Julia, but the decision by the judge yesterday, significant how as a practical question, what changes at the border because of it? Well, nothing in the immediate, Willie, because the judge did grant the Biden administration a 14 day stay. And during that time, we expect the circuit, the appellate court to rate to weigh in. They went and already appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit

yesterday. It's basically very likely the Ninth Circuit will agree with the district court that this should be lifted, but they will also grant a stay. So these stays can keep the policy in place up until the Supreme Court ultimately weighs in. That is really a big question of whether or not the Supreme Court will agree that the Biden administration and the executive branch have the authority to put this kind of rule in place. They did side with the Biden administration on their immigration enforcement policies just last month. But whether or not they'll be able to keep this policy in place and whether or not the Biden administration or whether or not the Supreme Court will be able to keep a stay in place while they figure all this out. That's all in question. But it does seem unlikely that this policy would lift before this question gets before the Supreme Court. All right. We'll be watching that and

watching closely this morning as Secretary Mayorkas sits before the Judiciary Committee, NBC's Julia Ainsley. Julia, thanks so much. Coming up next, an update on a Marine veteran who has history with Russia injured while fighting for Ukrainian forces. We'll explain how that situation could further complicate efforts to free Americans jailed by the Kremlin. Plus, details on Russian President Vladimir Putin's next face to face meeting with Chinese President Xi. It's all ahead on Morning Joe. Beautiful live picture of New York City looking south from the top of our building here at 30 Rockefeller Center, 640 in the morning. The State Department has confirmed Marine veteran Trevor Reid was injured fighting for Ukraine in that country's war against Russia. Reid was wrongfully detained in Russia for three years, you'll remember,

before he returned home last year as part of a prisoner swap. In a press briefing yesterday, a State Department spokesman stressed Reid was in Ukraine fighting on his own volition. State Department reiterating the United States warning anyone who travels to Ukraine intent on fighting against Russia faces the risk of capture, serious injury or death. Reid was transported to a U.S. military hospital in Germany where he is receiving medical treatment. The U.S. official tells NBC News the government is extremely concerned about the potential impact Reid's actions could have on our ability to bring home wrongfully detained Americans Paul Whelan and Evan Gershkowitz. Join us now. Former State Department official under President Obama, Rick Stengel.

He was just named a co-chair for the international aid group CareUSA, which works to combat global food insecurity. Rick, it's great to see you. Great to see you, Will. So as a former State Department official, situations like this are obviously sticky, to put it mildly. But when you have people abroad detained, like Paul Whelan, like Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, and Vladimir Putin is the one detaining them, what is the posture, generally speaking, of the State Department trying to get them back? What I can tell you, it's something that people take incredibly seriously. They work 24-7 on it.

It's one of those things that the White House has its own special group that's working on hostages. And I know people are just, you know, on the phones all the time. I remember I had to call a couple of the families of people who are hostages, one who was in the old Russia. So, yeah, but this situation is actually kind of an absolutely new thing. Someone who was held in Russia and then went to Ukraine to fight against Russia. I don't blame him. I mean, plus the the unknown quandary here is Vladimir Putin. How does he react to this? How does he use this? You know, an American that we exchanged. Yeah, we gave him his freedom and he comes back and fights against us. So, you know, Griskovich

and Whalen, they're staying here. We're not going to do that again. Yes. That's the quandary. I'm sure he's not happy about it. I mean, the Russians, Mike, as you know, they capture people then to use as someone to trade for someone that the United States has. They use them as bargaining chips. And what Reid has done in a weird way is kind of reverse the whole bargaining chip. You know, he got out and then he went back to fight against Russia. But the Russians use it strategically. And that's always something that we have to deal with. So, Rick, let's talk about CareUSA. Congratulations. Thank you. New position that you're holding. Let's remind our viewers what CareUSA is, what it does, created right after World War II in 1945. Yes. Care was created at the end of World War II in part because the U.S. had all of these 10-in-1 meals,

millions of meals that were for soldiers that they didn't need to use because the war ended. And then a consortium of philanthropic groups got together to create CARE and deliver those meals to Europe. The first one was in Le Havre, France. I think that's where that picture is. Harry Truman bought the first CARE package. In fact, people don't realize the CARE package, the origin of it is CARE USA. Oh, is that right? Yes. I did not know that. Yes. It's even copyrighted, but nobody seems to care about that. So what is it today now? Where is the focus of CareUSA? So today it's almost a billion dollar organization. We are in over a hundred countries around the world dealing

with food insecurity, water, agriculture issues. We've reached 175 million people during the past year. I just went a couple of months ago to a care program in Ghana. We're dealing with women farmers, teaching them how to use a kind of modern technology, looms and things, making fabric. So it was really fantastic and inspiring. I also went earlier in the year because care for the first time since the 1950s is back in Europe because of Putin's invasion of Ukraine. I went to a program in Poland where we're supporting refugees with a couple of million refugees. And there was a fantastic program of using Ukrainian women to teach in Polish schools because there are now these all these Ukrainian kids in Polish schools who don't speak Polish.

So let's talk about food insecurity, also known as hunger. Yes. So we've seen a raft of headlines, and the reality is that grain shipments out of Ukraine have been disrupted because of the war. Many of those grain shipments are intended for the continent of Africa. Yes. Where there is enormous food insecurity, as you know. The growing danger of food insecurity combined with outflows of immigrants from Africa into Europe. Talk about that specific problem. Yes, Mike, there's a food insecurity problem and there's a refugee problem. And as you mentioned, the so-called Black Sea grain deal in Ukraine that Putin has just blown

up. I mean, Ukraine traditionally was the it was the breadbasket of the old Soviet Union. So much of the wheat and grain that's grown in Ukraine goes to sub-Saharan Africa and places like Afghanistan. And when Putin blows up a deal like that, that has a trigger effect on all of the food insecurity around the world. I mean, the three main drivers of hunger now are climate, COVID, and conflict. And so Ukraine is a perfect example of that. There are 750 million people who are food insecure in the world now. That's 100 million more than in 2019. Part of that came from the result of COVID and the interruption of shipments.

So it's really a pretty nasty situation. Rick, Susan Page has a question for you. Susan. Rick, congratulations on your new job. I'd like to go back to the wrongfully detained Americans in Russia. Paul has been held there for so long. Evan, arrested for committing journalism. What is your sense of the prospects for any kind of deal that's going to free them in

the foreseeable future? Or is this something that we're likely to see continue for months and for years ahead? What's your sense of that? Thanks, Susan. Good to see you. I think I don't want to be pessimistic, but I think it could it could continue for a long time. Again, Putin uses folks like that as bargaining chips. At the same time, he's made deal deals during the past year and a couple of times. I mean, he sees it as a tactical benefit. And some sometimes it's it's also a hostage to what U.S. and Russian relations are. And they're not very good at the moment. We keep Paul and Evan top of mind here.

We will stay on this story. Rick, great to see you. Co-chair for the International Aid Group Care USA. Former State Department official Rick Stengel. Rick, thanks so much. Thank you, Paige. Thank you as well. Still ahead this morning, an update on the condition of LeBron James's son, Bronny, who suffered a cardiac arrest during his workout on Monday, just 18 years old. We'll have an update when we come back. The son of NBA superstar LeBron James is out of the ICU and recovering this morning after suffering cardiac arrest on Monday. Just 18 years old, he was practicing on the court for his debut college season. NBC News correspondent Kaylee Hartung has the latest.

Ronnie James to the basket. Ronnie with a basketball bombardment. The son of a basketball superstar facing a medical emergency. Ronnie James, bullseye. a basketball superstar facing a medical emergency. Bronny James rushed to the ER during a practice Monday at the University of Southern California. A family spokesperson saying while practicing, Bronny James suffered a cardiac arrest. Medical staff was able to treat Bronny and take him to the hospital. He's now in stable condition and no longer in ICU. The 18-year-old is the son of NBA legend LeBron James

and one of the most highly touted incoming college basketball players. He was preparing for his first season on the USC basketball team when the incident happened at 9.26 a.m. Into the rescue 15 unconscious 34-0-0 South Biggerow. Earlier this summer, Bronny James starring in the McDonald's All-American game, his dad cheering him on. He's just proud of my dad, you know. LeBron not shy about his wish to one day share the court with his son.

Being with him, spending a full year with him in the same uniform, that would be the icing on the cake. DeMar Hamlin, who suffered cardiac arrest on the football field earlier this year, tweeting, Prayers to Bronny and the James family as well. Here for you guys, just like you have been for me my entire process. Cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death for young athletes, and African-American college basketball players like James are the population at the highest risk, according to a study in the American Heart Association Journal. What could have led to this?

There are multiple factors that can cause cardiac arrest, whether it's something that they've had, like a disease in the heart, so it's a congenital or something that they developed after having an infection. Doctors with this advice for parents of athletes of any age. Any student that's going to start any sport should do a pre-participation physical. And that includes an evaluation of their medical history and then also asks the appropriate questions. Kaylee Hartung reporting there. Jonathan Lemire, this is so scary.

I think you sent me this headline as it broke yesterday. An 18-year-old, peak physical condition. But the truth of the matter is this is more common than people realize. There's an organization called Parent Heart Watch that is trying to educate. This is a group of people whose children tragically have died while playing sports at a young age, trying to educate parents that there are tests you can do and just get out ahead of this and just so you can know if your child is at some risk. It doesn't mean he or she has to stop playing sports, but just to know what some of the risks are. But such a talented young guy, and we're so happy to hear he's out of the ICU,

hoping for a full recovery for Bronny. Yeah, that's such an important point, Willie, that there are these tests available. We don't know the cause here with Bronny James, but certainly we do hear terrible stories about young athletes with heart issues, some of them proved to be fatal. It is great news that he is out of the ICU. Certainly, he'll likely be in the hospital for several days. The family has said they'd provide updates in the days ahead.

I mean, it's a really remarkable story. It's always been fun to see LeBron and his wife and the rest of their family sitting courtside at Bronny James' games, cheering him on, just like any other proud sports parent, LeBron James, one of the greatest basketball players in history. And as the package notes, he's made it very clear that he wants to stick around in the NBA. Heading into his 20th season, he wants to play at least another year or two because he wants to play alongside Bronny James. And certainly we don't know about Bronny's basketball future. We hope he can get back there on the court, but certainly his health comes first. Our best wishes to the James family.

Absolutely. And Mike, such an exciting time in Bronny James' life, starting this new chapter, about to get going at USC. They were actually practicing to prepare for an overseas tour that the USC team was going to play. And then so much promise for him, as John said, maybe, maybe someday playing in the NBA with his dad. Yeah, that's all great stuff. But the

important part of this story really is to remove the name Bronny James from the story and think about all the other high school athletes out there. Some down south where they start early in football practice for the fall under soaring temperatures, you know, 17, 18 year old children, and they are children, you know, and they have to pay attention to their health and to their hearts. And the group that you mentioned is specifically involved in that. And we ought to pay more attention to all high school athletes, but certainly those who are in danger potentially of suffering what Barney James suffered from yesterday. That group, again, if you're interested in checking it out, it's called Parent Heart Watch.

They teach you what to look for. You can get an echogram to see if your child is at risk or if this happens, your child goes into cardiac arrest, what can be done immediately. And it appears the training staff did a great job with Barney James. So we continue to send our thoughts to him and the James family this morning.