Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/27/22

Episode Date: July 27, 2022

DOJ investigating Trump’s actions in Jan. 6 criminal probe

You said you're moving quickly at this. There's been a lot of criticism, a lot of pressure that the DOJ is kind of behind the power curve here, behind the committee, not moving quickly enough on what appears to be solid working on these cases. It is inevitable in this kind of investigation that there will be speculation about what we are doing, who we are investigating, what our theories are. The reason there is this speculation and uncertainty is that it's a fundamental tenet of what we do as prosecutors and investigators is to do it outside of the public eye. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in an exclusive new interview with NBC's Lester Holt, comes amid new reporting that federal prosecutors have zeroed in now on Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, focusing on the man himself. The attorney general saying anyone

who tried to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power will be held accountable. That includes, he said, a former president or a candidate. Trump, meanwhile, returned to Washington yesterday for the first time since leaving office and dropped several more hints about whether he may run in 2024 as he and Mike Pence held dueling speeches in Washington about the future of the Republican Party. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, July 27th. I'm Willie Geist. With us this morning, we have the host of Way Too Early and the White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire,

also the author of the new book, The Big Lie, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle, and U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye. Good morning to you all. We want to begin with the latest in the Justice Department investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Four people familiar with the matter telling the Washington Post, federal prosecutors now have turned their attention to former President Donald Trump. Two sources telling the Post, in recent days, two top aides to former Vice President Mike Pence were asked before a grand jury about their conversations with Trump, his lawyers and others in his inner circle who took part in the scheme to replace certified Biden electors with a slate of the former president's

allies. According to the Post, prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021, his pressure campaign on Pence to overturn the election, and what instructions Trump gave his lawyers and advisors about fake electors and sending electors back to the states. Two sources also telling the paper the Justice Department has had it in its possession since April, the phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. The investigation, the Post reports, is now on two tracks, one centered on the charges already filed against those who stormed the Capitol, like seditious conspiracy, and the other track, potential fraud connected to the elector scheme and the pressure

Trump put on DOJ officials and others to go along with the big lie. A spokesman for the former president did not immediately respond to the Post's request for comment. A Justice Department spokesman and a lawyer for Mark Meadows also both declined to comment. NBC News has not yet been able to independently confirm the new details in the Post's reporting. But Attorney General Garland did sit down for that interview with Lester Holt and had an exchange on whether the Justice Department would indict the former president if the evidence supported it. You said in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law. That said, the indictment of a former president, of perhaps candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart.

Is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here? Do you have to think about things like that? Look, we pursue justice without fear or favor. We intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for the events surrounding January 6th, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another, accountable. That's what we do. We don't pay any attention to other issues with respect to that. So if Donald Trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don't move forward? Say again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible

for attempting to interfere with the transfer, legitimate, lawful transfer of power from one administration to the next. To include a former president, he said. Let's bring in congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alomany. She contributed to that new report on the Justice Department probing Donald Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Jackie, good morning. It's good to see you. So this is what many people suspected that the Justice Department was looking at former President Trump. And now you all at The Post have confirmed that with a bunch of sources based, it sounds like, on the kinds of questions that are being asked

of people like Mark Short and other witnesses who have come in to talk about the events around January 6th focused on Donald Trump. That's exactly right, Willie. We've reported that prosecutors who have recently brought in people like Greg Jacobs and Mark Short and potentially more, you know, people we might not be aware of just yet, but people who were very close to Mike Pence had firsthand accounts and were witness to the pressure campaign being applied on him to overturn the results of the election. And we're also in the room for other meetings involving some of the constitutional schemes being put forth by Trump allies, people like John Eastman before the president. They were asked about those interactions. They were asked

about meetings in December of 2021 and January of 2020, December of 2020 and January of 2021. We also know that they were asked specifically about the pressure being put on Mike Pence, according to sources. And we also know that these phone records that have been newly reported and obtained by the Justice Department included phone records from top Trump aides and Mark Meadows as well. Someone else who was also in the room for a lot of these really explosive and meetings that have recently garnered a lot of scrutiny by the January 6th committee, particularly that December 19th committee that preceded the we will things will be wild tweet, along with the meetings that occurred in the lead up to January 6th, that week before January 6th with John Eastman, who is specifically advocating and pressuring

Mike Pence to go along with his constitutional planning. And Jackie, you're reporting at the Post dovetails on the same day with the interview Lester did with Merrick Garland, because Merrick Garland did say, as we just heard the attorney general, that we will, without fear or favor, go after anyone who participated in this effort to overturn the election. When Lester pressed him, does that mean Donald Trump? Attorney General Garland said, as I said, anyone who participated in this without fear or favor. So does that confirm essentially for you what you are reporting that, yes, the Justice Department is looking at Donald Trump? Yes, exactly. That that does help provide some additional corroboration on top of the sources that we've already spoken with. But we know that the Justice Department is now squarely

focused on Trump, along with his top allies who were involved with some of these plans, including, as I did not mention previously, but this fake slate of electors plan in particular. We also know that these people have been asked before the grand jury about those plans as well and their conversations with Trump campaign officials. But there has been increasing pressure on Merrick Garland, especially after this eighth hearing held by the January 6th committee that really laid out how responsible and directly involved the former president was in most of these conversations and the decision making with regards to the insurrection to go harder on the former president. And now we're seeing Merrick Garland, who has taken this bottom up approach for the past year and a half, now finally move his way up towards the top fish here.

Jackie, there was an interesting bit in the Lester Holt interview with Merrick Garland, where the attorney general says that it's inevitable that the committee would have found things before we found them. And it's inevitable that there will be things that we find that they haven't found. What is it? Do you think there's some reference there to what the DOJ may have found that perhaps the committee hasn't? Yeah, that is a really great question, Katie, because I was actually wondering, this is, I think, an important question, potentially, why the grand jury brought forth Mark Short and Greg Jacobs

after they appeared for multiple private depositions and Greg Jacobs appeared publicly, why they'd want to add more transcripts onto the pile for this grand jury to review. And it might be the case that there is a new line of inquiry potentially that the January 6th committee had not asked about that they wanted to get on the record from Mark Short and Greg Jacobs. There's also just this idea that there is a higher bar for the Department of Justice. They are held to the law. They are potentially pursuing they are pursuing criminal charges here. That is a bar that the January 6th committee is not held to.

They are working in the court of public opinion. And so that question as well, they have, you know, the Department of Justice has some other powers potentially and potentially has had more cooperation from witnesses under more criminal, potential criminal prosecution and have might have provided more information. They also have been able to provide and obtain more documents under secrecy through subpoenas, getting things like these phone records, things that the committee could obtain, but are more politically problematic for them. John, these new developments are either coincidental or just great PR by you and your book team to have them come out in the day that your book, The Big Lie, comes out.

Extraordinary interview with Merrick Garland and this breaking news from The Washington Post, which sort of is the next chapter, the next page in your book, which is, yes, justice is going after now the man at the center, the maestro, the guy who orchestrated the big lie. Yeah, I wish I could say that the PR team was responsible for this, but it's certainly it's viral marketing, if nothing else. But it does. It proves the book's thesis here. Obviously, Trump's lies, you know, didn't end on January 6th. They're still certainly very much shaping our politics of today and how he had so many people willing to do his bidding in order to preserve power. And the book certainly details all of that. But Mike Barnicle, shifting to the present day, we've known for quite some time. You and I have talked about it, that there's been an extraordinary frustration from Democrats about how slowly the Department

of Justice was going and some impatience even from certain quarters in the White House about it. The attorney general, who is suddenly becoming much more visible about this in recent days, made clear yesterday that a prosecution would happen if warranted. Lester Holt's question, though, is what would that look like? You know, would it tear the country apart? So let's be clear. If the facts suggest there should be an investigation, there should be an investigation. The attorney general dodged Lester Holt's question. I'm going to put it to you. If he does, if the attorney general and the Department of Justice charges Donald Trump, how does that play out in our politics? We have no idea. I have no idea. I mean, given what happened yesterday, we saw the former president speaking to a group of people in Washington, D.C., rabid, rabid fans.

Their intensity for Donald Trump isn't going to fade if he's indicted. The instinct is that it would grow. It'd be more intense in their protection, their defense, their favor of Donald Trump. But what he would have been charged with, if he is charged, is such a violation of norms in terms of our government. He basically tried to destroy our government, to take an election, a legal election, a legal winner, Joseph R. Biden, and basically trample on 230 years of history. That's what he tried to do. And he failed. And we got more evidence of that, Mike, yesterday from the House Select Committee, releasing never before seen testimony from former acting defense secretary Chris Miller. In the video clip, Miller tells the committee there was no direct order from President Trump to deploy 10,000 troops to protect the Capitol on January 6th. Just last month, Trump claimed in a statement he requested up to 20,000 National Guard troops because he had a feeling, quote, the crowd was going to be very large.

Miller's testimony contradicts that claim. Let me be clear here that since then, in February of 2021, Mark Meadows said on Fox News that, quote, even in January, that was a given. As many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the Secretary of Defense. Is there any accuracy to that statement? I'm not, Not from my perspective. I was never given any direction or order or due of any plans of that nature. So I was surprised by seeing that publicly.

But I don't know the context or where it was. No, there was no – we obviously had plans for activating more folks, but that was not anything more than contingency planning. There was no official message traffic or anything of that nature. Just so we're clear, you did not have 10,000 troops to be on the ready for January 6th, prior to January 6th. A non-military person probably could have some sort of weird interpretation, but no, to answer your question, that was not part of my plan or the Department of Defense's plan. And just the rest of his statement was, quote, that was a direct order from President

Trump. And yet here is what we see all kinds of blame going around, but not a whole lot of accountability. And to be crystal clear, there was no correct order from President Trump to put 10,000 troops to be on the ready for January 6th. Correct? Yeah, that's correct. There was no direct, there was no order from the president. Jackie, this is a case that the House Select Committee has made over the last several weeks that not only did Donald Trump send that crowd to the Capitol, that he effectively cleared a path for the crowd then to go up into the building. So we've heard it from the committee. Now it's something entirely different to hear it from the man who would have taken the order himself, the former acting secretary of defense. Yeah, this this, I think, directly bolsters what Adam Kinzinger said that that

one liner that really resonated, which was the president didn't do didn't there wasn't this wasn't the president's choice not to do anything. He actively chose not to do anything. And I think it's a very interesting choice as well by the select committee. And I think we're going to see a lot of this going forward for the next few months to selectively leak out dribs and drabs of their vast archival footage that they've obtained of former Trump officials, essentially fact-checking false claims by the former president. We've seen that previously. You know, we had Ivanka—there was one hearing where they played a clip of Ivanka Trump with

someone then contradicting her, her chief of staff, what she had said. I think we're going to see a lot of that fact-checking to poke holes in the credibility of Trump and his top allies, who have tried to do the same of some of the people who have publicly testified. And I think we're also going to start to see them get a little bit more creative about all of the information they've obtained to keep the public's attention on this topic while they're sort of recalibrating this month of August and setting the stage for the fall where they're going to come back with some additional public hearings. And the former acting defense secretary, very clear there. President Trump did not call for the National Guard to come in and protect the Capitol. The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany, thank you for your reporting.

We'll be reading at the Washington Post dot com. For the first time since leaving the White House in January of 2021, former President Donald Trump returned to Washington yesterday, speaking at a summit in the nation's capital. Trump was expected to discuss law and order, but instead, as you might expect, spent much of the speech spouting lies about the 2020 election and lamenting the way he's been treated since leaving office with a focus on that January 6th select committee. They say stuff and they think you're going to believe it. It's a serious, it is a horrible, horrible thing.

A friend of mine recently said that I was the most persecuted person in the history of our country. Who has been through anything like this, seriously? Certainly no politician and definitely no president. This is just a crazy time. Never forget everything this corrupt establishment is doing to me is all about preserving their power and control over the American people.

They want to damage you in any form, but they really want to damage me so I can no longer go back to work for you. Joining us now, senior political correspondent for The Washington Examiner, David Drucker. David, good morning. So you had this pretty extraordinary split screen less than a mile away. Former Vice President Pence, who was broken with Donald Trump over this January 6th committee discussion and everything

that happened on that day before and after, speaking at events just up the street from each other. What did you make of the reception they both received? Well, look, they both received a very good reception from the crowds they spoke before. Pence was talking to a crowd of young college students, conservative college students at a Young Americans Foundation conference. And he delivered what you would expect from a pre-Trump Republican in terms of a full spectrum speech about conservative policy, about how Republicans think Democratic leadership in Washington is driving the country into a ditch. And we need big victories in the fall to right the ship. And Pence, interesting to me, because we have never seen, at least in I think a lot of our lifetimes, a split between two former running mates like this,

a very acrimonious divorce. Pence discussed the accomplishments of President Trump and himself as the Trump-Pence administration only. It's the only way he would discuss Trump by name. When asked in the question and answer session after his speech to discuss his broken relationship with Trump more directly and how it was impacting the party, he noted, I think rather correctly, they tend to agree on most conservative policies

or at least did during their term, but maybe they differ in focus, which in Pence speak is a right hook policies, or at least did during their term. But maybe they differ in focus, which, you know, in Pence speak is a right hook about the president's insistence on clinging to his stolen election claims and looking backward, where Pence over and over again talked about looking forward in his speech. And as you just played with the former president's clip there before an equally adoring audience of Republican lawmakers, former Trump administration officials and just general political supporters of his spent much of his speech looking backward and complaining. Now, if you took the initial few minutes of the speech, the first 10 minutes, it was actually a rather effective, I think, political treatise

on rising crime, how Americans feel about it, and the fact that many of them, particularly in the swing states, if you look at this in a 2024 context, are going to want somebody to talk about it, offer solutions, and say they're going to help do something about it. And then, as usual, we ended up with our own Trump rally, where he talked about all of the other things that have nothing to do with 2022 or 2024. But what we can see is that the former president remains very popular with many Republicans and Vice President Pence, regardless of whatever his 2024 prospects are, is not shying away from some confrontation with his former boss. And he is moving ahead with this idea that he will

run for president regardless of what Trump does. So, David, as you say, the first 10 minutes from Trump was somewhat focused on policy. The issue is he then spoke for another hour after that, which was all about him. And that's the concern from so many Republicans is that it's all about him. And that dovetails with your new reporting about fundraising, about online GOP grassroots donations, which are all going seemingly to Donald Trump. He's blocking out the sun. He's taking the vast majority of it and leaving other Republicans without any. Tell us a little bit more about your reporting. And isn't part of the issue that Trump has just taken the money but not spending it? Yeah, he's hoarding it. And Jonathan, congratulations again on your book. Enjoy the moment. You know, in talking to a lot of Republican strategists, particularly fundraising strategists, Republicans focused on digital fundraising,

there's a lot of frustration because while there's a lot of voter enthusiasm for Republicans in 2022 from their voters, while the numbers they have from independents look very good, they've seen a drop in online fundraising from grassroots conservatives. And Republicans have increasingly relied on these grassroots donations, small dollar donations, to fuel their campaigns. It's a move by them that came later than the Democratic Party's, but it was a necessary move. They continue to see growth. And yet in 2022, while Democrats are looking at an impending disaster, their fundraising is off the charts. And Republicans have seen in the first and second quarters their numbers drop.

And one of the things they blame for that is inflation. They say their particular class of donor has really been hurt by rising the rising cost of groceries and gas and all of the other things. But the other thing they point to, Jonathan, is Trump and the more than 100 million dollars he has stockpiled, presumably for a 2024 presidential bid. And so what Republicans at the congressional level are doing are competing against essentially a presidential fundraising operation, something you don't normally do in a midterm election cycle, with donors that have a smaller budget to give to political campaigns. And instead of sharing the wealth, and that's what the congressional committees do, that's what the National Party does, he's hoarding it. And it is very frustrating to them. And one of the things in my reporting I discovered that some Republicans are worried about is if Trump were to launch a presidential campaign before the midterm elections, which is something he talks about and something people in his orbit keep trying to talk him out of, it could further crimp their online fundraising. Why? Because Trump is the best pitch man they have. And so many of the Republican groups and candidates use his image

and likeness as a main feature in their email fundraising appeals and their digital fundraising appeals. And he's not an incumbent. So if he becomes a candidate, there become federal legal prohibitions against promoting a new presidential campaign. And that could leave them out in the cold. Yeah, you're seeing some pretty anemic fundraising in major races, too, by the way, like the Senate race for Republicans in the state of Ohio. But as you say, Donald Trump doesn't seem like he wants to share any of that cash. The Washington Examiner's David Drucker. David, thanks so much as always. Good to see you.

Still ahead on Morning Joe, new reporting on the desperate effort by former President Trump's allies to reverse his 2020 election loss by promoting fake electors. Previously undisclosed emails shedding new light on that. Plus, the latest example of Democrats pushing a far right candidate, supporting him in order to help the party's chances in November. We'll dig into that effort and whether it's worth the risk. Also ahead, market futures in the green right now. But will they stay that way after the Fed's interest rate decision later today? CNBC's Brian Sullivan will join us to break down how high that hike might go. And on Capitol Hill, lawmakers have a lot on their plate ahead of the August recess. Senators Gary Peters and Chris Coons both will be our guests this

morning. A busy one. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Man, that's a beautiful live picture of New York City at 629 in the morning. The Federal Reserve is expected to raise interest rates again today. Fed Chair Jerome Powell set to speak at 2.30 p.m. Eastern time as second quarter earnings reflect an economic slowdown. Joining us now, senior national correspondent for CNBC, Brian Sullivan. Sully, it's good to see you. So how high is this hike going to go today? Well, that is the question. We'll see if the Federal Reserve can remain steely, man.

Oh, that was really good. I apologize. I know I've already been up. I've already been up for a couple of hours. Weekend at the college. Great callback. Anyway, here's what we're thinking is the expectation is for a what we'll call a on CNBC. We'll call it a 75 basis point hike on normal TV. We're going to call it a three-fourths of 1% rate hike. In other words, raising that baseline borrowing cost by three-fourths of 1%. We don't know.

There's some talk they could go bigger to all the way to 1%. These are either way, Willie. Whatever they do, 75 basis points or 100 basis points, 1%, it's going to be some of the biggest and most aggressive interest rate hikes in recent American history. Why are they doing it? Because I don't need to tell your audience who go to the store every day, they see inflation for themselves. The Federal Reserve is trying to pump the brakes on the economy. The idea is this. The Fed raises rates. Banks raise rates. I hate to say it. Credit card companies raise rates.

They try to dissuade consumers from spending as much money. I know that sounds weird, but when you have too many people chasing too many things like used cars or certain commodities, prices go out of control. So the Fed is trying now to slow down the American economy. The problem, Willie, is will they do it so much that you slow the economy too much? You actually put the economy into a major downturn or recession. The good news, we've gotten some good gasoline prices. They're down 40 cents or whatever in about a month's time. We're seeing some commodity costs come down. Rents still too darn high. But there are some signs that inflation is moderating. So, Brian, if it's a balance, right, you don't want to pump the brakes so fast

that you make the car stall and you get the economy into a recession. And there is some evidence, as you're suggesting, that the last rate height is having an impact. We're seeing some prices starting to come down. Why not, with all the speculation that we may, you know, the White House suggesting we aren't, but there's some debate about whether we may be heading into recession anyway, why not wait just a little bit longer? I mean, if the previous rate hikes are working, they're discouraging people from spending a little bit. Couldn't they just carry on with that? Yeah, their fear is that inflation is so rampant and so hot at 40 year highs. It's really at all time highs by some measures because the government's always changing how they moderate it, that they're really aggressive about this inflation idea.

Listen, inflation, you guys talk about politics all the time. I don't. But I got to imagine as we approach the midterms and you're seeing the president already out there on Twitter and social media saying gas prices are coming down. We're pumping more oil. Why is he talking about these things? Because, listen, ultimately, all the stuff we talk about, so many elections, as you would know better than I do, come down to the economy and higher prices. The Federal Reserve, the question is this, can the Federal Reserve do this without damaging the economy? And how much will rate hikes matter considering if your rent has gone up, is your landlord going to cut your rent because of higher rates? No. Here's the biggest thing that I'm watching. What they call revolving credit, the amount of money that's on credit card debt, is at a record high. I guarantee you,

your audience knows they're getting notices that their balances or future spending, those rates are going to go up. So not only do you have a balance going up, your monthly payment's going to go up. And let's hope that incomes are going up at the same or a higher rate that will balance out that different. Otherwise, even with rising wages, you actually have less buying power. And you can't keep up with it. That's right. And tomorrow, Sully, we're going to get that GDP number. There's been this sort of semantic debate for the last couple of weeks. If it's a negative GDP number, technically two consecutive quarters of negative GDP numbers

means we're in a recession. The White House, Janet Yellen, others have said, well, we've got, you know, jobs, as many jobs as we could want. We've got low unemployment. Inflation is too high. That's right. Prices are unaffordable for many people. What is that number tomorrow going to tell you, about whether we're in a recession or we're not? It's going to, I mean, you nailed it. It's going to be a semantic argument. It was going to be, of course,

I'm sure the Republicans are like, we're in a recession. If we get a contraction in GDP, the White House has already been out there. Janet Yellen's on the Sunday talk show circuit. We had Jared Bernstein on, economic advisor on CNBC yesterday saying, the definition of a recession,

which is set by this wonky economics group in Washington, that doesn't really matter. We know the economy is strong. Forget about the technical definition of a recession. Right. And so there will be this fight. It's such a weird time coming out of the pandemic because, for example, yes, the unemployment rate is way down. But at the same time, the unemployment rate only measures people looking for a job. And more than a million people have left the workforce that are of working age. So the unemployment rate is down in part because people have just said, you know what, for lifestyle reasons, risk reasons, other reasons, I'm out. I'm not going to work anymore, at least not now. And so there's all these semantic debates. We do know this. There's 3 million or 11 million open jobs in the

United States. Walk around New York, walk around the suburbs, walk around anywhere you want. There's a help wanted sign. I don't think the semantic debate is as important as what happens in the fall. Has this sort of boom and this pandemic excess right you come out of the pandemic i gotta go somewhere i gotta go to vegas i gotta spend money people are spending all this money on airfares and hotels will that continue if you know willie let me know because i don't know you just wonder if it's a one-time sort of roaring 20s type mentality, right? Ah, we're out. Let's go. And then it wipes out. Well, you just heard in Sully's voice how desperate he is to get back to Vegas, which was very telling. CNBC's Brian Sullivan with some expert analysis

of the Fed and everything else. Thanks, Sully. Good to see you, man. Coming up next, we'll have much more on President Biden's upcoming call with the president of China and how a planned trip to Taiwan by a very high profile lawmaker is adding to tensions. Plus, a conversation about extremist candidates and the midterms. One of our guests says QAnon candidates are losing, but their lies are winning. We'll explain when Morning Joe comes right back. President Biden is expected to speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping over the phone tomorrow. The call comes as tensions escalate between the two countries over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's proposed trip to Taiwan. According to White House officials, the leaders will discuss a range of topics from Taiwan to the war in Ukraine. Joining us now, U.S. national editor at the Financial Times, Ed Luce. His latest piece is titled U.S. and China are entering a trap of their own making. Ed, it's good to see you this morning. And just in the last couple of hours, China has responded to

Speaker Pelosi's proposed trip, saying, quote, the Washington will bear all the consequences if Speaker Pelosi does, in fact, visit Taiwan. Is this a good idea to send Speaker Pelosi there? Some Republicans have said, yes, she should go. Some Democrats have said, yes. Others have said maybe not such a great idea. What's your view? My view is this is a pretty risky move by Pelosi, if indeed she does go. You see Mike Pompeo, who was probably the most hawkish China figure in the Trump administration, offering to

go with her. And I think that tells you something set against the fact that Biden clearly doesn't want her to go. The Pentagon clearly doesn't want her to go. The context we're in is that Xi Jinping is building up to his party congress in October, where he's going to get a third unprecedented term as China's president. And one of his great promises is that he will be the president who brings Taiwan back into the fold. So anything that makes him lose face in the build up to that is quite high risk. It's a very tense situation right now for Pelosi to be going into, if indeed that is still her plan.

We don't know that. Ed, one of the things that I've also been hearing is that there is a startling lack of communication at any level at the moment. I mean, strikingly low levels of communication, either on a political level or frankly, I hear it from business leaders as well. They've never seen this, that there are no channels of communication and that really worries them. Why is it? Why is nobody talking on either side to each other? Why have things got this bad, this silent? It's a very good question, Cathy. I mean, if we are talking of a new Cold War here between the US and China,

then here is one big contrast with the old Cold War, at least after 1962 Cuba missile crisis, which is that the Soviets and the Americans had very routine, regularized exchanges, including on the military front, exchange of military information and of signaling so as to minimize the possibility of miscalculation. The tensions between the U.S. and China, particularly since Xi Jinping has become president, are so acute. And if you add in COVID and the fact that Xi Jinping hasn't traveled and most of his officials don't travel, and if an American official goes to the U.S., they have to quarantine for three weeks, like any visiting business person, then you've got this really dangerous situation where there's no communication. And Biden still hasn't met Xi Jinping as president, still hasn't met.

There'll be another video call tomorrow. But as you and I know, video calls are not the same thing as in-person meetings. So the context for the second in succession to the U.S. presidency, Nancy Pelosi, who's also the same party as the President Biden. The context for that and the potential for really quite lethal misunderstanding is higher than I think a lot of people, maybe not Mike Pompeo, but that a lot of people are not yet taking on board. So, Ed, given the isolation of the two countries and the nonverbal communications, no communications at all, really,

and given what's on the plate of the president of the United States globally, the war in Ukraine, holding NATO together through this fall and winter, if that is necessary. Given the fact that President Xi is going to be running China for the rest of his life, clearly, what is the level of danger involved in even the prospect of Nancy Pelosi continuing to talk about going to Taiwan, seemingly at odds with her own government, her own president of the United States, and just right in the face of President Xi? Well, a great question. I mean, Xi Jinping is different to his predecessors in that he really is the sole guy. What you had before was a system, two term limits, a collective leadership, a collective autocracy, autocratic for sure, but fairly predictable.

You knew who was in charge. You knew that decisions were made more by committee than by the whims of one guy. Xi Jinping is a sole autocrat. No real constraints on him. He's got every possible title and military position, as well as political position, going, which some might think is a sign of his power, but others might think is a sign of the brittleness of his power. He's a hypersensitive individual in the buildup to this very critical party congress in October, whose actions are not entirely predictable. There's been a big rise in military, close military scrapes across the Taiwan Straits, one with a Canadian plane, another with an Australian spy plane. The Chinese appetite to intercept military vehicles,

a military aircraft, is getting higher. And of course, Pelosi would be going into Taipei in a military aircraft. So if you couple that with the rhetoric from Beijing that this would be unprecedented, our response to her visit would be very strong. You've got the makings here of something that might might spiral beyond beyond what what any of us would hope to see. And certainly on the agenda for that conversation, China's continued soft support for Russia and their war in Ukraine, certainly not cut them off as President Biden would like. And U.S. officials eyeing potentially, Ed, to your point about there's no substitute for a face-to-face meeting, maybe the G20 this November in Indonesia, maybe where the two men finally meet. U.S. national editor at the Financial Times, Ed Luce, thank you for joining us this morning.

Still ahead here on Morning Joe, a bipartisan bill to bolster domestic manufacturing and boost U.S. competitiveness with China has cleared a key Senate vote, setting it up for final passage in the chamber. We'll discuss the package, known as Chips Plus, with a member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Gary Peters, plus a Trump supporter who assaulted police at the Capitol is sentenced to five years in prison. We'll have those details as well as the very latest on the January 6th investigations by the House Select Committee and the Justice Department. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Third time ever, the Mega Millions jackpot has crossed the $1 billion threshold. The grand prize in Friday night's

drawing will be an estimated $1.02 billion after no one won last night's drawing. That number is certain to grow as more tickets are bought leading up to Friday's drawing. Mike Barnicle, I know you like a scratch-off ticket from time to time, maybe a lottery ticket as well with your Duncan when you go out in the car in the morning. We're all rushing out to get this one. It's going to be, it's 1.02 now. It's going to be higher than that by the time we cash it in on Saturday. You got one. Here's the winner. You got it here. Yeah, right here. So I just won. It was nice to know you guys. See you later. Finally, you can overcome all your hardship, Mike. That's great to hear. Yeah. Over a billion dollars. Yeah. So that's it. You're walking out here. You're not fulfilling your. If I won, if I won, you would never see me again. You know what?

That may be a victory for us all, I suppose. But you have a you have an obligation tonight, though, at the 92nd Street Y. So don't skip town until after that. Mike and I will be talking about my new book. And I would say, Willie, if I had, if they're one a billion dollars, that's plenty of copies you could purchase at the Big Lie and put it right to the top of the charts. But frankly, at this moment, my concern, pay Rafael Devers. I would chip in some of my wins to the Red Sox to do that. Mike, he's echoing that sentiment as well. Pay Devers.

The Sox are falling apart, but let's build for the future at the least. John, that was expert work. You turned the Mega Millions into book promotion, then into Red Sox promotion. Just really, really stunning work. By the way, yes, Mike Barnicle and Jonathan Lemire tonight at the 92nd Street Y. I'm sorry I can't be there, John, but Barnacle has boldly stepped in to fill the chair. He's a good man. He's a good man. Despite what they say, he is.

We want to talk a little baseball here, Katty. I know you're excited about that. Subway Series started last night. It started well for the Yanks. Aaron Judge, Anthony Rizzo back to back in the first inning. Judge hitting his league-leading, major league-leading 38th home run. One pitch before Rizzo hit an opposite field home run as well. Nice start, but the Mets, big answer in the bottom of the frame.

Jordan Montgomery just didn't have it last night. Solo home run, Starling Marte, Lindor, Alonzo, back-to-back doubles. Escobar capping the inning with a tie-breaking two-run home run. The Mets, I'm sorry to say, beat the Yankees 6-3. A couple of World Series contenders, perhaps, will return to Citi Field for a second game tonight. Katty K, your thoughts on the potential. The potential.

Now, we got the Dodgers in the way. We got the Astros in the way. We understand all of that. But the potential for Now we got the Dodgers in the way. We got the Astros in the way. We understand all of that, but the potential for a subway series. Seriously, you're going to come to me on that? Yes, I am. I mean, the poor audience, Willie, mercy for them, please. I mean, possibly the Prem. I could say something. Baseball, especially after a couple of weeks holiday. And Jonathan will kill me if I say anything about any kind of sport

because I massacre it every time I try and do a show for him and wish that that segment was over. So look, guys, I know you've got all the wisdom there is. I'll leave it up to you. I will say it's multiple choice. You can do Jonathan's book or you can do Mega Millions or the Subway series. Jonathan's book.

Jonathan's book every time. Thank you, Katty. First of all, we appreciate you gamely trying to do the sports section on Way Too Early. We appreciate you filling in there. And I appreciate the book plug here. I mean, we do get tweets from time to time, I'll say. But the book promotion, much appreciated. I thank you very much.

It's Caddy and Capehart. When they do sports on way too early, America is richer for it. So thank you, Caddy. We're going to talk much more about the big lie in just a little bit. Coming up here, the January 6th hearings

have not swayed Senator Lindsey Graham's support for Trump. We will play for you his latest comments praising the former president. Plus, this video is spreading across social media. Dozens of future doctors walking out of a ceremony in Michigan. We'll tell you what led to that protest and what the university had to say about it. That's next on Morning Joe.