Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/27/23

Episode Date: July 27, 2023

Giuliani concedes he made false statements about election workers

This didn't look so friendly. Not a good sign that she's still down. That's a lot of discussion. It really is. And Lindsey Horan doesn't seem to want any part of that. She's still upset. Oh, the best way to send a message is to put this ball in the back of the net if you're Lindsay Horan.

In swinging the ball, had it down, tied and won! She did it, Horan! What a sequence. That is Lindsay Horan of the United States Women's National Team tying last night's World Cup match after a bruising tackle from her teammate on her club team in France, playing for the Netherlands now. That game ended in a 1-1 draw. The U.S. now will take on Portugal next Tuesday morning.

If the team wins that match, the U.S. women's national squad advances to the knockout run. Jonathan Lemire, that was an extraordinary sequence. The United States was struggling. They were down 1-0. Lindsey Horan gets slide tackled, pushed basically by her friend and teammate. They get into actually a pushing match there. On the very next play on that corner kick, she gets fired up and said, you don't want to see me when I'm angry after the game.

She said that and had that header into the back of the net. They needed it desperately, and they got some motivation there from that tackle. Yeah, that's a Hollywood-esque moment there. Sports movie, that was spectacular. Yeah, to your point, Willie, this has been a bit of a struggle of a World Cup for this women's team, two-time defending champions. They won their first match against Vietnam, but only 3-0 against Vietnam, far from a soccer powerhouse.

And the Netherlands, this was a rematch, actually, of the championship game last time around. It was a tough, tough match. The U.S. had some chances late to put in a go-ahead goal. They couldn't. They had to settle for a draw. But thank goodness they got that draw. A loss yesterday actually would have really jeopardized their ability to get into the next round.

Now, with a win next time around, they can do it. But this is a mix of sort of the old stalwarts from the championship teams and then some young up-and-coming players. It's been a struggle to this point, but they've got to draw when they needed it yesterday, Willie. Jen, Paul, Mary, I know you were up late watching this game. It was looking a little dicey there from it. They couldn't get anything going. And it took that one moment from, as I said, the two club teammates who were hugging after the game and made up and were talking side by side at the press conference. So they're all good. But Lindsay Horan just needed that little bit of motivation to get the U.S. women's team where it needed to be last night. Yeah. I mean, we all like I love the U.S. women's team so much, but it is I mean, a three-peat is so that's such a hard thing to that's such a hard thing to do in any sport. And I saw, you know, I watched that first game against Vietnam.

Three, you know, they got three goals. It didn't seem like the best outing against Vietnam. But a lot of the teams, England didn't have a great first outing in England either. So some of the, I was really worried about this Netherlands match because that was, you know, that was the 2019 World Cup match. And a draw is like okay good i feel like they had a they proved themselves in the first round they did better than some of the other good teams in the first round they got this draw against a really really good team um so and i think it's exciting that there's new players too that it's like a new generation of talent coming on. And they got to gel and go forward. But it was scary to watch. Yeah, it was a close call,

close call. But on to Portugal now. And if they get that win, they are on to the knockout round. We'll talk more about this game later with us this morning. MSNBC contributor, our buddy Mike Barnicle, White House correspondent for Politico and co-author of the playbook, Eugene Daniels and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos. Danny, a lot to talk to you about. We'll get to Hunter Biden in just a moment. But we also have some new developments on a story that broke at the end of our show yesterday. Years after Rudy Giuliani accused Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss of fraud during the 2020 election, he is conceding his statements were false. This came in a court filing. It's part of a defamation lawsuit Freeman and Moss filed against Giuliani in 2021. The case accuses Giuliani, who at the time, you'll remember,

was representing former President Trump, of publicizing a heavily edited video he falsely alleged showed the two workers somehow changing votes. Tape earlier in the day of Ruby Freeman and Shea Freeman Morris and one other gentleman quite obviously surreptitiously passing around USB ports as if they're vials of heroin or cocaine. And they're still walking around Georgia lying. Should should have been questioned already. Their places of work, their homes should have been searched. In one of the videos we just watched, Mr. Giuliani accused you and your mother of passing some sort of USB drive to each other.

What was your mom actually handing you on that video? A ginger man. We had at least 18,000 that's on tape. We had them counted very painstakingly. 18,000 voters having to do with Ruby Friedman. That's she's a vote scammer, a professional vote scammer and hustler. She was none of those things. Of course, in a two-page declaration, Giuliani now acknowledges he had, in fact,

made the statements about Ms. Freeman and Ms. Moss that led to the filing of the suit and that the remarks, quote, carry meaning that is defamatory per se. A political advisor for Giuliani says that means, quote, Giuliani did not acknowledge that the statements were false, but did not contest it in order to move on to the portion of the case that will permit a motion to dismiss. Giuliani says he still believes his comments are protected by the First Amendment and refuse to accept they cause harm to the women. Here is what Freeman and Moss told the January 6th committee last year about the harm they say they did endure. There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere. Do you know how it feels to have the president of the United States to target you?

The president of the United States is supposed to represent every American, not to target one. But he targeted me, Lady Ruby, a small business owner, a mother, a proud American citizen who stand up to help Fulton County run an election in the middle of the pandemic. A lot of threats, wishing death upon me, telling me that, you know, I'll be in jail with my mother and saying things like, be glad it's 2020 and not 1920. Were a lot of these threats and vile comments racist in nature? A lot of them were racist. A lot of them were just hateful. Attorneys for Freeman and Moss released a statement about the development saying, quote, Giuliani's stipulation concedes what we always have known to be true.

The allegations of election fraud he and former President Trump made against them have been false since day one. So, Danny, let's talk about the legal implications of this. What is all that legalese that we heard from Giuliani and his team? What does that translate to? Well, it seems to me they're stipulating to the underlying facts, because in order to get to the motion for summary judgment phase, there have to be no issues of fact. In other words, all the facts are conceded. And the only thing for the court to decide is an issue of law. And Giuliani's defense appears to be not so much that, hey, what I said about them was true or wasn't true. It's more that it doesn't matter what I said about them, whether it's true or not. I had a First Amendment right to say it. Therefore, there is no defamation. And that's why it appears that he's making this concession in order to put issues of fact aside,

decide them for the moment and get to the motion for summary judgment. And really, it's a it's a minor kind of Hail Mary to try and throw the case out early. That's what summary judgment really is. It's always a long shot. The odds are if you're moving for summary judgment, either as the plaintiff or the defendant, you're probably going to lose and the case will probably move forward to trial. But it is a mechanism by which you can get rid of a case that has no issues of fact and only issues of law. If the only issues are of law, then the judge can decide them and everybody can move along. So, Eugene, that's the legal aspect of this. But

let's just speak about the morality of this moment. This was this was reprehensible. This was something that was false. It was untrue. And as I noted in my book and others have chronicled so well, and we heard that emotional testimony from these two election workers who were just trying to do the right thing, trying to, frankly, do their civic duty. And they felt like their lives were threatened. They were harassed for months. And moments like this repeated other places across the country have had a chilling effect where I know a lot of local officials are worried they're not going to be able to find poll workers and volunteers for the next election. People who have said and done it for years that they loved being a poll worker,

that it felt like it gave them a lot of purpose around the elections, are terrified to do so because of these moments like this. And I will say, when we saw these two women live during this committee hearing, that was one of the most emotional, it was one of the most interesting aspects of the committee hearing up to that point, because a lot of it was talking to officials and talking to, you know, Republicans who were in these rooms or seeing them as they were talking in their testimonies. This was about real people who had—who were impacted by the lies that Giuliani and Donald Trump and others were telling. And I think that was one of the things that, as people were watching and you started seeing

polling, that people were paying attention to those moments just as much as the fact finding missions. And it's just it's just a reminder of how central Rudy Giuliani and his lies during the during the 2020 aftermath of the 2020 election and even before how central they are to a lot of the investigations spoiling Donald Trump right now. So, Jen, during the course of your working life, you go out, you meet people on the campaign trail, you talk to them, you look at focus groups. So how would one go about today talking about the America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and this display that we saw this morning, which reprised what he did, actually, these two women. How do we convince people, normal people, that Rudy Giuliani is going to skate on something like this with really no penalty paid, and yet the system isn't rigged? We're going to tell people the system isn't rigged for the wealthy and the connected? How do we do that?

The way I look at it, Mike, you know, I saw Tim Miller was on the show yesterday and he referred to the fact based community. I still think the show, the show, that's a good way to describe the show. It's part of the fact based community in America. I still look at that ruling yesterday. I mean, I heard everything Danny said, all the qualifications about what Giuliani wasn't admitting to. But the truth is that Giuliani did not, is not objecting to what these women are saying. And that is a win for the fact-based community. That is a win for truth. And I mean, I look at it, yes, Mike, I guess at some level, Giuliani may skate on this. But democracy, you know, if you step all the way back, as I know you do, democracy has been under a major stress test for the last eight years that Trump's been part of our political system.

Right. And now is the accountability phase in the justice on, you know, with with with the criminal with criminal justice criminal justice and these civil cases as well. And, you know, Trump is being held accountable. Like, we may get another indictment today. We've already had one federal indictment. We've had the New York indictment. Giuliani had to back off on his statements. You saw Mark Meadows yesterday say not wanting to talk about Jan 6th at all, questions about whether or not maybe Mark Meadows is cooperating with the federal prosecutors too.

The people that have lied to the country are having to either back off in some way or they're being held accountable in some way. And I think that that, you know, we don't get an easy win here. It's not the progress. It's an all linear. But I still that that, you know, we don't get an easy win here. It's not the progress. It's an all linear. But I still think that what's happening in the criminal justice courts, it's happening in the courts in general when it comes to Trump is some accountability that's been lacking through, you know, prior to this year. Yeah. And as you say, we're still on indictment watch and that federal grand jury expected to meet today. So we have our eyes on that as well.

Meanwhile, in a surprise turn of events, Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty to federal tax charges yesterday after a plea deal he struck with the government completely unraveled in a strange day. The unexpected development came during a hearing in federal court in Delaware. Hunter had been expected to plead guilty to two charges of failure to pay taxes under a deal he struck with the government last month. U.S. District Judge Mary Ellen Noriega pressed both sides about the terms of the agreement struck with U.S. Attorney David Weiss of Delaware, who is prosecuting the case. Both Judge Noriega and Weiss are Trump appointees. Judge expressed concern about two separate deals and her purview over them. She said she was worried the agreement on the tax charges did not give her the authority

to reject or modify the deal and that the gun charge agreement could shield Hunter Biden against further prosecution over his financial and tax issues. The parties will reconvene later to hammer out the terms and provide the judge with more information, which could be within the next six weeks. Hunter Biden is expected to reverse his plea if a new agreement or the new information eventually satisfies the judge. So, Danny, you were here yesterday saying that this was a strange deal in your estimation, that it was perhaps Hunter Biden getting off a little bit easy. What exactly happened yesterday, though? This is very confusing to a lot of people. Yeah, most plea hearings go off without a hitch, but that doesn't mean that they're not harrowing experiences because a whole

lot can go wrong during a plea hearing. And one of the things that often does is that the defendant has a change of heart or he hears this allocution of facts against him and he wants to say, well, wait, that's not exactly how it happened. And so plea agreements can go haywire, but most of them go forward without a hitch. This one was set up for failure. And we're learning that more now that we get a look at things like the plea agreement and the pretrial diversion agreement, which I have right here. And when you look at the language, you can see why both parties were confused.

When the defense walked in there, they had read a paragraph of the pretrial diversion agreement that said to the effect that if, for example, the United States believes a knowing material breach goes on of this agreement, they can seek a determination by the district judge. That is a problem. It's something both parties should have seen. And look, I may be being glib here, but I think part of the reason is the government, the United States government, doesn't enter into pretrial diversion very often. In state court, it happens all the time. I probably handled 100 pretrial diversions in state court for low-level crimes. But the reality is in federal court, there really aren't any low-level crimes. This is a rare instance of a misdemeanor and a pretrial diversionary agreement. And so maybe it could be chalked up to the federal government, federal prosecutors just weren't

familiar with it. I mean, that's probably not the case. But the bottom line is a district judge cannot make that determination. That's not her job. It is always the government's determination. Pretrial diversion is their show. They run it. They decide if you violated it. All the judge really does, her role is to hit pause in the prosecution until the parties come back and she says, well, what's the deal? And then the prosecution either says, yay or nay, we're either going to prosecute them now or we're going to dismiss all the charges. And then the other part of that, of course, is what was the government agreeing to not prosecute him for? And the language said all the things encompassed, that's a magic word to me, encompassed by the list attached to this pretrial diversion agreement. And of course, admittedly, if I was the defense, I might have read

that and said, OK, encompassed, there's a list of things we're covered. But then in court, you find out, well, the prosecution had a different view of what was covered and they theoretically could continue to prosecute him. So that is on both sides. They should have they should have hashed this out. They should have known what they were entering into when they walked in. OK, so layman's question. All right. Just looking at this from a distance. This is not a case that popped up three or four weeks ago. Yes. This is a case that has been ongoing for years and will probably continue to go for years. So how is it that career prosecutors who have been doing their job again for years and a couple of defense lawyers, highly skilled from pretty good firms with great reputations. How is it that they end up in court with a plea agreement that they think they've agreed to? It's like a house contract before you sign the house contract. Did you fix the boiler? Yeah, I fixed the boiler. OK, I'll sign

it. So they've got this plea agreement that they think they've agreed to. And all of a sudden it pops up in court. Is he covered for these things? No, he's not. What happened? What happened here? Mike, I'm so glad you bring up a house contract, because who among us has not sped through the signing of a house contract or a mortgage agreement or anything like that? It's 200 pages, 50 signatures. Maybe it's as simple as that. Both sides just didn't fully realize what the terms of the agreement or they had a misunderstanding about the terms of the agreement they were entering into. And believe it or not, Mike, there is a decent amount of litigation on exactly this topic.

A defendant comes in, pleads guilty to a plea agreement. The government prosecutes him again later on. And he says, wait a minute, judge, you got to enforce this contract. The government said they would not prosecute me. And the government says, no, no, judge, you got to enforce this contract. The government said they would not prosecute me. And the government says, no, no, no. Read the language. We covered something else. We're continuing our investigation. And yes, I agree with you. After this period of time, both sides should have been crystal clear on what they were

agreeing to. But I also think it could be as simple as, and I've been guilty of this in court, too, that when the judge asked the government on the record, hey, are you willing to commit and you are not investigating Hunter Biden ever again? This is it. This is the end. Woe be to that U.S. attorney or that AUSA who says on the record commits the entire U.S. government to we are completely finished investigating Hunter Biden. But on the other hand, if that was covered by the agreement, that should have been no problem. I don't think the government was doing anything sneaky here. I think this is boiled down to something that is fair to criticize, a misunderstanding that should have been worked out well in advance. So what happens from here, Danny? Take this

now the next step. I think people were confused. A lot of us were confused by what exactly was happening. What's the next step now for Hunter Biden? Because this was a combined arraignment and plea hearing, what happens procedurally is that the judge has to set a preliminary hearing. So in theory, if the parties don't work it out, the case would go forward to a preliminary hearing, which is a probable cause hearing. But that is several weeks out. And what the parties will do in the meantime is probably get together and hash it out if they are truly in agreement. And I the parties will do in the meantime is probably get together and hash it out if they are truly in agreement. And I wouldn't go too much by the frustrated statements the parties may have made in court yesterday. I think they are in agreement. And I think when

you're in the heat of the moment in court, there's a fear of committing to anything on the record. I'll keep coming back to that because I've been there. I've been asked a question out of the blue by the judge. And I've done that whole humina humina. I don't want to commit to never doing something or always doing something on the record. Better to go back to your respective corners, hammer out an agreement, make sure everybody's on the same page. And maybe you come back in a week and say, judge, we finally have it. You know, and some of the misunderstandings are understandable. Some of the others are a little odd. The whole part where the government expected the judge to make the determination of whether or not he complied with pretrial diversion, that is a little strange.

But I think they're going to figure it out and hammer it out. And we'll be right back here. And it should go off without a hitch. And then there are the politics of all this. Republicans making hay of it. We'll talk about that piece of the story coming up a little bit later. Danny Savalos, who has been spot on through this entire situation the last couple of days. Danny, great to see you. Thanks so much.

Still ahead on Morning Joe, a difficult moment to watch yesterday on Capitol Hill as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell effectively freezes up mid-sentence during a press conference. We'll show you what he had to say about it and how he's doing this morning. Plus, Wall Street looks like it's going to open in the green this morning, despite another interest rate hike from the Federal Reserve. We'll take a look at how much further the Fed could go in its fight to bring down inflation. You're watching Morning Joe. Beautiful live look at the United States Capitol, 625 in the morning. It was a scary moment in the Senate yesterday when Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

appeared to suffer some kind of an episode, a medical episode perhaps. The 81-year-old was speaking to reporters during his weekly press conference when he just froze mid-sentence. This week has been good bipartisan cooperation and a string of. McConnell then was ushered away by his Republican colleagues and taken back to his office. McConnell would return about 12 minutes later, saying he was just fine. He also made light of the incident later in the day, joking about the time President Biden tripped over a sandbag. Could you address what happened here at the start of the press conference and was it related to your

injury from earlier this year where you suffered a concussion? Is that fine? You're fully able to do your job? Well, the president called to check on me. I told him I got sandbagged. Oh, nice. How are you feeling now, sir? How are you feeling now? I'm fine. Have you seen a doctor? Any idea what happened? What?

Any idea what happened? I'm fine. Dehydrated? Got to watch those sandbags. In March, the longest serving leader in Senate history was hospitalized with a concussion and a broken rib after he fell at a Washington hotel. Two sources also now tell NBC News McConnell tripped and fell while leaving a plane earlier this month. He was not seriously injured in that incident. As for yesterday's moment there, a staffer tells NBC News the

minority leader, quote, felt lightheaded and stepped away for a moment. They would not say whether he saw a doctor. So, Jonathan Lemire, it's truly difficult to watch, and we're glad to hear that the minority leader is feeling OK today. But it does come in a string of events. The fall in March at the hotel, we're hearing about a fall in a plane. A fall in February was reported as well for the 81-year-old minority leader. We just hope he's okay. Yeah, first and foremost, we do hope that he is okay. But despite all that's going on, Willie, this was the talk of Washington yesterday when this happened. It was a deeply uncomfortable moment. He stood there seemingly frozen for 20, 25 seconds or so as the senators around and finally realized that something was going on. And to your point, to that reporter's question, it's been brutally hot and humid here in D.C. in recent days. So

maybe dehydration is a factor. But of course, there are questions about whether this is some sort of aftermath of that terrible fall he's taken. He took a few months ago, Eugene, and certainly those who have seen him in the Senate each and every day say he does seem a step slower. He certainly is still not all the way back as part of his recovery. So, you know, of course, a moment like that fuels to the speculation about his future. And again, we hope he is OK. But already the Senate has begun to prepare for life without him. He's signaled he's likely not going to run for re-election.

And now that's only that speculation is only going to intensify. So what the future of the Senate, Republican Senate will look like. Yeah, I mean, this is an 81 year old man. So any kind of fall is concerning. My grandmother's 84. When she falls, everything shuts down in that house. Right. It's very concerning.

And so the questions around it are exactly what we as reporters should be asking. This is one of the most powerful people in the country. This is someone who is leading the Republicans in the Senate. And at a time where the Republicans in the Senate have not at least shared with us or any of the reporters that we know cover the Senate a lot, what the next steps would be. Like you said, he doesn't seem like he's going to run for reelection. And so what does that mean? And more importantly, when does that happen? Does he step down? Does he step down as leader, continue to be a senator? Or does he continue all the way until he's done?

And that is a question a lot of folks have. You know, there are a lot of Senate Republicans yesterday who were hoping that while they were making light of the subject, both him and his team, that he was actually going to see a doctor, that he was being seen by folks because of how concerning it was, whether it was him being lightheaded or dehydrated, because when folks asked him what it was, he wouldn't say what it was, right? And so unless a doctor saw you, that's what you would want to get that information from. Obviously, President Biden and him are very close. So the other question, especially for folks like us that cover the White House,

is what does that relationship look like with Senate Republicans if Mitch McConnell isn't there? And that we still have a lot of time before we have those answers. But those are the questions that are swirling around Washington, D.C. today. And just general questions about the age of our political leadership from the White House to the Senate, to the House as well. Eugene Daniels, thanks so much, Eugene. Always good to have you on. Coming up next, Russian President Vladimir Putin plans to visit China in October as Russia seeks to shore up its ties with one of its closest allies. Richard Haass joins us with his analysis and we'll check in with Steve Ratner about the Fed's interest rate increase. Yes, he is at the southwest wall with his charts. Watch your morning, Joe'll be right back.

That's a good tune to come in with. It's 634 in the morning. Live look at the White House there. The Federal Reserve yesterday increased interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point, signaling a wait-and-watch approach to any further rate hikes. Let's bring in former Treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst, resplendent in beige this morning, wearing his summer suit and just crushing it right now. Steve Ratner is with us. Steve, good morning. Looking great, my friend. Well, if Barack Obama can do it at his press conference, I can do it. And I could also moonlight as a good humor man if I need to. There you go.

There you go. A jack of all trades. All right. So let's walk through some of these charts, Steve, starting with the expected height. We all knew that was coming a quarter of a percentage point. How significant was it? What do you read into the number? Sure, Willie. Well, let's take a look here at this chart right over here, because just as a reminder, of course, we've had this incredible string of rising interest rates. And yesterday, the Fed rose increased rates to around a 5.5% rate. Now, both the Fed and the market think we are near the end of this cycle. They're looking at maybe one or two more interest rate increases before it starts to turn down, getting down here to about 3.5% in about two and a half years. So the end may be near here

for our tightening cycle. But I thought today we would take a look at what this means for average Americans. And so if you go back before COVID, of course, interest rates were in a kind of fairly normal range. Homeowners paid for around 4%. Savers and money market funds got between 2% and 3%. Then, of course, rates went to zero. Mortgage rates came down. And now they're, not surprisingly, following the Fed up here. Here's the Fed. Here's what mortgage rates are. They've poked above 7%. Money market funds for the savers out there, close to 4%. Bank deposits still really haven't moved. They don't move that much. Banks need these low cost deposits to create their profit margin. So you can see for both borrowers and savers, it's also been a pretty steep climb lately. And in your next chart,

Steve, you point out the reason for this consistent step up in rate hikes is because an economy, frankly, that has performed even better than the Fed expected it to. Yeah, exactly. Well, last month we added over 200,000 new jobs. The unemployment rate is close to a 50-year low at 3.6 percent. And economists have been bringing up their forecasts for economic growth for this year now to 1.5 percent, not a huge amount. But back at the beginning of the year, people thought the economy was going to be almost at stall speed. So that is what has been driving the Fed up. But as we look ahead, we're not out of the woods yet in terms of the economy. Economists have been bringing down their projections for growth next year, really, to almost zero. And the probability of a recession, I know we're talking a lot lately about a soft landing.

But if you ask economists, they still think there's a 60 percent or better chance of a recession next year. So we do what we are. We are at a kind of a crossroads in the economy at this moment. But Steve, it was significant, was it not, that the Fed said yesterday in announcing its rate hike that they've sort of taken the threat of recession way back from where they believed it was that they were not projecting a recession next year. That's exactly right, Willie. Powell did pull back his recession forecast. I think we have a greater probability of a soft landing today than I would have said to you a few months ago. There's no question that the economy still remains strong and inflation has been coming down perhaps a bit faster than we thought. But we're not out of the woods yet by any means.

And in your last chart, Steve, you're looking at inflation, obviously key to all of this and what the Fed will be watching. Exactly. Powell made a point yesterday of saying the Fed, as they say often, is data dependent. And what happens going forward will depend on a number of things that are really represented on these two charts. First, of course, is inflation. The CPI, which everybody focuses on, is the shaded area. And of course, we all saw that 3% CPI number come out recently, and that was very encouraging. The Fed looks at a different measure of inflation called the PCE. I won't get into the weeds on that, but that's this dark line here. And this is headline. This includes food and energy, which, as we've talked about before,

has driven a lot of the inflation during this past cycle. When you take food and energy out, which is what the Fed and most economists do, what we call core has not been as inflationary. But the PCE, again, is still sitting here at about 4.8%. We're going to get a new PCE number on Friday. The hope is for 4.2%. That would really be great. And that's one of the things the Fed's watching to get down to this 2% level. It wants to be a 2% before it really starts cutting interest rates. The biggest driver of inflation is wages. We all want wages to go up. We want people to earn more, but you have to find the happy balance between wage increases and wage

increases that create inflation. And so, again, wages were rising at a fairly normal rate. We all know that they jumped up. Interestingly, this light blue line is if you quit your job and take another job, you're going to get a bigger pay increase than if you stay in your job. But nonetheless, wage increases have started to moderate, but they're only down about five and a half percent. We still have one point six unfilled jobs for every American who's looking for one. We still have almost 10 million unfilled jobs in this country, and that is going to keep pressure on wages. And so the Fed needs this to come down to between three and four percent to have a hope of two percent inflation. So, Steve, maybe you can help us out with a perplexing question. There, I got it out. And the question would be, the economy seems to be doing fairly well. It seems to be fairly

healthy. Unemployment is at historic lows, yada, yada, yada. Inflation has sort of been cured for a bit. Why is it that so many people are walking around in this country today saying it's terrible? Things are terrible for me. The future looks very bleak. What's what's the contrast? Why? You know, Mike, it's a great question. And we've talked about it on this show before. I haven't had a perfect answer before. I'm probably not going to have a perfect answer now. I think there's a few things. I think there's still it takes a long time for people to get over economic shocks of bad news. And we did go through a rough period. And I think people are still thinking about that. And secondly, I do think and I think many people think inflation is what people really care about

when they see a lot of inflation. They assume it's bad for them. They assume that they're after inflation. Incomes are going to go down, their purchasing power is going to go down and that bothers them. And then there's much longer term, broader issues. The question of whether their kids are going to live as well as they do. All the polls say people think that's not going to happen and that would be the first time in American history. So there's a lot of there is a lot of history around this. And then there's also the need to get this inflation number down, I think, for people to really feel better. Fascinating stuff, as always. And done in beige. He just pulls it off so beautifully. Steve Ratner, a man of summer, a man of charts, a man who commands the Southwest Wall.

Steve, thanks so much. We appreciate it. So, Jen Palmieri, if you look at these numbers, I'll ask you to put your old communications director hat back on if you're in this White House. Yesterday, Jerome Powell, the chairman of the Fed, pulled back his recession forecast. That's great news for the country. You've got inflation ticking way down more than expected a couple of weeks ago. That number came out. You've got unemployment at historic lows, talking about job creation and everything else. It seems like despite what Mike says, that Americans feel like the economy is not going well. It is something that a man running for president and who has overseen this economy for the last couple of years could run on. Yeah. And the I mean, I think part of the reason why people have not felt that

the economy was was doing well was they kept hearing reports for the last year and a half that we are headed into a recession. Right. I mean, I just, I mean, just pause and think how often in your daily life do you hear people say, I have to brace because I know we're headed into a recession and that, that kind of fear. Plus I think the stress from COVID, the overhang that Steve talked about, that's really held Biden's economy numbers down. And so I think what the white house can do now is, I mean, that was like, it's a big deal that the Fed said that, that they kind of, that the recession cloud is breaking up. And they can say not that everything is great, but the plan is working, right? That inflation is going down. We're no longer worried about a recession. We have incredible job numbers. And we also have on the horizon a lot of great

projects and infrastructure, rebuilding a foundation for the economy, the CHIPS bill. That's going to make us more competitive. They have a great argument to make. People may not all feel it yet, but it's working. And establishing that kind of credibility, I think, is really important for the president, not just on the economy, but just sort of overall, because that's his fundamental argument. Right. I'm the I'm the credible, capable one. And Trump is chaos and the government can can work for you. Fundamentally, all elections come down to the economy. So they have a great argument to start making. And as I recall, when I worked for

President Obama and he was wearing a tan suit at his summer press conference, it was because we had him do it, even though the suit was kind of questionable and actually really didn't fit him well because it was an old suit. I think that was more the problem than the color. But we put him out because we had some good news and we wanted to get that good news registered in the press prior to him going to Martha's Vineyard. So that didn't quite work out. It didn't really break through on what we wanted to. But Biden's got a great chance to do that now. One of the enduring legacies of the Obama years, the tan suit brought to you by Jen Palmieri. Let's bring into the conversation President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.

Richard, great to have you with us. But not on a tantrum. No, we're all kind of boring blue. Steve has inspired me, though, to watch tomorrow. Step it up. Something exciting. I know you wanted to talk about the return of Aaron Judge to the Yankee lineup for the Orioles series.

Saquon Barkley to the New York Giants. Carlos Rodon finally finding the groove for the Yankees. This upstart Yankee group, by the way, they may not have the biggest payroll in baseball. They have the second biggest. But they're just scrappy and they're just hanging in there. They better be scrappy. They're not alone in last place, so they had better be scrappy. Let's talk about some real news so we don't have to talk about the Yankees for now. The Kremlin announced this week Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to travel to China in October to attend a forum for China's Belt and Road Initiative.

That's a major global infrastructure project led by China. There, Putin is expected to meet with President Xi for the first time since Xi visited Moscow in the spring. Significance of this, Richard, is what? There actually isn't that much significance at the risk of, you know, this is a loveless relationship. I got to tell you, you talk to the Chinese about Russia, they're really dismissive. You talk to the Russians about China,

you know, they don't take seriously the quote-unquote Chinese peace plan. Yeah, this is a relationship, you remember remember the current phase that was hatched, were launched just before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So it was about 17, 18 months ago. Clearly, Xi Jinping thought this was a winner. It's like someone comes up to you and says, you want to invest in this, can't lose. Well, guess what? It hasn't gone so well. And China finds itself alienated from a lot of Europe, which it doesn't want to be right now, because the Europeans are saying, why are you helping the Russians? They're the biggest threat. This just hasn't worked out. It's not a natural match. So, yeah, they're going to have this

meeting. But all these fears that somehow these two countries were getting close together and this was going to move the strategic center of gravity in the world, not so much. Meanwhile, China's economy is barely growing. 20% of young people are unemployed. So, China's economy is not doing it's barely growing. 20 percent of young people are unemployed. So this is this isn't a funny sort of way. It's almost a it's just not big news and it's not going to change the fundamentals either on the ground in Ukraine. The only thing to look for, Willie, is whether the China whether China is willing to up its help for Russia. And lots of dual use things. They haven't seemingly done military things yet. That's the one thing to keep an eye on, to make sure that China doesn't cross that line. If they are offering some support, it may not be military, but certainly supporting Russia on the wrong side of the war. Diplomatically, economically, they're a big purchaser of Russian

energy. They're providing some dual use technology. The question, again, is they don't go farther. President Xi does seem to be one of the few people on Earth who could lean on President Putin a little bit and try to encourage him to step away from this war, but he has not shown the willingness to do it yet. Fair? Totally fair. Might also be that it's premature. If Putin is watching the American political cycle and basically saying he wants to see if we lose, if Trump were to win, that would obviously bring about potentially a major change. So I don't think the moment's right. I think the real question would be sometime, whether it's at the end of this fighting season, the end of next fighting season after our election, that would be the moment. I think you'd see a full court press by the United States on

China to finally call in some of those chits with Russia. We're not there yet, but I think that day will come. What is the present status of the relationship between the United States and China? There's a big conference this fall, I believe, coming up. President Xi and President Biden will both attend. What are the odds that there'll be a face-to-face meeting between the two of them? I'd be surprised if there weren't a face-to-face meeting at the so-called APEC summit. I think it's in San Francisco this November, if I have my dates right. There's been a slight uptick in me and Janet Yellen. The Treasury Secretary was there. Secretary of State was there. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo is going there. It's a little bit

awkward right now. China just essentially dismissed its foreign minister. So Wang Yi is the Politburo, the state counselor and the foreign minister. He's got all three hats. So he's both the interlocutor for Tony Blinken and for Jake Sullivan. So there's a bit more interaction, Mike, but it's still not substance. John Kerry was just there. No breakthroughs on the climate front. We still haven't established a floor in the relationship. Do you think the sanctions that we imposed upon China are hurting the Chinese economy? A little bit. And I think the Chinese, it's hurting them economically a little bit. And also psychologically, they are persuaded that the United States is now determined to

stop China's growth. They actually think we are embarked, let's be blunt about it, on economic warfare. So what China's big goal, it's interesting, they're meeting American economic officials, they're meeting European leaders. They're meeting people like Bill Gates. Why? They want to try to maintain some sort of an economic relationship, try to avoid growing technology limitations and so forth, where we're unwilling to export or allow certain things to be exported to China.

So, yeah, I think we're hurting the Chinese economy. Probably not as much as the Chinese themselves are hurting the Chinese economy through their policies. But they are persuaded that it is our goal to keep them down economically. And some of the policies and some of the pronouncements by this administration reinforce that. And by the way, there's very little difference between the last administration and this administration on policy towards China. If anything, it's gotten tighter. Jonathan Lemire, I'll kick it to you down in Washington. But as we go down to your point, Richard, front page of The Wall Street Journal, unemployed youth cast pall over China's economy. Unemployment among young Chinese, 21 percent, John.

Yeah, no question. The White House is watching those numbers. But Richard, while you were talking just now, we were showing footage of Vladimir Putin at the Russian Africa summit that's in St. Petersburg. But photos just emerged in the last few minutes of another attendee at this Russia-Africa summit, Yevgeny Progozhin. He's there, which is yet another twist here in what has been happening since his failed mutiny of about a month ago. Just curious, I mean, we know the Wagner Group plays a big role in Africa, so that would explain why he is there. But why he's allowed to be there is another matter altogether. What's the latest you have heard just in terms of what is Prokosian standing?

What is his reality right now? And what does that say about Putin in this moment? There seems to be some kind of a deal to allow Prigozhin to continue. The Wagner Group, as you correctly say, Jonathan, has played a large foreign policy role, not just for himself and his bank role in Africa, but also for Russian foreign policy. That seems to be continued, and maybe that's part of their deal, that you don't challenge me at home and I'll let you to continue to do your stuff overseas. And that's that's my own sense of it. But I don't feel confident in sitting here and giving analysis of what's going on there.

That's the old line that Churchill used about the Soviet Union, a mystery wrapped in a riddle wrapped in an enigma. And there's that's something to be said for the Putin-Pragosian relationship. But the fact that Pragosian still lives, is still able to do things, suggests to me that they've kind of gone back to the old arrangement. And with the understanding that the, you know, Pragosian will not be a domestic challenge. Putin will seemingly forgive him for that. The Wagner group is not central to the war in Ukraine for the time being, but they'll continue their lucrative overseas operations, which is pretty consistent with what Putin wants to do in Africa. Richard, before we let you go, I've got to ask you about what's going on in Israel again this morning, protests in Tel Aviv, protests across the country about the Supreme Court

effectively being stripped of its power to be a check on the parliament, on the Knesset. What are we seeing in the streets right now? What does this tell you about Israel today? Yeah, one last wrinkle to it was the Supreme Court is now being asked to rule that what the Knesset, what the Israeli parliament did was unconstitutional. I'd be surprised if they did that. That would be a real frontal challenge. This happened, the vote passed, nothing's going to new votes won't happen again till after the Jewish holidays in the fall. And the question then from the Netanyahu government is, do you continue to strengthen the Knesset and weaken the hand of the Supreme Court? They

haven't made clear whether they're going to do that. But I think this is more than an immediate battle over the court. I would argue the only way to really understand this is there's been a real power shift in Israel. Politically, you've got the most right wing government in Israel's history. And then demographically, this reflects the changes. Ultra Orthodox have large families, immigrants coming, conservative immigrants from Russia, from the Middle East, and the Israel of almost the movie Exodus, the Ari Ben-Kanan, sort of Western Ashkenazic, more secular, liberal Israel, are increasingly losing political power to the right wing, the cultural and political right. So people are in the street, not just over judicial reform,

the power of the Supreme Court, not a technical issue. It's a real question of the direction of Israel. What is going to be the nature of Israeli society? What is the role of the Supreme Court, not a technical issue. It's a real question of the direction of Israel. What is going to be the nature of Israeli society? What is the role of religion? Is there going to be any willingness to accommodate Palestinians to come to some kind of a peace? What is the future? The fact that the Israeli markets have tanked the last couple,

there's a lot of people in Israel who really make Israeli society, the people in technology, a lot of the people in the reserves, the military, the pilots, the rest, they are worried about the future direction of the country. That's what this is about. As significant as judicial reform is, this is really a fight for the soul of it, almost for its political character. What is going to be the nature of modern Israel after 75 years? And that has come into play in ways, quite honestly, we could have a version of it here after September, after November next year. It's a fight for the character of the country politically, culturally. And what's the relationship between the government and the

society? So this is really worth watching in terms of this important country, but also for democracies in general. Is Bibi Netanyahu their Donald Trump? To some extent, yes. I think Bibi Netanyahu, like Donald Trump, is worried about losing political power because he's worried about the legal ramifications. And one of the things I wrote about at the risk of being self-referential in my last book is in a democracy, you need people to put

the country before either their party or their personal situation. And I would say what Bibi Netanyahu and Donald Trump have in common is both of them put their own personal situation before they put their country. And that is what is so unfortunate about both men. And as you pointed out, thousands of military reservists in Israel have said they're not going to show up if called up in protest to this. So this is reaching a boiling point. Richard Haass, thanks so much, as always, covering a lot of ground force. We appreciate it.