Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/28/23

Episode Date: July 28, 2023

Trump faces new charges in classified documents case

He's a defendant who has almost no choice but to flip. He's looking at charges that have 20-year maximums, even though that's not the real-world sentencing. He's looking at spending a big chunk of time in prison if he goes forward. They have him dead to center if he does not cooperate. And what do they get if he does cooperate? He is putting Trump front and center in this scheme to obstruct. That is former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance describing the legal predicament for a Mar-a-Lago maintenance worker, now a co-defendant in Donald Trump's classified documents case.

We will go through a big new development there in just a moment. Also ahead, the White House responds to questions about whether President Joe Biden would consider a pardon for his son after Hunter Biden's plea deal fell apart earlier this week. Plus, another unsettling moment in the Senate with an aging lawmaker. We'll show you what happened with Senator Dianne Feinstein yesterday. Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled House takes an early recess, leaving a big slate of unfinished business and not a whole lot of time to get it done when they come back in six weeks. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, July 28th. I'm Willie Geist. With us, we've got the host of Way Too Early and White House Bureau Chief at Politico,

Jonathan Lemire, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele, former White House Director of Communications to President Obama, Jennifer Palmieri, former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg, and NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney. Got a great group assembled for a big story this morning. As Donald Trump awaits a likely indictment for his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. The former president was hit with three new charges yesterday in a separate case. In the Southern District of Florida, federal prosecutors added two new counts of obstruction and one of willfully retaining national defense information in the case centered

around his mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Those new charges laid out in a superseding indictment, which alleges Trump directed two employees at his Palm Beach estate to destroy security camera footage shortly after the Justice Department issued a subpoena to obtain the same video in June of last year. One of the employees, Trump's valet Walt Nauta, was previously charged along with Trump. Now, someone else has been added. Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos D. Oliveira was charged in yesterday's follow-up indictment. It describes a moment when the two men walked with a flashlight through a dark tunnel at Mar-a-Lago to scope out a room where boxes of classified documents were being watched

by security cameras. A few days later, De Oliveira allegedly told another employee, quote, the boss wanted security footage from that room deleted. As for the other charge, that one involves a meeting from last August at Trump's property in Bedminster, New Jersey. There, the former president allegedly showed off a classified document about possible attack plans for Iran to people who were doing interviews for his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows' upcoming memoir. That conversation, you'll remember, was captured on an audio tape that was leaked last month. Well, with Milley, let me see that. I'll show you an example. He said that I wanted to

attack Iran. Isn't it amazing? I have a big pile of papers. This thing just came up. Look, this was him. They presented me this is off the record, but they presented me this. This was him. This was the Defense Department and him. Wow. We looked at him. This was him. This wasn't done by me. This was him. All sorts of stuff.

It's pages long. Wait a minute. Let's see here. Wait a minute. Yeah. I just found, isn't that amazing? This totally wins my case you know except it is like highly

confidential by the way isn't that incredible yeah I was just saying because we were talking about it and you know he said he wanted to attack Iran and what this was done by the military given to me I think we

can probably, right? I don't know. We'll have to see. Yeah, we'll have to try to figure out. See, as president, I couldn't have de-classified. No, I can't. You know, but this is. Yeah, now we have a problem.

So that's audio of that meeting at Bedminster in New Jersey. In total now, with the new superseding indictment, Trump is now charged with 40 counts in the classified documents case. He and Nauta have pleaded not guilty to their previous charges. A lawyer for De Oliveira, the property manager, declined to comment. A trial date is tentatively set for May 20th, 2024. So Chuck Rosenberg, we all were waiting yesterday perhaps to hear for a new indictment in an entirely separate case involving the 2020 election and the efforts to overturn it.

This goes back now to the Mar-a-Lago documents case. So for our viewers, what is a superseding indictment, number one, and what do you read into the content of it? Sure. Number one, a superseding indictment is simply additional charges on an existing indictment. The first indictment of Mr. Trump and Mr. Nata and Mar-a-Lago for mishandling classified documents and obstructing the investigation was unsealed about a month ago or so, Willie. They have now added charges to it. They've added another defendant, Mr. Adil Levera, that supersedes the first indictment. It replaces it. It has additional charges, and we call it a superseding indictment. What do I make of it? Well, you know, it's sort

of sad in a way. When I was a federal prosecutor, there were always lower level individuals. And I can tell you, quite frankly, I didn't get any joy out of prosecuting them. My goal was always to enlist their cooperation, to have them tell the truth. Each of them come to a fork in the road where they can either tell the truth or they can lie. And if they lie, if they obstruct justice, if they attempt in in this case, to delete security footage that has been subpoenaed by the Department of Justice, agents and prosecutors really don't have a choice other than to walk away. And they're not inclined to do that. And that's how people like Mr. Nada, a low-level valet, and Mr. de Oliveira,

a low-level property manager, end up in a federal criminal indictment with Mr. Trump, the former president of the United States. Here's what else I make of it. They made really bad choices when they decided to lie to the FBI and obstruct justice. It may not be too late for a good attorney to help each of them salvage it. They can still tell the truth, and they can still minimize any damage to themselves. Whether or not that happens, Willie, we'll see. So, Ken Delaney, as you look through this new superseding indictment, a new character is introduced. As Chuck said, this is Mr. D. Oliveira. He's 56 years old, the head of maintenance at Mar-a-Lago, a property manager

effectively there, who was pulled into all of this by Donald Trump just last summer, June 22nd, 2022, when the DOJ emailed Trump's attorneys a draft subpoena. Donald Trump says, OK, now I know the FBI, DOJ is coming for whatever I have here and perhaps for security footage, setting in motion this process by which ultimately Di Olivera tells the head of IT at Mar-a-Lago, the boss, in his words, wants this stuff deleted. You've looked through this indictment. What else do you see in there? Willie, let's just take a pause on what you just said. It's just extraordinary. These allegations rival anything that Richard Nixon was accused of. These are two additional counts of obstruction of justice. And this indictment reads like a mafia case.

Here you have, and again, these are allegations, and the burden of proof here is high, and they don't have direct witnesses implicating Trump. But this is a scheme to destroy evidence three days after a grand jury subpoena lands on Mr. Trump. It's mind-boggling. And as Chuck said, it involves very low-level employees whose lives are about to be ruined unless they cut a deal with prosecutors. And as for Mr. Nauta, there's no sign that he's going to do that. His lawyers are paid for by Mr. Trump. He's completely loyal. He's following Mr. Trump around.

So, and the other thing I think about these obstruction elements is that, you know, a lot of regular Americans out there who don't follow this very closely, when they hear about the classified documents case, they have a hard time distinguishing what Trump did from what Joe Biden and Mike Pence did, even though we all know that it's vastly different, right? All three men had classified documents in their possession. But nobody has trouble, I think, differentiating these incredible obstruction of justice charges. Everybody understands what it means to destroy evidence, particularly surveillance video evidence. Now, I have to point out that there's no allegation in this new superseding indictment that they actually attempted to destroy the tapes. Remember, we read in The New York Times about an episode

where there was a flood and there was some concern that that was an attempt to destroy the footage. That's not in here. There's no allegation either. There's nobody that can directly put Mr. Trump in a room and testify. I heard him say, destroy the tapes. It's all hearsay. It's employee number four saying, I talked to Carlos de Oliveira, and that's what he said. So obviously, what they would really like, as Chuck said, is for Mr. de Oliveira to come and testify and tell the truth about his conversations with Mr. Trump. But if you read this indictment, the obstruction is extraordinary. And then secondly, of course, this mysterious document, which we believe was a military plan. Well, we believe the indictment now says it was a military plan about options for attacking Iran.

Donald Trump said it didn't exist, remember, after the original indictment. Now we know the government has it, has had it since Trump turned over the first batch of documents to the National Archive in January 2022. And it's the subject of the tape you just played. And it's a devastating piece of evidence. So this superseding indictment, it seems to me, really strengthens this already very strong case. And, you know, we were all waiting around yesterday thinking that the January 6th indictment was coming. So we're only at the beginning, really the third inning, I think, of the federal legal troubles for former President Donald Trump, Willie. It really is astonishing, Jonathan Lemire.

And it has to be said, reading through this new indictment, it reads like something straight out of the Gambino crime family, where they say the boss wants the tapes deleted. Donald Trump calling his head of maintenance, other people who work for him, who he knows are loyal to him. It'll do what he said, asking them to do things that are to get them to where we are now, which is brought up on federal charges. Guys meeting in the bushes at Mar-a-Lago discussing what to do. And then after the feds come checking on Mr. D. Oliveira, the head of maintenance, to say we want to make sure Carlos is good. In other words, he's not going to squeal to the feds, right? Is he loyal to us? It is an extraordinary document. An extraordinary document with so many parallels to a mafia investigation from those 60s and 70s, with one perhaps exception, the fact the inclusion of a

emoji apparently also in there as they're trying to say, hey, we're doing something secret. Don't tell anybody. And we use the shushing emoji. So that's that shows you the quality of henchmen that Donald Trump has in this particular matter. But Michael Steele, to Ken's point there a moment ago, you know, we're here in Washington. Their TV trucks light as far as I can see outside the courthouse, the belief that that January 6th election indictment was coming. We still believe it is coming soon. We don't know if that will be this week, next, the week after. But this is a reminder, the superseding indictment, that they already have Donald Trump seemingly dead to rights on this case, a very serious case about America's most sensitive secrets.

And yet, and yet, and yet, and yet, he's leading the Republican polls only gross. And will continue. And I suspect once the January 6th indictment comes down, which everyone is anticipating, that that will just continue to lock in a little bit more. So the event in Iowa tonight, where you have the presidential candidates, I'm sure we'll talk about it later, you know, parading in front of the Iowa faithful to sort of make their case, will not make their case against Donald Trump. They will make their case for everything else, but Donald Trump, why Donald Trump should not be the nominee. And Donald Trump will come in, and he will bemoan and berate and lie and obfuscate and

claim victimhood. And they will eat it up. The audience will eat it up. Even though he lost Iowa the last time, he may or may not be doing well there, it doesn't matter, because wherever Donald Trump is, the conversation is not about the folks just in front of him. It's about a broader audience. And so he knows events like today that we saw yesterday, events that may come today,

tomorrow or next week, are all part of his ongoing narrative against the deep state and why Republicans need to stay hooked to him, because as he reminds them, if it weren't for me, they'd be coming after you and I'm your retribution. And that narrative plays extremely well still, despite all the evidence in that for that base. Jen Palmieri up front, I'm going to give you the 2016 trigger warning, but it does have to be pointed out that the entire criticism of Hillary Clinton and her email server, remember there was that she was wiping the server, that she deleted it with bleach bit software, deleted emails about yoga appointments and Chelsea's wedding. And now you have, according to this indictment, allegedly the former president of

the United States ordering his underlings at his beach club to go delete a server. I mean, Willie, when I heard I mean, I was like making dinner and I heard the words like delete that attributed to Donald Trump of delete the server. And it's like it's just like it's so absurd. Also, the hush emoji, the security footage, all of it seems so absurd, kind of bumbling and then so serious when you see the Iran understanding that it was, in fact, a document related to U.S. possible plans of if there was ever conflict in Iran. Right. So I think the details matter here. I'm with Michael Steele. I think there's very little chance that someone can overtake Donald Trump in the Republican primary. But all the smart people in the Republican primary who are where when they hear the details in the documents case in particular, what was at stake, what he risked, it had an impact on some people. Their big Lincoln dinner, you know, that's all happening in Iowa.

Trump will be there. DeSantis will be there. Most of the candidates are going to be there. This is the moment if you're going to try to start make an argument, a real argument against him. Maybe somebody will. I kind of in that ballroom. I kind of doubt it, though. But, Chuck, there's I want to ask you about co-conspirators. There are so so so Trump is being charged along with two other defendants. They're considered co-conspirators.

I know that that changes the rules of engagement here as far as what the, how some of this evidence is being entered into the record, how it's treated and can impact Trump where, for example, when they say the boss wants this done. Can you kind of explain how that works? Yeah, Jennifer, it's a great question. So when you charge a conspiracy and you have co-conspirators, there are rules of evidence that actually help the government at trial. For instance, Jennifer, if you and I were robbing banks together, you and I are conspirators in bank robbery, what you say or what I say, if it's a statement made in furtherance of our conspiracy to help it along, and if it's made

during our conspiracy, can come in a trial against either one of us, both of us. And so conspirator statements are a very powerful tool for the government at trial. As you noted, it gives the government an evidentiary advantage. Plus, juries understand that criminals often act in concert with one another. So each conspirator can take on a different role. I could go into the bank with the gun. You can drive the getaway car. And we're both responsible, you and I both, Jennifer, for that bank robbery, even though we had different roles. And so conspiracy is a very powerful tool for agents and for prosecutors and confers on the government at trial evidentiary advantages.

And by the way, conspirators don't have to be indicted. They can be unindicted. We've seen that too. As long as the grand jury in its indictment articulates who the conspirators are and what they did and what roles they took, it confers on the government, as I noted, a significant advantage at trial. And Ken Delaney, as we talk about the mob-like elements of this superseding indictment, the new one, at the very end, once they have confirmed that Mr. D. Oliveira, the property manager, is in fact loyal to Donald Trump, that they don't have to worry about him, Donald Trump allegedly calls him and says, I'll take care of you. I'll get you a lawyer. Don't

worry about it. I wouldn't hold your breath if I were you, Mr. DeOliveira. Donald Trump going to help you out there. Let's look, though, now, Ken, at the January 6, 2020 election investigation. We've been looking for this indictment all week. What else do we know about where that stands this morning? Well, yesterday was a very important day in that progression because Donald Trump's attorneys, we learned, traveled to Jack Smith's office in Northeast Washington, D.C., and had a meeting over there. And sources familiar with that meeting tell us it was a standard final pitch from the defense arguing that their client should not be indicted and that they didn't think it changed anything. So it's essentially a formality. And so we expect that case, that indictment to come any time. And, you know, it's going to be far more significant

than this documents case in terms of the threat to our democracy. As big a deal as the documents case is, the January 6th case is perhaps 10 times as important, because as we believe it's going to be alleged, you know, a conspiracy to defraud the United States, a conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, the counting and certification of electoral votes in a presidential election. And we believe, based on the witnesses who have come before the grand jury,

the questions that have been asked, the scope of this investigation, that it's going to allege a vast conspiracy to keep Donald Trump in power and to subvert the results of an election. And, you know, you just can't overstate the significance of that. Now, the grand jury typically meets on Tuesdays and Thursdays. If we see them come in today, we'll know that things are different and we should be watching for a potential vote. If we don't see them come in, then I would expect that next Tuesday would be the next day we watch. And so that indictment could come next week. But we believe

that it's coming fairly soon, Willie. The fact of the matter, Chuck, is we don't know. And we've been pretty upfront about that all week. Could be Tuesday, could be Thursday, or maybe, as Ken says, they might come in and meet today in a different session. But it does appear inevitable at this point. Does it not? An indictment of the former president in that case? It does. And for a couple of reasons, Willie. First, we know that Mr. Trump got a target letter. Let me explain that. A target is a putative defendant, someone likely to be charged. When I was a federal prosecutor on occasion, not in all cases, but on occasion, I would send out a target letter. It's not a game. It's not a feint. It's not a bluff. When a prosecutor sends a target letter, that means that he or she intends to indict or at least ask the grand jury to indict the target.

Mr. Trump has a target letter. You can assume, you should assume that an indictment is coming. When? I think Ken is exactly right. Soon. Grand juries meet on Tuesday and Thursday. It can meet on other days as well. But I think it's inevitable.

Data point number two. Mr. Trump received a target letter in the Mar-a-Lago case and within two weeks or so was indicted on the classified documents portion of the investigation. So I think it's fair to say an indictment is coming. I think it's fair to say an indictment is coming soon. Mr. Trump is a target. And I want to echo one other thing that Ken said, because I think he's exactly right. The January 6th case is as compelling a criminal case as I

have ever seen. It involves the attempts by a president at the time, now a former president, to thwart the peaceful transition of power in a democracy, to thwart the peaceful transition of power in a democracy. Absolutely remarkable. And so while the Mar-a-Lago case, the classified documents case is important and compelling, Ken's right. What's coming next is far more important and far more compelling because it goes to the very heart of our democracy. Wow.

As compelling a case as I've ever seen, says Chuck Rosenberg. Chuck, Ken Delaney, it's so great to have you both with us this morning to walk through all of this. We really appreciate it. So, Michael Steele, we've talked and you just touched on it a minute ago about all the off-ramps Republicans have been given by Donald Trump. You could take January 6th. You could take the indictments. You could take the indictment over Stormy Daniels. You've got another chance here. And it's worth asking Republicans. It's worth asking these people, the candidates running against him. It's worth asking House Republicans and Senate Republicans. Are you OK with what you see in this indictment? Is this the guy you're going to get behind? Because you're making a big statement, if so, that a guy who worked and pushed

to overturn the results of the 2020 election in one case or the guy who took nuclear secrets, who took war plans back with him to Mar-a-Lago, obstructed their return. And now we're learning these new allegations and the superseding indictment, like a mob boss ordered his staff to go out and destroy evidence. Are you OK with that? And so far, the answer has been yes. And so, Willie, my follow up to that would be, which I think is probably an even more important question, is why can't you let go? In light of everything, you know, everything you've heard, everything you've read, presumably you've been reading these indictments with the rest of America. You've been watching what prosecutors have been doing and what they've been saying.

Why can't you let go? What is it about him that holds you so tightly to him that you can't let go? I mean, what would it take for you to let go and move on? No president in history, in history, has held the American people, but more importantly, the political leadership of the party so tightly. Why can't you let go? What will it take? Just tell us what it would take, and we will all do that thing. So we'll help you let go. But will it take? Just tell us what it would take. And we will all do that thing.

So we'll help you let go. But they don't want to. And I think that's at the nub of it. There's too much money being made. There's too much grift going on. There's too much power at stake. It's too many things that they value much more than the Constitution, the rule of law, the institutions that uphold this nation and keep it moving forward. That's why they won't let go. So, you know, I get the media and some in the political class who want to keep walking down the lane whistling, thinking that this is all going to turn out normal.

It's going to be all OK. It ain't. It ain't. 2024 is going to be a you-know-what show at the behest and on the demands of Donald Trump. And so, yeah, I don't think indictments, you know, or anything else are going to make this thing go away. I mean, what do you think? Certainly, I mean, the general election is a different story. It is hard to imagine any of these indictments are helping Donald Trump with independent swing voters. Those who may have broken for him in 2016, broke against him in 2020. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where those people are persuaded that these are deep state conspiracies meant to get him.

And therefore, he's earned their support yet again. But in the Republican Party, there's nothing, Willie, there's nothing that has shaken Trump's hold on the majority of that party, on his base, who is willing to go with him wherever he leads them. And this next couple of days is going to be an interesting political moment. We've got the super city indictment. We have the January 6th coming soon. Tonight, as we just mentioned, all the Republicans, save for Chris Christie, the one Republican who's willing to take it to Trump, he won't be there. But all the other Republicans will be in Iowa.

Do they say anything? Odds are no. And then tomorrow, Donald Trump has a rally in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania, a state he won in 2016, lost narrowly four years ago. And he's going to make these same claims again that he is a victim and his followers are still with him. And in fact, the effect of all these indictments has been just the opposite. His support has gone up as he paints himself the victim. But I encourage anyone Republican, Democrat, independent considering a vote, go read this new superseding indictment. As Ken Delaney said, it makes Watergate look quaint. We'll have much more on this story coming up in

just a bit. Also ahead on Morning Joe, the White House is leaning into yesterday's stronger than expected GDP number. As proof, Bidenomics, as they call it, is working. We'll show you what the administration has to say. Plus, some Republicans are growing concerned about Senator Mitch McConnell

following his apparent health scare. We'll have new reporting on that just ahead on a Friday morning on Morning Joe. That is a beautiful sight at 631 in the morning, the United States Capitol, where some Republican lawmakers this morning are telling NBC News they have concerns about Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and his health, and that they personally have witnessed changes in the 81-year-old after he fell and sustained a concussion in March. Their comments come following Wednesday's incident when the Kentucky Republican froze for 19 seconds during a press conference before being escorted away from the cameras.

None of the Republicans are calling on McConnell to step down yet, and senators next in line for the top job say they are not making succession plans at this time. But the murmurings underscore how the party is struggling to deal with the sensitive health issues of the longest-serving Senate party leader in American history. NBC News also spoke with other Republican lawmakers who stand behind McConnell and say they have complete confidence in his ability to lead their conference. He said he's fine. I take him at face value. You heard him respond to questions yesterday. He was very crisp in his answers. All I know is he's tough. He's been here a long time. He has a tremendous amount of support.

Everyone knows that with one hand tied behind his back, he's still a superior leader to so many people here that I think people still have a lot of confidence in him. I think it's just maybe fatigue. There's been a lot of confidence in him. I think it just may be fatigue. There's been a lot going on. I mean, we're doing all kinds of bills. My head was spinning, too, trying to keep up with all the things that we try to get done in the next two or three months. McConnell has served in the United States Senate since 1985. He's not up for reelection until the 2026 midterm elections. And Jonathan Lemire,

you've got some new reporting on how the White House is watching all of this. Obviously, President Biden, an old friend of Senator McConnell's from the Senate days. No question. The two men spoke this week after McConnell's incident there, had a warm conversation, I am told. But the White House is watching this warily. McConnell, for so long, has been such a villain for Democrats.

But now for this White House, he's become an important partner and a bulwark, if you will, holding back some of the more radical right wing forces of lawmakers, Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill, also willing to keep McCarthy in check and more importantly, willing to keep Donald Trump in check in the White House, worried about what could come next. McConnell not expected to run for reelection. So there are the White House is already preparing for what that could look like, a post-McConnell GOP, Michael Steele. But if McConnell's health forces him to step away before then, and his team is saying that's not going to be the case, obviously that new future could come even sooner. But talk to us about the dynamic there in the Senate. I think you and I

both know that there are succession plans being discussed. Talk to us about what that could look like. Well, I think there would be a battle for the leadership, particularly if the Senate becomes more in play in the 2024 cycle, where it looks like Republicans can take the majority again. And I think that would be one way in which McConnell could very easily transition out either way, actually. So that battle for the number for who would then succeed him in the leadership is going to be I think it's going to be a lot more tense than people think it is. I mean, John Thune would be my personal favorite, to be honest. I've known him a long time, and I think he's an incredible leader who has that ability to work with the president across the aisle,

you know, and all of that should Biden return to office. But there's always going to be that sort of MAGA-esque kind of backflow, which is sort of bubbled up in the Senate with the Tubervilles and others kind of making noise. So that's going to be an interesting storyline. What I find more interesting right now, particularly in the clips that were played, take out McConnell's name and stick in Biden. All right. And and and so we can we can dispense with all the old ageism stuff coming from Republicans about Joe Biden, because the reality of it is we are we are a country that's being led by octogenarians, older individuals. And both parties, you know, are on the pike on this one. So dial it back. Be concerned about McConnell's health, as I'm sure people are concerned about Biden and they're concerned about Dianne Feinstein and others.

Those narratives will play themselves out. But this whole idea that my guy who had this episode in front of national cameras is somehow better than your guy who tripped over a sandbag. It's just, you know, we need to we just need to pull all that crazy aside and move beyond that at this point, because their health obviously is important. But you can't you can't drive the politics necessarily that way. And if it's if it's that bad for McConnell or Biden or anyone else, then step out of it. Well, to your point, Michael Steele, there was a moment on Capitol Hill yesterday involving 90 year old Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein. During a committee meeting, Senator Feinstein was called to vote on a defense appropriations bill and seemed to misunderstand what was being asked of her.

Instead of offering a one-word reply, Feinstein began to speak at length before an aide and ultimately another member of the committee stepped in. The clerk will call the roll. Senator Feinstein. Say aye. Pardon me? Aye. Yeah. I would like to support a yes vote on this.

It provides $823 billion. That's an increase of $26 billion for the Department of Defense. And it funds priorities submitted. Yeah, just say aye. Okay, just aye. Aye. Thank you. Senator Durbin, Senator Reid. Aye. In a statement to NBC News yesterday, a spokesperson for Senator Feinstein wrote, trying to complete all the appropriations bills before recess, the committee markup this morning was a little chaotic,

constantly switching back and forth between statements, votes, and debate in the order of bills. The senator was preoccupied, didn't realize debate had just ended and a vote was called. She started to give a statement, was informed it was a vote and then cast her vote. So Jen Palmieri, that's a staffer trying to do his or her job there to protect Senator Feinstein. But the fact is that there are Democrats not just whispering about this, but who have gone on the record and called for her resign, including members of the California delegation. Again, Democrats in Congress saying that it's time, though they appreciate everything she's done and the historic figure she is, time for her to step aside. But it all gets to Michael Steele's larger point about the age of our leaders, Dianne Feinstein, President Biden, by the way,

Donald Trump, who is 77 years old, no spring chicken himself. Yeah, I mean, it's it's it's sort of it is sort of wild. And look at that, that this that generation that's still in power. I mean, it's it's not an accident that you see this in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. It's the it's you know, we are, I think, at the end of an era where you have this that generation that's even in some cases pre baby boomers in charge of America. I think that's why you're likely to see Trump and Biden in an election together in the fall of twenty twenty four is we're still not quite done. We're still not quite through this period. That was tough to watch. And Patty Murray, you know, Senator Patty Murray having to tell her, just say I. Ultimately, it's up to either

the individual to say it's time to go or the voters. Voters of California knew how old Dianne Feinstein was when they reelected her in 2018 or in 2020. Excuse me. They knew how old she was, right? So it was 2018. And they reelected her anyway. So, you know, part of this is voters also weighing in. And I'm sure the White House is not excited to see older politicians having a difficult week. But they have to show not all 80-year-olds are the same and, you know, show the president vibrant,

show the president out and about, show the president, you know, having a great week in the world stage as we saw in Europe a couple of weeks ago, delivering great economic news. That is the way they battle. They battle this back. And we should remind our viewers, Senator Feinstein is up for reelection next year, but it said she will not run. So she has a year and a half or so left in her term,

her career, her Senate career either way. Still ahead on Morning Joe, the world is full of nuclear weapons, but apparently not enough experts to oversee them. Our next guest says things are more dangerous now than when the atomic bomb was first developed. We'll get his explanation next on Morning Joe. These things are hard on your heart. 30 seconds. You need a charge? 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. An intense scene from the new film Oppenheimer that was just moments before the first successful test of an atomic bomb. But it was earlier in the film when the most important question was posed

by physicist Niels Bohr. I knew you could do this without me. Why did you come? To talk about after. The power you're about to reveal will forever outlive the Nazis. And the world is not prepared. You could lift the stone without being ready for the snake that's revealed. We have to make the politicians understand this isn't a new weapon.

It's a new world. I'll be out there doing what I can, but you... You're an American Prometheus, a man who gave them the power to destroy themselves, and they'll respect that. Our next guest says that question was tackled in the days after the bomb was dropped, but the guardrails have seemingly gone by the wayside. This morning, Politico is out with a new cover story titled Extinction Event, The Disappearing Nuclear Expert.

Author Brian Bender details how the nation's leading nuclear policy wonks are more concerned than ever about the specter of a nuclear war and warn we are far less prepared than during the Cold War to deal with a more expansive threat. Joining us now is Brian Bender. He's currently vice president for communication strategy at Strategic Marketing Innovations, a government affairs firm that advises clients in clean energy space and biotech. Brian formerly served as Politico's senior national correspondent, focusing on defense and national security. Brian, good morning. This

piece certainly grabbed our attention. The context around it, we've all been watching Oppenheimer and all the ethical and the moral questions about the development of that bomb and how it will be protected in the decades since. So tell us about the state of affairs here and why so many people are so concerned. Well, there's definitely a probable sense that the bad old days are back. In other words, we are in a nuclear standoff, not just with Russia, but now increasingly China, which is building up its nuclear arsenal year by year by year. And there's a sense and a fear that we just don't have the bench anymore, the brainpower, if you will, that we did during the height of the Cold War, whether it's political scientists, economists, engineers, technicians, the whole gamut of people whose entire professional life was built around preventing the unthinkable. We've had 30 years

now since the end of the Cold War, where, you know, the U.S. is focused primarily on a lot of other threats short of global nuclear war. But those days are potentially back. But again, you know, there's this sense across the government, but also think tanks, academia that we're just not training, haven't trained the new generation of folks to think this through and to deal with this. So, Brian, we obviously, nuclear weapons, a forefront of mind when Vladimir Putin sort of rattles that saber in his threats against Ukraine. The U.S. military officials believe that's not a step he's willing to take. But of course, every time it's raised, we all worry. My question to you is, I mean, that's the world's largest nuclear arsenal. How safe are these weapons? What are the safeguards in place there or in other countries where they're starting

to develop this technology that could prevent, whether it's a government or even a rogue actor, from getting their hands on one and using it for the worst possible purposes? I think that's a primary concern. I mean, at least during the Cold War, as bad as it was, and as close as we came, more than one occasion to coming to blows, there is concern that there's really no diplomatic means anymore to talk to the Russians about their nuclear arsenal. The treaties that we relied on for so many decades with the Russians to at least keep some level of stability, They would come inspect our weapons

sites. We would do the same. All of that has really collapsed in recent years, and it only gotten worse since the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And I think, you know, like at the end of the Cold War, when there was a lot of concern when the Soviet Union broke up, what's going to happen to all these nukes? You know, the U.S. and our allies did a lot in those days to work with the Russians to secure nuclear material, to make sure that their scientists weren't going to the highest bidder like Iran or North Korea. But now there really is no communication. There's very little insight into that. And obviously, a lot of concern about the stability of the regime in Russia and what Putin might be willing to do that

former Russian leaders were not. So, Brian, where is I mean, Russia obviously is front and center right now because of its invasion of Ukraine and the war that's gone on for a year and a half now. But when you talk to experts, where are the other areas of concern? Is it Iran? Is it someone like Kim Jong Un finally developing a nuclear weapon? Where are the other flashpoints here? Well, you know, during the Cold War, we were used to basically having to deal with one peer competitor in the nuclear arena, and that was the Soviet Union. Now we have China, which is quadrupling its nuclear arsenal, according to the Pentagon, over the next decade or so. And, you know,

they could get to the level where they have almost as many deployed nuclear weapons as the United States and Russia. We never really had to think about that before, not just deterring one major power, but deterring two. And then, as you mentioned, you have North Korea, you have Iran, other rogue states that are trying to get nuclear weapons. And then add on to all of that the advent of new technologies, hypersonic weapons to travel far faster than we ever conceived of during the Cold War. Artificial intelligence, which is a big unknown in terms of sowing confusion. Cyber attacks. There's all of this new technology, all of these new potential factors in that equation that we hadn't had to think about before.

And so we're going to need some really smart people, a whole new generation, really, to think through all of these things in a much more complicated world where there's a lot more players and arguably a lot more uncertainty. It's a fascinating new piece and an important one. It's in Politico magazine. It is online now. Brian Bender, thanks so much for bringing it to us. We appreciate it. Thanks for having me. So much in his major league career already. This would be the first complete game shutout, and there it is.

Shohei Otani goes all nine. Looking for his first hit of the series. Some clapping for Shohei, who goes to the opposite field. Get going, yeah! His Major League leading 37th oppo shot. Now with two gone. First player in history to homer in one game of a doubleheader. Throw a complete game in the other.

Oh, he got another one. Get going. Otani has done it again. Santa Maria. Complete game shutout. Check. Two homers in the nightcap. Check. We've just never seen it before. An absolutely unbelievable doubleheader for the great Shohei Otani yesterday in Detroit. As you heard, in game one, he pitched a complete game one-hit shutout.

And then in game two, as a designated hitter, blast two home runs in back-to-back at-bats before leaving the game with cramps. You can understand that. Had a long day. This comes just a day after the team made a significant trade to bring in more pitching in hopes of making a playoff push and making clear that he was not available for a trade. Jonathan Lemire, we keep thinking we've seen something the best of what he can do, but this has to be, this is one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen in baseball.

I can't compare it to anything. A guy pitches a one-hit shutout, then comes back for game two of a doubleheader, hits two home runs. We're getting tired of saying it, but we've just never seen this before. Cramps, slacker. I mean, it does feel like, Willieie you and i have this conversation two or three times a week where we go show him tony he's the best and he is the best i mean you could argue he had one of the greatest days in the history of the sport yesterday complete game one hit shutout

then two homers in the second game of a doubleheader. I mean, he's Babe Ruth. He might be better than Babe Ruth. I mean, you know, in terms of a pure pinnacle. We don't know. We certainly hope he has a long career and plays for many, many more years. Right here at his apex, he's probably playing the game better than anyone has ever played it before. I don't think that's an overstatement. It's true. You'll never see anything like, I don't think, what you saw yesterday.

Just extraordinary. And Jen Palmieri, your Baltimore Orioles, your first place Baltimore Orioles, kind of have the weekend off. The last place New York Yankees come into town. Just a struggling bunch out of the Bronx. Scrappy kids from the Bronx. They might get Aaron Judge. We don't know for sure, but we think Aaron Judge might come back this weekend.

Listen, we're just happy to be on the same field as the first place Orioles. It's an honor. Oh, my God. Stop. I just say, hey, I was like, I looked at the schedule and I told Jim, I was like, oh, no, the Yankees are coming to Baltimore. And it's just it doesn't matter. Are you in last place or second to last place?

We're in last. Yeah. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Yankees and the Oaks it doesn't matter last second to last it's hard to keep track um but like it doesn't matter because like whenever the oaks and the yankees get it doesn't matter like what place who's in what place like it's always a very tough series for the oaks but you know this is our year. I've been clear.

It's a very exciting story in Baltimore. And we're only two and a half games out of the wild card. Maybe we'll snatch that and see you in the playoffs. But it should be a fun series in Baltimore this weekend.