Morning Joe - Morning Joe 7/6/23

Episode Date: July 6, 2023

Mike Pence defends his actions on January 6 during Iowa meet and greet

If it wasn't for your vote, we would not have Joe Biden in the White House. That was a constitutional right that you had to send those votes back to the states. States conduct our elections. You never want to let Washington DC run election. Constitution affords no authority for the vice president or anyone else to reject votes or return votes to the state. Never been done before, should never be done in the future. I'm sorry, ma'am, but that's actually what the Constitution says. President Trump was wrong about my authority that day, and he's still

wrong. So that is former Vice President Mike Pence in Iowa yesterday defending himself after a woman falsely claimed he had the constitutional power to block the certification of the 2020 election results, a calm takedown of that conspiracy theory. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, July 6th. With us this morning, we have U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye, the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief of Politico, Jonathan Lemire, professor at Princeton University, Eddie Glaude Jr., and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos. Danny, we've got a busy morning for you just ahead. But, John, that was a fascinating moment at the Pizza Ranch in Sioux City, a place a lot of us have been in the campaign trail,

where Mike Pence, for all the criticisms we've rightly levied upon him over the last eight years or so, seven or eight years, it was sort of a measured takedown and a point by point rebuttal of something that really is prominent, really did take hold, as you write about in your book, The Big Lie, that Mike Pence had the power to, quote, send it back to the states and give the election to Donald Trump. Yeah, Mike Pence was right there. He did not have that power. And it is a credit to him with an assist from Dan Quayle, unlikely defender of the republic, that he stood his ground that day and resisted that pressure from Donald Trump, a man whom he had served loyally throughout their four years in office and broke with him at the most important moment. But this the fact that he is still now dealing with this two,

two and a half years later in Iowa, the state where he has placed a bet on his entire campaign, thinking he could do well with the evangelicals there, shows just what an uphill climb he has and why his poll numbers remain so low, but also just demonstrate the grip that Donald Trump still has on this party and that his lies have completely taken hold. They've been repeated in the conservative media ecosystem. They are on social media, wherever you can find. Trump repeats them day after day. He is still, of course, not acknowledged his defeat.

And it shows just how dangerous that lie is. And so many Republicans are still willing to believe it. And that's the point, Eddie, is still is so pervasive. So if you are one of these Republicans taking on Donald Trump in a Republican primary, you go to Iowa, you go to New Hampshire, you go to South Carolina. That's what they're facing every day. People who confront them and say, isn't Donald Trump actually the president? And they hear that and they go, well, how do I take on Donald Trump when everyone whose vote I'm trying to win is so in the grip of everything he tells them? And, you know, to parse in the grip, it becomes very difficult to figure out how do you convince them otherwise.

So the facts are what they are. Pence was very forthright, but did he actually convince her? Right. And that's the challenge, of course. That is the challenge. We'll talk more about that coming up. There's some more stories around the 2024 campaign,

but we also were learning new details this morning about the search of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Golf Club carried out by federal agents last year after a less redacted version of the search warrant affidavit was made public yesterday. The newly public portions of that document reveal the federal agents investigating Trump's connection to classified materials told the judge who signed the search warrant they were concerned the location of some of the documents was unknown. The affidavit indicates Justice Department officials became concerned after viewing security camera footage from Mar-a-Lago that they obtained from Trump's company. The affidavit reveals the video showed a Trump employee since identified as aide and former White House valet Walt Nauta, moving boxes out of a storage area

where Trump and his lawyers previously had acknowledged keeping classified documents. Those same videos were referred to in the criminal indictment filed against Trump and Nauta last month. The indictment also stated documents had been stored at a number of locations, including Trump's office, residence, a ballroom stage and now infamously inside a bathroom. Federal judge in Florida who signed off on the August search warrant. Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart ordered the additional information from that affidavit be made public yesterday. But he denied a request by media organizations, including NBC News, that the entire affidavit be unsealed. So, Danny, this is a search warrant that we had seen, but it was heavily redacted.

Now we get a little bit of a look inside of it because of this ruling from the judge. As you look through it, what's new to you beside the fact that we have this video footage of Walt Nauta moving documents out of the storage facility, which is the place Trump and his aides had said it was all in there. It was all secure. We now know otherwise. Well, that fleshes out the indictment for us because it tells us now what we didn't know when the document was sealed, at least partially sealed or redacted, I should say, that in fact, it that there won't not specifically may have been moving documents. And there was this concern that we think we know, at least from what we've been told, where these documents are. And they're not there. We think

there are additional documents. We've seen them on video. And that makes us better understand this indictment, which alleges that Trump may have misled his attorneys. His attorneys took that information and gave it to federal investigators. And by the way, for me, that has been the vindicating force the entire time for attorneys in general, which is the idea that there was a suggestion during this investigation that Trump's attorneys may have been complicit in hiding these documents. Now, maybe as a lawyer, that concerned me. And I hoped and prayed that that was not the case. It seems that it was not the case. It seems that from the indictment

that Trump misled his attorneys, his attorneys took that information and gave it to federal investigators. And I can tell you, as a lawyer, every defense attorney in America can tell you a story of being led down a path by their clients. It happens all the time. And unfortunately, sometimes attorneys take that information and give it to federal investigators or law enforcement or something else. So this is something that I think we knew that now that this has been unredacted, now we can see that that the information that was concealed may have been by Trump and by Walt Nauta, who was probably just carrying out orders by Trump or someone close to him. And John, Walt Nauta will be arraigned today if he can come up with a lawyer.

This is the third attempt at an arraignment. He hasn't been able to find a lawyer. We will see. But clearly, he is central to this case. Yeah, and that's where I wanted to go with you, Danny, is this idea. As of last night, he still had not retained, it appears, a lawyer who could represent him in a Florida courtroom. This would appear to be a stall tactic, of which we've all sort of anticipated Trump and his team would utilize. So what's your sense of this? Is there anything that could be

done to compel him to show up and make this arraignment happen? And what's your just overarching sense of the timeline of this case? We know Jack Smith's the one who said, hey, let's move from August to December, but they're sending clear signals. We don't want to be delayed any further than December. A couple of things here. Defendants will often use the hiring an attorney as a ploy to delay, delay, delay. It works only to a point. At some point, for example, at an arraignment, a judge might just say, look, have the public defender stand in for you. We need to move this case along. The arraignment, at least it's substantively important, but practically speaking, virtually any attorney can stand in. And that includes maybe even a public defender. Now,

if I'm a federal judge in this case, I would be very concerned about just forcing a public defender on this high profile defendant. But believe me, in state court, this happens all the time. Judges will not countenance these maneuvers if a defendant is trying to delay, delay, delay. But on a larger point, I've been saying this since the beginning. Watch Walt Nauta in this case. Yes, it may be true that he has expressed no interest in cooperating with federal investigators or federal prosecutors. But as anyone who has prosecuted these kinds of sprawling white collar type cases will tell you, that decision may change over time as this case winds on. And as

the fatigue sets in and Walt Nauta gets a better idea of what he's facing, he may change his mind about cooperation and look no further than this already disparate treatment. If it's true that Trump is footing, say, the legal bills or supporting him in other ways, already, by the arraignment, Walt Nauta is in a different position. Trump's already been arraigned. Walt Nauta has yet to be arraigned

because he doesn't yet have an attorney. Now, is Walt Nauta and is Donald Trump, are they fine with that? Is that part of the plan? Is this no big deal? Maybe. But Walt Nauta might start thinking, hey, wait a minute. The big guy, he had a lawyer at the arraignment. He's all covered. I haven't even been arraigned yet because I don't have a lawyer. And maybe, look, maybe he's fine with that. OK, that's part of the plan. We're still a team. We're still a joint defense agreement. We're still together, aligned in this case. But what happens down the line when Walton ought to start seeing other disparate treatment,

other broken promises where Trump said we're going to be together the entire way on this. And now maybe a year from now, when I still think this case will be going, there's absolutely no way this case is going to trial in this calendar year. But as the months wind on, will Walt not to start thinking, hey, you know, this isn't the together team that I thought we were in from the beginning. Maybe I ought to start thinking about cooperation. And caddy Walt not is still is out there staffing Donald Trump, by the way. They're still side by side going to events and doing things together, even as they've been instructed not to speak about this case. We'll leave it to our audience to decide if Donald Trump will exercise that restraint.

I know I thought of that, too. It's pretty surreal, isn't it? The two are spending all of that time close together. And you know what it's like having a body man. They really are close. I've never had a body man, but you've seen presidents with me. You know how close they are. And it's kind of hard to believe they never talk about this case in those private moments, perhaps going around the golf course or something. But, Danny, something that you just briefly touched on earlier, and that's so there's Walt. And is there anybody else? And I know there's only two people have been indicted, but just reading through that last bit that's been made public from the search warrant, having just spent, you know, kind of very sweaty morning

moving a child out of dorm rooms, moving three or four boxes, 50 boxes get moved out and 25 boxes get moved back in again. Walt's doing all of that by himself. I mean, that sort of stretches credulity because that's, we saw the pictures of those boxes just a second ago. We can put them back up again. That's what it looks like, 50 boxes. It's an awful lot.

And it's kind of, I was just wondering if there's, you know, somebody else must know something about what was happening. Yes, they probably do. But I think it's safe to assume that Walt Nauta may be the only defendant we see charged with Trump. And here are my reasons for saying that. Number one, this is a long, sprawling investigation. And I have to believe that when federal prosecutors indicted this case, they believed they knew everything they had to know about every defendant they wanted to charge,

because this is arguably the most important federal defendant in the history of American prosecution. So you better believe that when that indictment dropped, they knew and had a document to back up every single paragraph in that indictment. So it would surprise me if they decided to add a new defendant through a superseding indictment. But beyond that, to answer your question specifically, yes, I think there were additional people who may have known more about the boxes. But those people, when they got a phone call or a letter from federal prosecutors, probably raced in to tell them everything that they knew. And that's often the case in federal investigations. There probably are additional people who may have known more than they should have or may have been somewhat complicit, but likely as not,

they cooperated with federal investigators and the government decided not to charge them. But then, of course, you're also going to have people who may have just been following orders. Hey, we need some of these boxes moved. They didn't look inside the boxes. They moved them around. So you're going to have a lot of people who are just minions with no actual knowledge

of what they were doing. But are there people in that gray area? Absolutely. I would expect that there are. But those may be people who, as I said, rushed in, talked to federal investigators and federal investigators and prosecutors, exercised their discretion and probably just chose not to prosecute. Eddie, sometimes you just have to take a step back and remind yourself about the volume of evidence in this case against Donald Trump. You know, I mean, you've got photographs of the documents. You've got now video footage of Walton not moving the documents. I'm remembering the

quote from Bill Barr several weeks ago where he said, if half of what they put in this indictment is true, Donald Trump is toast. Right. That's his former attorney general. If we weren't in Bizarro, we'd say he did the rights. Right. I mean, it seems pretty straightforward. And you said something as you were talking that struck me. You said with a high level of confidence that this was not going to happen in this calendar year. No way. There's no way. And I'll tell you why. Fascinating. Yeah. The Speedy Trial Act requires that starting at indictment, the clock begins and all cases must be brought to trial within 70 days. Now, I add about 11 footnotes of exceptions to that rule

in just a standard federal case. For example, if the defense starts filing motions, dispositive motions, motions to throw a case out, the judge has to decide those motions. They have to be briefed. That could add time to the, that could waive essentially the Speedy Trial Act. So that will add time to the case. In addition, you have security issues with putting a trial together. You're probably going to have to clear the entire courthouse. Everything moves glacially in whether it's federal court or state court. Federal court admittedly moves a lot, lot faster than state court. It's probably a safe bet that Trump's federal case will come to trial before his New York case. And that's

because simply the New York courts are much more clogged. They take longer to get to trial. But in federal court, they move very quickly. That being said, this is a complex, sprawling case. Walt Nauta hasn't even been arraigned yet, just to give you an idea. So all the best laid plans, even in federal court where they're much more efficient, they simply don't pan out because unexpected things happen. For example, how many weeks has it been and Walt Nauta has not yet been arraigned? And that's something that's supposed to happen right away. So to give you that as just an example, Eddie, that's something that's supposed to happen immediately after the indictment comes out. And it hasn't happened for one of the co-defendants. So the expectation that this case would be tried in this calendar year,

it's just not going to happen. There's no way it can't happen. We haven't even started the dispositive motions and those are coming. Believe me, Donald Trump's team is going to file any number of motions to throw this case out entirely. So once those begin, that'll maybe give us a better idea. But it's not happening in this calendar year. Save the tape. Maybe don't save the tape, but save the tape. And there's also just inherent delays to a trial that involves classified information. Like it is such a complicated, lengthy, time consuming process. Even if there weren't delay taxes in this case, there clearly will be.

That's right. And that, of course, that timeline puts us squarely in the presidential election year. Maybe even past the primaries during a general election with conventions going on in the president. Former President Donald Trump shuttling his way back and forth to courtrooms. Another legal story connected to Donald Trump, Lin Wood. You remember that name? He's the high profile Georgia lawyer who embraced, encouraged former President Trump's bogus election claim, says he is retiring from practicing law amid ongoing disciplinary probes. Georgia officials held the disciplinary trial for Wood and had been weighing whether or not to disbar the lawyer. Wood proceeded to sue the Georgia state bar over requests that he

undergo a mental health evaluation as part of its probe. He claimed that violated his constitutional rights. A federal appeals court disagreed because he was the target of an active disciplinary probe. Wood needed permission from the state bar to be moved to retired status, which he said in an email to NBC News he has been granted. He also claimed the disciplinary proceedings against him will be dismissed. So, Danny, we remind people he represented Richard Jewell around the Atlanta bombing case. Very high profile lawyer. Yes. But really, in the last several years, especially descended into full QAnon theory, calling for the execution of public officials. He was in that Sidney Powell group of lunatics

around 2020. Yes. And every time, no matter who the lawyer is, every time I hear of disciplinary proceedings, suspension, disbarment for a lawyer, I cringe because it represents that person's entire career that is essentially out the window. And oftentimes it's warranted. In an investigation like this, you don't see a lot of investigations that are at the disciplinary board that are premised on something like a position that a lawyer has taken. Far more often, and often the death penalty is, and the figurative death penalty for lawyers at the disciplinary stage

is often for commingling funds or other problems, maybe even another arrest, a conviction. The thing that fascinates me about Lin Wood's situation here is that he got off pretty easy insofar as the disciplinary board is going to dismiss the proceedings against him. In my experience, and I just mean my knowledge, not my personal experience, but in Pennsylvania, for example, you cannot retire in order to avoid a disciplinary investigation. That would be an easy way out. So, for example, if you have an investigation pending against you

as a lawyer, at least in Pennsylvania, for example, and you know you're going to be in a lot of trouble, you might be suspended, you might be disbarred, you might think, oh, well, what if I retire? If I'm not a lawyer anymore, they can't proceed with this investigation. And that's not the case. The investigation can proceed, at least in that jurisdiction, even if you retire. So looking at what happened to Lin Wood, if he said, look, I've got these pending proceedings, I'll just retire. And the disciplinary board appears to have accepted that and said, look, if you're going to retire, it's permanent. You can't come back. Then we're going to dismiss our investigation of you. Seems like he got a pretty good deal because the disciplinary board will no longer investigate him. Obviously, they can't discipline a retired lawyer. But symbolically, and I guess for posterity, it is a win because you won't have that investigation come to fruition ever.

John, he was featured in your book as well. A guy who helped lead people to the Capitol on January 6th, fan the flames, really chief among the people, the attorneys around Donald Trump leading this push around the 2020 election. Yeah, it's worth reiterating that, that it was Lin Wood and Sidney Powell's and Rudy Giuliani who were sort of the faces of and the legal minds, I put that in quotes, behind along with John Eastman, behind Donald Trump's efforts here to overturn the election, that these were the voices that were in his head that gave fuel to these conspiracy theories that he embraced in the final weeks of the campaign. And then soon

thereafter, as so many of the, quote, grownups in the room had begun to exit after the election, looking for their next job, retiring out of trying to make a statement with their retirement, or just being sidelined due to a COVID outbreak that ripped through the West Wing there in November, December. He was left with the likes of Lin Wood and the Kraken, Sidney Powell. And that's why these are the folks who are now being investigated and have become part of Jack Smith's probe into what happened in those weeks. Lin Wood, I remind our viewers, called for Vice President Mike Pence to face execution by firing squad for treason. That's who he is. MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalas.

We got our money's worth out of you today, my friend. And didn't even mention the Howard Stern wrap up show, which is my favorite part of your portfolio. Well, thank you. The occasional fill in host on Howard 101 does an excellent job. Hey, now, thank you in the gang. Thanks so much, Danny. Still ahead on Morning Joe, a new provocation by Russia's military as Kremlin fighter jets confront U.S. drones over Syria. It's the latest in a series of Russian actions the Pentagon is calling reckless and unprofessional. Plus, we'll go to Beijing where Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen will arrive today.

What that visit means for the ongoing tension between the world's economic superpowers. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. U.S. Secretary Janet Yellen begins a visit to Beijing today. The White House says Yellen is there to discuss U.S. national security interests, strategies for fostering mutually beneficial growth, and ways for the United States and China to cooperate on global challenges like climate change and debt distress. Let's bring in CNBC's Beijing bureau chief Eunice Yun live for us in Beijing. Eunice, good to see you today. So what

do we expect of these meetings? Well, Willie, the Treasury Secretary has arrived in the past hour here in Beijing. Over the next four days, she's expected to meet with President Xi Jinping's new economics team, many of whom are not familiar to her or to the Biden administration. She's going to discuss with and consult with the U.S. business community, as well as communicate directly what Treasury has described as areas of concern with the Chinese. In addition to that, she's going to be speaking about global challenges, as you had mentioned, such as climate change and debt distress in poorer nations. Now, her trip comes only weeks after Secretary of State Antony Blinken was here. This is all part of a greater effort by the Biden administration to restore a functional

and constructive dialogue between the two. The communication between the U.S. and China has really been hit hard, especially after then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan, angering Beijing about a year ago. Now, based on official commentary, as well as state media reports, the Chinese are looking for what they call signs of U.S. sincerity. So this would be some combination of a reduction or an end of Trump era tariffs on Chinese goods, lifting sanctions on Chinese companies and individuals and stopping the export curbs. The Chinese argument is that these tariffs only exacerbate U.S. inflation, that the controls are also bad for U.S. companies. And the view of Yellen here is that she's a very pragmatic person.

In the past, she's been quoted as voicing some skepticism about the benefits of the tariffs, that she described decoupling as disastrous, and also that she's looking to find common ground on this trip. And in fact, the Chinese are also quite incentivized to find common ground, given the poor condition of the economy here, as well as an increasing concern about what is seen here as a coordinating effort by Washington, as well as other advanced economies, to de-risk or cut off reliance from China. Guys? Yeah, Eunice, Yellen seen amongst people who watch China as perhaps one of the less hawkish members of quite a hawkish administration and obviously bipartisan

hawkishness when it comes to China and Washington at the moment. Up until a couple of months ago, even a month ago, there was real concern that these two countries could almost be talking each other into some kind of aggression, conflicted situation. With the visit now of Tony Blinken and now Janet Yellen, is there a sense that perhaps things are easing a bit, perhaps because of what you said about China's own economic situation? Are we stepping back from the brink of what really looked like quite a precarious situation for both America and China? Well, I think it depends on what your expectation is. So we are seeing some level of de-escalation in the fact that the two sides are actually talking again. You had mentioned what it was like just a couple of months before. At that point, neither side was having any communication.

So that's better, what we're seeing today. And with Antony Blinken's visit, all better. So helping to ease those tensions. But the big question is whether or not the two sides are really going to make fundamental changes to their policies. And from the Chinese perspective, it really doesn't look like the Chinese are willing to make any compromise on the way that they do trade or other issues that Washington has had with the Chinese. And we can even see that in a series in the state news agency Xinhua, which has been talking about what the root of the problem is. And they said the crux of the problem for this U.S.-China issue is the U.S., that the U.S. has a wrong perception of China. So not taking a whole lot of blame for what's going on

here. CNBC's Beijing bureau chief Eunice Yoon breaking it down for us. Eunice, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Join us now. Former Supreme Allied commander of NATO, retired four star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. He is chief international analyst for NBC News. Admiral, good to see you again this morning. I saw you had a bit of a smile come to your face when you heard that Beijing is blaming all of its problems and the world's problems on the United States. But what do you make of this recent diplomatic push from the United States to send Secretary of State Blinken, now Treasury Secretary Yellen, to Beijing to sit down and open a dialogue? These are both terrific initiatives, and I applaud the administration for continuing to push to stand with China alongside China in important global issues like global warming, for example. But we

have some fundamental disagreements with China and we can't just kind of brush them away. Number one in the old admiral's book is the South China Sea. This is a body of water half the size of the United States of America, which China claims as territorial seas. We're not going to resolve that overnight. We're not going to resolve Taiwan overnight. Last thing, it's great to see our Secretary of the Treasury and our Secretary of State go to Beijing. Let's get our Secretary of Defense in the game. We need to get that top level military actors speaking to each other. Admiral, you're right. That's the point that there's still no communication between Beijing and Washington and some top

personnel of the Pentagon expressed real frustration on that on recently. As you see this, obviously, this is this trip to China comes, of course, with a pivotal moment in the war in Ukraine as well. And I know we're going to China comes, of course, with a pivotal moment in the war in Ukraine as well. And I know we're going to talk about the NATO summit next week in a moment. But China's support for Moscow, President Xi and President Putin appeared at the same virtual summit over the weekend. More warm words from Xi, but no outright endorsement of the war effort, certainly, or even Putin remaining in power. Yep. President Xi is playing the ball right down the middle of the fairway here. He is leaning a little bit toward Ukraine, but he's not sending serious weapons.

He's not engaging in a full throated defense. And look no further than the pregogion revolution. Where was President Xi? He was silent. It was third tier Chinese officials who had pretty limp words of support for the best friend forever over in Moscow. I think Putin has begun to really play out his string with President Xi. Well, speaking of Russia, the United States is urging that country to stop its, quote, reckless behavior after jets from Moscow reportedly harassed American drones in Syria yesterday. According to the Defense Department, three drones were conducting a mission against ISIS when they were approached in the air by three Russian jets. Video released by the Pentagon appears to show one of the jets flying into the drone's path. The United States says the Russian pilot then engaged its afterburner, which releases hot

fuel into the air behind it. Pentagon also says the Russian jets released flares in front of the drones, forcing the United States aircraft to take evasive maneuvers. Admiral, what's Russia up to here? We were talking in the break about the last time they came at the United States in Syria in 2018. Did not end well for the Russians and the Wagner time they came at the United States in Syria in 2018. Did not end well for the Russians and the Wagner Group. It did not. What you're referring to was an attack against U.S. special forces in Syria, about 300 Wagner Group. Frankly, they were destroyed by the U.S. armed forces. This will not end well for Russia if they try and take on U.S. military assets to include our drones. And we have the capability to protect them and we will.

And by the way, what you're seeing here is an authoritarian state like Russia attempting to push and show the world that it can be relevant. It reminds me, Willie, of what's happening in the Arabian Gulf right now. We see the Iranians attempting to seize massive tankers. that it can be relevant. It reminds me, Willie, of what's happening in the Arabian Gulf right now. We see the Iranians attempting to seize massive tankers. There's another word for that, which is piracy. And by the way, the ship they tried to seize, 300,000 tons. That's three times the size of a U.S. aircraft carrier. Navy destroyer USS McFall stopped that. We have the capability to thwart these kind of things, but you're going to see these authoritarian regimes try and push the edges of the envelope in the international system. We're going to get into that Iranian story in just a moment. I want to ask you, though, about the protocol for the American military. A Russian jet comes at a

drone in this case, comes at a fighter jet, comes at a surveillance aircraft, something like that. Restraint is obviously critical. You don't want to start a hot war in the air with Russia. But how do you avoid it at some point when they're coming that close to you? If you cannot maneuver and get out of the way, or if you are undertaking a critical mission that requires maintaining course and speed, whether you're a ship or an aircraft and you're in international airspace or international waters, you continue on with

your mission. We then have rules of engagement that would permit us to use an appropriate and proportional amount of force to stop the attack. So back to Iran, the U.S. Navy says Iranian warships, as the admiral said, sailing in international waters, tried to seize oil from a tanker on its way to the United States. This happened yesterday. Military officials say one Iranian Navy vessel approached the tanker as it entered the Strait of Hormuz and demanded it to stop. The U.S. Navy moved that destroyer, USS McFall, to the scene, and then the Iranian ship changed course and left. Then, three hours later, officials say another Iranian Navy vessel approached a second oil tanker, which was sailing from the United Arab Emirates through the Strait of Hormuz. According

to U.S. officials, the Iranians again ordered the tanker to stop so they could board the ship and presumably seize that oil. The tanker issued a distress call. Again, the USS McFall responded to the scene along with a drone, which captured video of the Iranian vessel firing small arms rounds in the direction of the tanker. Admiral, you've spent some time out there on those waters. Is this common? Does this happen a lot? More than you might think. And over the last two years, Iran has at least 15 times, by my count, closer to 20, has attacked, seized or harassed commercial shipping. And this matters to all of us. Remember, high gas prices. Try what gas prices would look like if Iran closes

the Strait of Hormuz. Thirty five percent of the words oil passes through there. And by the way, all of this behavior, again, will not end well for Iran. USS McFaul, I commanded a sister ship, USS Barry. And this kind of incident rattles old ghosts in the Arabian Gulf. Thirty five years ago, the U.S. Navy sunk a number of Iranian warships. First time we'd sunk warships since the Second World War, after Iran tried to close the Strait of Hormuz with mines. This will not end well for Iran. Admiral, pan out for our viewers who aren't engaged with the particulars, because you just described or talked about several incidents that at least made my gut go, what does this mean about the state of the world? I mean, things won't end

well, yes, given our power, but what does it say about where we are and the conflicts that we're confronting around the world? What a great question. And what it says is that we are on a collision course between the authoritarian states, Russia, Iran, China, North Korea and the democracies. And look no further than the NATO summit that's coming up. And no, we don't want to end up, Professor, in a confrontational world in every corner. On the other hand, we want and need alliances. Together, we are stronger. We can stand in the face of these challenges. Admiral, we also get your response to some breaking news this morning. The president of Belarus, Lukashenko, not the most reliable narrator, we should be clear. But he spoke to reporters, which is something he rarely does.

He did it a few hours ago and said that Evgeny Prokhorin, the head of the Wagner Group, not in Belarus, that he actually had traveled back to Russia. What is your read on that? And what does that mean for Prokhozhin and Putin at this moment? Well, you know, walking over here, I think I saw Prokhozhin on Fifth Avenue. So I think Prokhozhin is about to become the Elvis has left the building meme. But here's the point. We don't know. Is it possible that Putin somehow will welcome this creature back into his inner circle? I suppose it's possible. My money says he's back there for further investigation and a trip to Laforto prison to unpack the events of the Progozhin rebellion. More to follow on that one. It is a fascinating story. Admiral, let's talk a little bit about that Vilnius summit that's coming up. You were, of course, served as the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. There's going to be pressure

in Vilnius, particularly from the Lithuanians and other Baltic states, to say, listen, let's bring Ukraine into NATO. And I've started to hear an argument from outside of the Baltic, but from other European countries. Hold on a second. Ukraine is now one of the best armed countries in Europe. Are we better off having them in NATO where we can keep an eye on them and they can be part of the club than having them outside NATO? And actually, it may be more dangerous to have them out of the camp. Are you hearing that argument? And do you think there is any chance that Ukraine gets fast-tracked into NATO? I am hearing that argument,

Katty. And I would say at this point, they are pretty close to the top of the land armies in Europe. But until they have an air force and an effective Navy, I'm not worried about Ukraine. On the other hand, I think the stack of arguments to bring them in to fast track them is growing fast. And I, for one, would say let's put them on a track, a membership action plan that has some real dates assigned to it. Because at this point, the other arguments about escalation and annoying Russia don't seem to hold a lot of water. Can I make one other comment about something I'm very hopeful of at that summit? And it's not Ukraine coming in. It's Sweden. We are at the moment where Turkey and Hungary need to release the hold that they've put on Sweden's membership. That's why the Swedish

prime minister was in the White House this week. It's time to bring those Vikings, the Swedes, into the alliance. Does that feel inevitable at this point that they'll be there? It does. And believe me, it's a good thing. The Swedes, although a nation of only five million, have highly capable armed forces. Terrific, for example, fighters. The Gripen fighter was under my command in Libya. They can do things with those Gripens I'd be scared to try, even in a U.S. Navy Hornet. They're great warfighters. We need them in the alliance. Just like the Finns before them. Retired four-star Navy Admiral James DeVries is covering a ton of ground force this morning. Nobody better at it. Thanks, Admiral. Good to see you.

Coming up, last week's Supreme Court rulings met with criticism on the left. But are they as unpopular as Democrats say they are? Polling suggests the new decisions are not exactly out of step. The thinking of the American public. We'll dig into those numbers ahead on Morning Joe. oh my goodness what a beautiful shot 6 45 on a th Thursday morning. That is Niagara Falls on the New York side. My gosh, we could look at that all morning. In Washington, a forensic lab test has confirmed the white powdery substance found in a dime-sized bag Sunday evening at the White House, indeed, is cocaine. The bag was discovered in a highly trafficked guest lobby in the West Wing, which then prompted a brief evacuation. That's according to an official.

The Secret Service is now investigating to determine who brought the drugs into the West Wing. Agents will review footage from cameras as well as entrance logs. The bag also will be examined for DNA and fingerprints, according to a Secret Service official. The investigation is expected to last about two weeks. However, it may be complicated by the heavy traffic the area often sees, as well as the blurry timeline surrounding when the bag appeared. So, John, putting all the theories aside about what's going on here, it is a little bit stunning,

is it not, that somebody had the gall to bring a bunch of blow into the White House? Yeah, stunning to be sure. And it's, of course, become a right wing talking point. You can imagine who they think is responsible here. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre expressed confidence yesterday that they would get to the bottom of this. Other security officials in the White House, a little less so for the reasons you just detailed. The West Wing lobby there, a lot of people come and go. If you have an appointment anywhere in the building, you're going to check in there. There is a theory that perhaps this happened. The president and his family were away this weekend. On Friday, the president was leaving for Camp David. His

departure was delayed. Often Friday afternoons become the moment where tours are given of the White House. Over the weekend, staffers can bring in groups, as long as the president's not in the West Wing, just showing them around. And those people, sometimes you have to surrender your cell phones. It's possible one person in the White House said to me that this simply fell out of someone's pocket while they were surrounding their phone or they were that person realized they had it on them and quickly tried to ditch it. You know, they're obviously reviewing the footage here. But yeah, it does seem remarkable. This could end up in the White House at all, frankly, just a few feet from the Oval Office. Yeah, we'll keep an eye on this story. But again, it sounds like it's going to

take a couple of weeks before the Secret Service can figure all of this out. We'll keep you posted. Coming up next, a scary moment last night in the Bronx when a cameraman covering the Yankee game struck in the head by an errant throw. My gosh. We'll check in to see how he's doing this morning. We do a little sports next on Morning Joe. Oh, yeah. Feel the needle. Seattle, 3.52 in the morning. Why do we show you Seattle?

Well, because Seattle's beautiful. We love showing you Seattle, but also it's the site of the All-Star Game. Very exciting. MLB home run derby field is set. That'll be in seattle as well some of baseball's biggest bats swinging for the fences in seattle on monday in this year's contest features a first round grudge match between the new york meds pete alonzo and the hometown favorite mariners julio rodriguez alonzo after winning the previous two derbies was

knocked off last year in the semis by Rodriguez, then just a rookie. That should be fun. Some action last night. The Washington Nationals, this is amazing, asked the umpires to check the bat of Cincinnati Reds rookie sensation Eli De La Cruz in the fifth inning, questioning the legality of covering on the bat's knob. Officials had him remove it for the at-bat, and here is how he responded at the plate. De La Cruz trying to add to it. He crushes! Upper deck, right center! So they asked to check his bat, and then he does that. De La Cruz with a massive solo home run to

extend Cincinnati's lead. Check this out. A little peek into the Washington dugout. The Reds went on to beat the Nats 9-2. John, you have to love this kid. I mean, most of the country is just getting introduced to him. He is the most fun young player in the game right now. An absolute phenom. He is not only hitting well over 300 with power as we saw there, he's got blazing speed. He's the fastest baserunner in the league right now. He's also got a cannon of an arm. He's 6'5", plays shortstop.

And he's the linchpin of this Reds team that has now surged to the top of the National League Central. They're the most fun team in baseball right now. It's great to see that's a good baseball town finally getting to cheer on a winner. He's got charisma, too. He's really fun to watch.

You saw the little bat tap there. And the rookie, too. I like his style. Meanwhile, a scary moment at Yankee Stadium last night involving a member of the Yes Network broadcast crew covering the game against the Orioles. This is a wild throw from Baltimore's shortstop in the fifth inning, flying past first base, striking a cameraman in the head. Game delayed nearly 20 minutes as the Yankees medical team

tended to the injured camera operator before he finally was carted off the field. Yes, did say after the game, camera was conscious, undergoing tests at a local hospital. The Orioles beat the Yankees in the game 6-3, but that didn't seem important. We did get a signal from the camera operator, I think we're going to see in a second, when he's wheeled off and did give a thumbs up to the crowd. And so there it is, the peace sign.

So you see just a little bit of good news there. We certainly hope he's okay this morning.