Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/1/23

Episode Date: August 1, 2023

Grand Jury is scheduled to meet today in Jan. 6 probe

It does pass ahead. Headed forward, look out there! A break, a shot, off the post! That's incredible. The World Cup almost ended right there for the U.S. That is how close, just a little while ago this morning, the U.S. women's national team came to being eliminated from the World Cup. Woo! Hits the post right there because Portugal's shot just missed outside.

The United States team is able to play to a draw and advance to the knockout round. The team moves on as the runners-up in Group E likely will face the winners of Group G. It could be Sweden, we think, on Sunday morning. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It could be Sweden, we think, on Sunday morning. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, August 1st. I'm Willie Geist. Jonathan Lemire. We've been watching this tournament. Last two games, draws for the United States. First round even was closer than a lot of people thought it should have been against Vietnam. United States is on to the knockout round. That game just ended a few minutes ago. But man, just by the skin of their teeth.

They were inches away from their tournament being over in a flash. We sort of knew the U.S., of course, is two-time defending champions, and this is a historic run by the squad, but going into the tournament, we knew this was a bit of a transition year. It's sort of the last gasp, if you will, from some of the stalwarts we've all gotten to know from the last couple of runs. They're older now, and there's a young and very impressive group of new players coming through. But it's at times been a bit of an uneasy mix, and you're right. They frankly haven't looked very good so far. They only beat Vietnam 3-0 when I believe the expectations of that game

could have been 7, 8, 9 or more, and then a pair of draws. And it can't be said enough, if this is a couple inches to the left, they go home. So they're fortunate to advance here. They've got a couple days off. Hopefully they get things going in the right direction before the knockout stage. Two-time defending World Cup champions, United States women's team looking for a 3P. They are on to the knockout round, as John says, maybe something of a reset here now as the next game will be an elimination game. With us this morning,

congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany, and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. Good morning to you both. And let's start. Yes, we are. Tell me if you've heard this before on grand jury testimony. Watch. Could there be an indictment? Special counsel Jack Smith's investigation into former President Donald Trump for his alleged efforts to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 election expected to be back in session today. It's been two weeks since Trump announced on social media he received a target letter, an indication charges could be brought in the near future. The letter suggests the former president could face charges of depriving voters their rights, conspiracy to defraud the United States and witness tampering. Trump posted yesterday

on social media that he assumes an indictment will be coming, quote, any day now. And Jackie, we've all been assuming that now for about a week and a half. We've told our viewers last week that the grand jury meets in Washington on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Here we are on another Tuesday. What is your sense of where things are to the extent anyone has a sense of where things are? Yeah, Willie, well, I'm reticent to make any predictions because last week we had predicted that the January 6th indictment was for former President Donald Trump was going to be coming down. And instead, we all got a big surprise with a superseding indictment instead with the classified documents case. The other investigation that Jack Smith is working on, where a third employee, Carlos de Oliveira,

was charged with a slew of crimes related to the mishandling of classified documents. But this week, we are expecting, finally, the indictment to come down from the Justice Department on Donald Trump regarding the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol and all of the efforts ahead of January 6th and in the aftermath to overturn the results of the election. You are right. The grand jury does meet today. We will all be on

lookout. I'm sure there are tons of cameras and producers and reporters already staked out outside that courthouse in D.C. right now. But of course, this is a waiting game and anything is possible. We have been waiting after all for over a year now. And Gene Robinson, we'll talk in a minute about some new polling that shows the impact these indictments and this next likely indictment are having on Donald Trump, which is to say working to his advantage. But it is because of the target letter, it is fair to say, and our legal analysts have underscored this, that it's a matter of time here in this indictment around the January 6th and the 2020 election case. Yeah, it is a matter of time. That's pretty clear. And we just don't know about Jack Smith. You know, we have seen that he is willing, for example,

in the documents case, he filed a superseding indictment that included new charges and a new person. So even if we think there might be a few loose ends that he's still trying to tie up here in Washington on the January 6th case, that doesn't necessarily mean that he's not ready to indict with what he has now. And then perhaps if there's still a few more people he needs to hear from or some more business he wants to take care of, he could do a superseding indictment. So we really just don't know when this is going to happen. But I think we're pretty confident that it is going to happen, given the target letter. And Trump himself posted on Truth Social yesterday that it's coming at any day now.

And he's actually been, for once, a pretty reliable narrator when it comes to calendars of these indictments. And there are so many where he has been revealing that he's received target letters and so on. And there is an expectation. This is just a matter of days. And as we've been saying throughout this process, Willie, that this, when it goes to court, this might be the most difficult case to prove just because it is so sprawling. There's so many different pieces of it, but it's also the most important. And many feel that it's so vital that this charge all about January 6th. It's beyond January 6th. It's beyond the Capitol riots. It's also the efforts to overturn the election be brought because it was such an assault at the very fabric of our democracy. Absolutely. And while we wait for that potential indictment in the other federal case against Donald Trump,

the charges against him for mishandling classified documents, including nuclear secrets, after leaving the White House. Yesterday, the recently named third defendant in the case, Mar-a-Lago property manager Carlos de Oliveira, made his first appearance in a Miami court. De Oliveira was charged with four counts related to his alleged efforts to erase security camera footage at Trump's Palm Beach home, which was monitoring a room where boxes of classified documents were being stored. That's according to prosecutors. The order to destroy the footage came from Trump directly and was given to both De Oliveira and the former president's valet, Walt Nauta.

Trump has denied ordering the footage be deleted. Because De Oliveira has not yet hired a Florida-based attorney, he did not enter a plea yesterday. He was released on a $100,000 bond and is due back in court on August 10th for an arraignment. Let's bring in former U.S. attorney, MSNBC contributor Barbara McQuaid. Barbara, good to see you this morning. Because there is so much going on, we'll remind our viewers that Mr. De Oliveira is the property manager at Mar-a-Lago, named in that superseding indictment that we got last week that suggested he was directed by Donald Trump, according to prosecutors, to go find the tape, delete the tape that could show security footage, perhaps of people moving classified documents around, and that Donald

Trump then checked in on him to make sure he was still good, that he was still loyal. You're still on our side. You're not going to flip. So what did we learn yesterday, if anything, from that hearing? And how central a figure might Mr. de Oliveira be in this case? Well, Willie, the appearance yesterday was rather routine, which they often are. We did learn that he has not yet secured a lawyer, which means that his arraignment will have to be delayed until that can happen. And I think that it does build in the possibility of more delay in the ultimate trial date, that May 20th trial date. The longer it takes for him to get a lawyer, I imagine it will cause them to ask for additional time. I don't know whether they'll get it, but I think that is a possibility.

And how important is he? I think he's very important. He adds to this dimension of obstruction of justice. And that is, after all, what makes this case so different from other cases involving inadvertent retention of classified documents. You know, the case with Mike Pence, the case with Joe Biden, where upon discovery they alerted the authorities and returned the materials. Here, this shows a deliberate effort to cover up the movement of boxes, which was part of the effort after Donald Trump was engaged with the government over the return of the documents. Instead of returning them, he reviewed them all. And the movement of boxes was captured on video,

which the government later was able to obtain. So I think he's a key witness because he is the one who pulls all of that together. And another new figure introduced in that superseding indictment, Barbara, is what was known in the document as Trump employee number four. CNN is reporting that he's the I.T. worker who was working with Mr. Dale Lavera. And Dale Lavera came to him and said, hey, I need you to delete these security cameras, the tapes of them anyway. And he said, well, I don't think I can do that. So in the indictment, it doesn't look like he's being charged with something. Could it be possible that he is cooperating with the government in this case?

Yes, that would appear to be the case. You know, that that word cooperating is a term of art in prosecution and often means it's someone who has some criminal exposure and has agreed that in exchange for providing information, they will either get a lenient sentence or not be charged at all. It appears that employee number four will not be charged at all because he's not named in the indictment and he's not charged. And in fact, it looks like he did what you would hope a person would do, which is to decline to engage in obstruction of justice. You know, we have focused on the people who allegedly have violated the law in their loyalty to Donald Trump in the form of Walt Nauta and Carlos de Oliveira. But there are other people, these people named as just a Trump employee X, Y or Z, who

actually did the right thing and have not complied and appear that they have testified at the grand jury because we know from their testimony about some of these facts. So I think employee number four could end up being a very key witness in all this. And he did receive a target letter, but not charged in the case. So we'll keep an eye on him as well. So we've covered the two federal cases against Donald Trump. Let's move to Georgia, where a judge has denied yet another attempt by former President Trump's legal team to stop the investigation by Fulton County D.A. Fannie Willis into alleged interference in that state into the election in 2020. This is the second ruling against the Trump team in as many weeks. A third petition to the court is scheduled for an August 10th hearing. In a nine-page ruling,

the judge found neither the former president nor one of his allies also challenging the probe had the legal standing to quash the investigation. In an interview over the weekend, Willis confirmed her probe is in its final stages, saying, quote, we are ready to go. So, Barb, if you read this nine-page ruling by the judge, it's pretty forceful. It's a smackdown, if you'll forgive the term, of these lawyers. Frankly, he's saying you're gumming up the system. These are not credible claims to get rid of this investigation completely. It will move on. And just like the Supreme Court in Georgia did last week, telling effectively Trump's legal team, this case is going forward. Yes. I mean, until you're charged with a crime, you really don't have any standing to say,

I can't be charged with a crime. We don't even know what the indictment might allege, if any. And so the time to file motions, attacking charges or even the validity of a grand jury or the process there is after those charges are filed. And I imagine that Trump will file many of those motions afterwards. But the idea that you can do it prematurely before you've even seen what potential charges are there is just not ripe, it's not ready. So I think most legal experts expected to get this ruling,

but I think what's valuable is that the ruling came now so that there is no uncertainty for Fannie Willis to be able to go forward. The last one remaining relates to her own recusal from the case. Again, I don't see any reason to expect that that one will be granted. But even if for some reason it does, there will be some assistant who's ready to go forward. So this case is going forward one way or the other, and the time to attack it will come later. And Fannie Willis, the DA has said August, and here we are in August now ready for that. So we will see.

Now, Barbara, I understand before we let you go, you had recorded and were planning to watch the women's soccer match. And we just completely spoiled it for you at the top of the show. So please accept our apologies. I know you're a big fan. What's your assessment? Can the team turn it around here in the knockout round? Oh, yeah, I think so. You know, we've had some early, early hesitations, I guess I would, I suppose. But I'll be watching wearing my my Megan Rapinoe jersey as we advance to the next stages. And I think that she's the secret weapon. They got to get her on the pitch a little more. I agree. I think they're going to

turn it around. Sorry we ruined it for you. Still a fun watch, though, if you want to sit through it again. Barbara McQuaid, former U.S. attorney. Thank you, as always. Great to see you. Today's new morning consult poll, daily tracking of potential Republican primary voters show. Ready for this? Donald Trump with 58 percent support, 43 points ahead of his closest challenger, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Join us now, Senior columnist for The Daily Beast, Matt Lewis. Matt, daily tracking poll. Yes, it includes a whole bunch of different polls and it goes, you know, it's like watching your stocks every day. You kind of take it with something of a grain of salt. But there was the poll yesterday that showed Donald Trump up 37 points on Ron

DeSantis. It appears the reboot of Ron DeSantis is not working, number one. And number two, that these indictments and a potential another indictment are only strengthening Donald Trump. First, thank you for not showing any clips of the Orioles Blue Jays last night. Let's hold off on that for as long as we can. Yeah, this this is the same story, Willie. I mean, it just nothing has changed, except I guess Donald Trump continues to add to his to his lead. I think the fundamental problem with the reboot is when campaigns reboot, it's about doing things like bringing in different staffers, different advisors.

It's about controlling the burn rate. You're spending too much money. These are things that have to do with campaign infrastructure and logistics and all of that. And that can be important and it can be decisive. In the case of Ron DeSantis versus Donald Trump, the fundamental problem is Republicans like Donald Trump. They find him fun. They find him entertaining. And they do not like Ron DeSantis. And so I think you have to look, if you're in trouble, you have to shake things up. You have to try to reboot.

You can't fire the candidate. You can't fire Ron DeSantis. And I think at the end of the day, this is what it is. Ron DeSantis cannot beat Donald Trump. What could happen is that Ron DeSantis could be in the race if something were to happen to Donald Trump. So that's the best case scenario, I think, is that Ron DeSantis is basically a placeholder waiting for some external event to knock out Donald Trump, if it happens. So, Gene, there's actually a brand new New York Times-Santa College poll that just dropped a moment ago that shows Trump and Biden tied at 43 percent.

But focusing here, at least for the moment, on the Republican field itself, you know, Matt just laid it out. This DeSantis reboot, at least so far, is not working. He's hemorrhaging cash. He's had to fire a bunch of staff. There was an event in New Hampshire over the weekend where he offered people to have a beer with him for $1, just $1 to get the door. Only 30 people showed up. That's not specifically high of him or, I guess, the quality of his beer. But if it's not Ron DeSantis, who is it? Is there anyone else you're seeing in that Republican field who's shown any signs of life that they actually could take on and threaten Trump?

Well, I think look, I think every one of those other candidates looks at these numbers and says, it's me. It can be me. They see DeSantis flagging. They probably tell themselves that, well, this is why Trump's lead is growing. It's not that that people love is growing. It's not that people love Trump more. It's that they like DeSantis less. And given that they like him less, then why shouldn't it be me? And in that sense, all of this helps Trump because I think it tends to keep more people in this race. And, you know, a crowded field is good for Donald Trump. The one person I think we all ought to keep an eye on right now is Senator Tim Scott,

whom a lot of Republicans speak of highly, who seems—not in these recent polls, he's not doing all that well, But at least among the Republican chattering class, he seems to be perhaps with a small arrow pointing upwards in terms of his candidacy. We'll have to see if he hangs in there and if some of this, well, maybe not Trump sentiment ends up coalescing around Tim Scott. I don't see anybody else who's who's making a move. So, Matt, if you're thinking about whether these investigations, these indictments are going to hurt Donald Trump in the long run. Again, we're just talking about the primary. Most people believe they're not a benefit in a general election.

But if you look at that New York Times-Siena poll, 71 percent of Republican voters say they should stand behind Donald Trump through these investigations. Exact same number, 71 percent say Trump has not committed serious crimes. Think about that for a second when you think about the Mar-a-Lago documents and potentially something like leading a coup against the United States government trying to overturn the 2020 election. Seventy five percent of Republican primary voters believe Trump was just exercising his right to contest the 2020 election. That's not the kind of support. That's not the kind of depth of support that it seems to me is going to change. Just if another indictment is added to the soup here. I completely agree. There is zero reason to believe that any new information, aside from Donald Trump suffering a heart attack or something, but that any legal problems are going to pose any challenge for Donald Trump when it comes to the Republican primary. make them like him more. As you've noted, many Trump supporters simply don't believe it.

This goes to the, I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and I wouldn't lose the voters. Others just make excuses like, oh, that's just the deep state or everybody does it. So he essentially is immune from the introduction of any new information. And I also have to add this, aside from that, which I don't know how you overcome that. You look, you know, the New York Times yesterday, I think it was, had this analysis of the Republican electorate. And aside from being immune to new information about Trump, you know, it really breaks down into three groups, three buckets. You have the MAGA supporters who were with Trump no matter what.

That's about a third. Then you have a third who kind of are in between. They may vote for Trump, but they might be open to someone like Ron DeSantis. And then you have another third or so, it's a little bit less, who are what we would call maybe never Trumpers. And so someone like Ron DeSantis, the obvious move for him would have been to try to consolidate the never Trumpers and those people in the middle, you know, peel off some Trump MAGA supporters and then consolidate the never Trumpers. But the problem is, if you look at this New York Times piece, it's virtually impossible to do that because these two groups that DeSantis could potentially have a chance to win over vehemently disagree on almost every issue.

So no matter how you look at it, it's impossible to see this as anything but Donald Trump being, you know, by far the very, very clear favorite. Yeah, the numbers are not good at this moment for Ron DeSantis, and they remain strong for Donald Trump, even on the eve of a likely another indictment. Matt Lewis, thanks so much. I will not give away the Orioles score except to say, man, they look really good this year. His new book, Matt, is titled Filthy Rich Politicians, the Swamp Creatures, Latte Liberals and Ruling Class Elites Cashing In on America. Meanwhile, in the House of Representatives, they're doing Donald Trump's bidding, going after Hunter Biden, trying to create a tie to the president of the United States. Hunter's former business partner gave testimony yesterday to the House Oversight Committee. The closed door meeting, part of the Republican led panel's investigation into the Biden family's business dealings.

According to committee member, Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman of New York, Devin Archer told lawmakers Hunter Biden put his father on speakerphone with business partners about 20 times, but they never talked about business. Congressman Goldman also says Archer testified that because of pressure from Burisma, the company there, Hunter Biden gave the illusion of access to his father and tried to claim credit for things he had nothing to do with. It was abundantly clear and the witness stated unequivocally that there is no evidence in his possession or his knowledge that Joe Biden ever

discussed business with Hunter Biden. Joe Biden never did anything on behalf of Hunter Biden's business interests or otherwise, never changed official policy in any way, shape or form. So then the question becomes, how much longer are we going to go on this fishing expedition? There is no evidence connecting President Biden to anything related to Hunter Biden. We have been told by the Republicans repeatedly that this is an investigation to Joe Biden. There is no evidence that connects Joe Biden to any of this. And we've now had witness after witness come in, and they have testified to the same thing. Congressman Goldman will be our guest a little bit later this morning on Morning Joe.

And last night on Fox News, the chair of the Oversight Committee was asked if Republicans will be able to prove the allegations, specifically tying Joe Biden to any of this. The ones they've been talking about for months. Do you believe that this is now officially the Joe Biden bribery allegation? And do you believe that you will be able to prove that? Jim Comer?

I sure hope so. And I do believe that there's a lot of smoke and where there's smoke, there's fire. We just heard testimony today that Joe Biden had lied to the American people. He sure hopes so. Where there's smoke, there's fire, Jackie. So have they for people who have been following this closely, has this committee introduced any evidence, specific evidence that shows President Biden, Joe Biden, then Vice President Biden, was working hand in hand with Hunter Biden or that President Biden himself benefited in some way financially or otherwise from Hunter Biden's business dealings? Yeah, Willie, we should be very clear here at this moment. There is only smoke and there only seems to be smoke down the line.

I mean, Devin Archer was a star witness for the GOP. He was someone that Comer and GOP members on the Oversight Committee had consistently hyped up as sort of the key piece of evidence that was finally going to do it in for Joe Biden, proving that Joe Biden was involved with business deals somehow. But what he said yesterday, according to lawmakers who were inside that that private closed door transcribed interview, was that Hunter Biden was simply selling the illusion of his father being involved with some of these business deals in order to, you know, potentially make more lucrative pitches and sells to some of these people that he was doing business with. Devin Archer is someone who has been close with Hunter Biden for quite some time now. They went to Yale together undergrad. And as as Dan Goldman described to reporters afterwards, Devin explained that when when Joe Biden was on the phone, it was simply, you know, not business related.

This is someone who consistently the descriptions that we've seen of Biden was was simply involved in his son's life in a personal capacity. And James Comer has yet to show up or turn up any smoking gun here. There's been numerous attempts along the way so far. Of course, just a few weeks ago, we were all focused on this form from a human confidential informant that Chuck Grassley, the senator who runs oversight, the Senate Finance Committee and James Comer as well. They released this form. There was no there there as well. Nothing directly tying Joe Biden to any of these business deals or this bribery scheme, as Comer has promised. But this is not going to preclude Republicans from consistently trying to make this argument and create the illusion of of some malfeasance being there.

All right. The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany. Jackie, thanks so much, as always. Good to see you. So, John, this is seems to be an investigation with lots of smoke and little fire in terms of President Biden. If Hunter Biden may have committed some crimes, he's in the process right now in Delaware of going through that plea there. But the thrust of the investigation, the suggestion, and sometimes the explicit suggestion, is that Joe Biden was leading a crime family, to use their term. We haven't seen any. Not one shred. And they've been at this for a long, long time going after Hunter Biden and his laptop and everything else. Still no evidence, as we heard from Comer himself last night on Hannity, still no evidence that Joe Biden's tied to it.

Republicans at times have been remarkably candid about saying, we don't have it yet. And even House Speaker McCarthy last week sort of pushed back against this impeachment inquiry momentum because he was like, look, we don't have evidence to go that far. And as far as Hunter Biden goes, there's no doubt. I mean, it's pretty clear, even those close to the Biden family, suggest that some of his behavior was pretty unseemly. That doesn't make it illegal. And it also means we don't know the role that then-Vice President Biden may have played.

And it seems like, no, they haven't proven that he had anything to do with it. They haven't proven that he profited from this at all. Yet maybe he is guilty of turning a blind eye to some of his son's behavior. And we should put this in context. This is a time when Beau Biden, the president's other son, was ill and then dying and then passed away. So perhaps he was not as attentive to what he should have been here. But again, there has simply been no evidence, Gene Robinson, no evidence at all that he was profiting from this or that either of them committed a crime when it came to this. And we hear here from Comer and other Republicans. It's wishful thinking. They're trying to create a

scandal when there's no evidence that they have one. Yeah, they're trying to create a scandal or at least the appearance of a scandal, the sort of, you know, smokiness of a scandal and just create that atmosphere without actual evidence and without an actual scandal. Because, you know, I think it's pretty clear, at least so far, there is nothing there. There is nothing there. You could certainly argue that at some point, if Hunter Biden put President Biden on the speakerphone for like 20 times, you could certainly ask whether at some point President Biden might have said, hey, quit putting me on speakerphone. You know, are you having a business meeting? Like, what is that about? But but the context is that this was a sort of very fraught and and sad time for the Biden family. And we know how important family is to the president. And so do you hang up on your phone on your on your son at any time, but certainly at a moment like that?

And probably the answer is no. Oh, man, what a great city, beautiful sunrise over New York City. And yes, it is August the first. We made it. We made it to August six thirty three in the morning on a Tuesday. Gene, your latest piece for The Washington Post is titled Bidenomics was born as a put down. Now it is a boast. And we really do see the White House and the Biden campaign soon to be leaning into this idea of Joe Biden kind of bringing the economy back to life. Inflation, of course, long was the boogeyman for Republicans and for a lot of people in this country, all of us paying higher prices. But even that has ticked down. So will this be a centerpiece of the Biden reelection campaign? Oh, I think it already is a centerpiece of the reelection campaign.

You know, the first use of the term Bidenomics that I could find when I was looking for it yesterday was was in the Wall Street Journal before the 2020 election. And it was a dismissive sort of put down of Biden's economic plans as he had announced them. But now look at the economic numbers. They have all turned in a really favorable direction for President Biden. Inflation is down. It was down to 3 percent in June. Incomes are rising faster than prices and have been for the last four months. Unemployment is still at 50-year lows at 3.6 percent. The stock market is doing well. And the Fed no longer predicts that we're going to have a recession. In fact, we had robust growth this summer, 2.4 percent in the last report. So this is all good news for him.

And instead of, you know, Republicans had hoped that Bidenomics was something they'd be able to attack, particularly on the inflation front. And so he's leaning into it and attempting to turn what could have been a weakness into a strength and saying this is working for you. The Inflation Reduction Act is working for you. My theory of building from the middle out instead of the top down is working for you. And he got an unlikely assist the other day, of course, from Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who, in a speech, compared compared him to what Biden is doing to FDR's New Deal and to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, which the Biden campaign quickly turned into an ad. Because, yeah, Joe Biden is very happy to be compared to Roosevelt and Johnson in terms of his domestic policies.

And if that's the way people think about it, I think he likes his chances. Yeah, the White House posted those comments from Congresswoman Taylor Greene, the president just writing, I approve this message. Everything she said is true. So, John, something that Gene mentioned kind of got buried in the news last week, which is that the chairman of the Fed said we've taken the recession off the board for next year, which is not just great news for Joe Biden. It's great news for the country. If that turns out to be true, the GDP is at two point four percent, a lot of good economic data. And yet, even as recently as yesterday, when you look at polling, his approval rating on the economy is still very, very low down in the 30s.

Yeah. Economists have been largely wrong about where this economy has been going. And the Biden people are not shy in pointing that out. And Eugene just ticked through it, all the good economic numbers. And they're leaning in. They're leaning in hard on the economy. He was in Maine on Friday talking about that. They just scheduled a Western swing next week after the president's vacation this week to talk about the economy, the difference the Inflation Reduction Act is making, particularly in connecting it to climate change. And they also understand that in the likely rematch with Donald Trump, which would polls suggest we're going to get next year, you know, they feel like Trump's a very flawed candidate. They like their chances, but they do acknowledge one area where Trump has an advantage, perhaps, is talking about the economy. We know Trump inflated how good the economy actually was

during his presidency pre-COVID, but it was strong. And he was good at telling that story. And even senior Biden people say, look, we need to talk about the economy now, too, because we know he's going to. And that might be a vulnerability. It is for any incumbent president. You're judged on the economy. So they feel like now's the time, almost a year and a half out of the election, to start telling that story. And any time they can tick through those numbers that Gene just laid out, that should theoretically be a good day for the president. And more importantly, again, a good day for the country that things are headed in a better direction.

The company formerly known as Twitter has taken down the giant X sign atop its headquarters in San Francisco just three days after it went up. The city's Department of Building Inspection said it received dozens of complaints about the sign concerning its structural safety and its brightness, with some residents saying the flashing lights, not just annoying, but it made it very difficult to sleep because it's flashing into their apartment windows. There you go. Representatives for X said the sign was put up temporarily for an event and that the removal was voluntary. The city said the building's owner will be fined for the installation and removal of the structure without proper permits. Turning now to the debate over artificial intelligence and the new podcast titled Technically Optimistic with Rafi Krikorian that asks key questions like, can AI be used for good? Will it harm us? And how should it be regulated?

We're all hearing stories of how this technology will make our lives easier and how it will vastly increase our capabilities in medicine, education, and engineering. There are some places where it could come in super handy, like brain surgery. AI can more efficiently and effectively identify cancer. But can AI be used in a way that upholds human dignity and keeps our society intact? And Rafi joins us now. He has led the platform team at Twitter, directed Uber's self-driving efforts, worked as the top tech executive, the Democratic National Committee, and currently serves as the CTO of Emerson Collective. Quite a resume, Rafi. It's great to have you with us. So let's dive into some of the questions you ask. I think AI, we've all been hearing about it for years, but really does seem to have broken through this year in the last few months. And with some of the red flags that have gone up from people leaving major companies like Google and saying, watch out for AI.

I can speak freely about it now and it's not good. Obviously, it has a lot of potentially hugely beneficial uses. But where are you on the balance of the good versus the evil, if you will, of AI? Yeah, good morning. And thanks for having me. I mean, look, I mean, there's two camps right now. There's a group of people who want to go full steam ahead and use AI everywhere and for everything. And there's another group of people who want to take a really big pause. I personally think we can have both. Like we can have that science fiction world where AI is touching every part of our lives and making every part of our lives better, while also mitigating the harms and the risks like algorithmic discrimination and others that might show up.

So we can actually do both. We just need to be better educated to understand the nuances so we as a society can help guide it. It does seem like there's a scramble to kind of put the brakes on or at least stop and take a look at the potential damage and the harm it can do. Washington, Congress has taken this up. Are there legislative fixes, though, really, that can kind of rein artificial intelligence in? Or is this genie out of the bottle in a way that people can't really regulate? Well, look, Congress was designed to operate slowly and deliberatively. So we can't we can't allow them alone to try to make these decisions. Look, there's actually only one member of Congress who has a degree in artificial intelligence is Congressman Jay O'Bernalty. And so we can't rely on that body

to make all the decisions, especially in the world where this technology feels like every day is moving as fast as a year. So what Senator Warren and Senator Graham have proposed is actually not a bad idea. Let's create a separate agency that can be better staffed with real talent and create checks and balances.

The companies alone operate in a particular incentive mechanism. They're optimizing for user engagement, user growth, money raised. But that's not what necessarily regular Americans need or want. So we need a check and balance system. So I believe that proposal specifically can help create that check and balance, actually have someone on the side of everyday Americans to make sure their interests are taken into account as well. So, Rafi, you know, this does seem like it's gotten some bipartisan support. There's some momentum here to put some sort of safeguards

in front of AI. We seem to be growing by the day more alert of some of the potential dangers it poses. But give us a sense of some of maybe the more overlooked benefits to AI. You know, what are some things that could be done here that Congress should make sure is allowed to still happen? I mean, look, AI is used in every single part of our lives today already. We're only just now really noticing it because of things like chat GPD and others. But look, you know, your Siri, your voice assistant uses AI, Your mail searching algorithm uses AI. When you go into Google, that uses AI. There are medical breakthroughs that use AI.

Doctors can now scan for cancer tumors way better because of these AI recognition system. Our health care, our economy, all the aspects are already being touched by AI. And so we want to make sure we can maximize that. Look, I've spoken to people like Sal Khan on the podcast who are trying to create personalized AI tutors so that every kid in America, every kid in the world could have the most custom and best teacher for themselves.

We want to live in that world. I want my kid to have the best possible education, the best possible healthcare. I want a world where AI could be potentially helping the climate crisis. But we also need to mitigate these other risks. We need to make sure that all races are treated equally by AI, that their values are actually societal values and not just the values of those people who created the systems, either on purpose or accidentally. So I want to live in both these worlds of getting these amazing benefits that I just mentioned, but just mitigate these downsides at the same time. Rafi, how do you see some of the economic implications? Those large language models like ChatGPT, they get smart by scraping and ingesting reams and reams of information

that was produced by people. And then they regurgitate it. So how do those people who produce the information or the images or whatever, how do they get compensation for making AI, for making it intelligent? Yeah, I mean, that's a great question. And I think that this is exactly the kinds of things that maybe a new federal agency or others can be helping make sure that we do is properly attributing those people who train the systems, properly attributing the data sets that are ingested and making sure that compensation flows. Look, again, these companies operate in this financial ecosystem that doesn't necessarily

prioritize that type of work, but this is exactly where some checks and balances are needed. This is also an example of this automation versus augmentation debate. Do we want to be creating a society where AI technology is automating away jobs, or do we want to create one where we're using these tools to make every single worker smarter, better, and more efficient? I personally think we want to do the

latter. And so how do we also incentivize that kind of development so that we're making tools that every single person can be achieving their goals, their dreams, and their aspirations? As you say, we just need to find that balance. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Take the benefits of it and look out for some of the dangers. Such a fascinating conversation and such a great voice to have on it. The podcast is called Technically Optimistic.

It is available wherever you get your podcasts. Rafi Krikorian, great to have you here today. Thanks for being here. Thank you. And Gene Robinson, our thanks to you as well. We will see you very soon, my friend. Thank you. Overseas protests continue in Israel following last week's passage of a controversial measure that weakens the ability of the nation's Supreme Court to overturn government actions. And now, one week after the law passed through Parliament,

NBC News sat down with the man at the center of it all, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In a wide raging interview, our foreign correspondent, Raf Sanchez, asked the prime minister about the protests rocking his country and much more. And Raf joins us now live from Tel Aviv, Israel. Raf, it's good to see you. Tell us more about your interview with the prime minister. Well, Willie, the prime minister gave absolutely no indication of backing down. He said it was worth it to get this legislation through, despite the deep divisions it's caused in Israeli society. A poll last week found 56 percent of Israelis fear there is a real danger of civil war and the divisions it's caused in the Israeli military, where thousands of reservists have said

they will not show up for duty in protest at this legislation. Netanyahu told us there's not going to be a civil war. He said he believes that when the dust settles, people will accept his argument that this was a necessary reform to take power out of the hands of unelected judges, put it back into the hands of elected politicians. I can tell you that is not an argument the protesters are buying. I also had a chance to ask him about tensions in the US-Israel relationship. You'll remember, Willie, President Biden urged the prime minister not to go ahead

with this legislation without consensus. The prime minister pushed ahead anyway. The president has also been critical of Netanyahu's decision to include far-right politicians in his cabinet. Netanyahu told us the relationship has its ups and downs, but it's mainly its ups. But Willie, one specific part of this interview is leading the news here in Israel today, and that is this question of whether later this year, the Israeli Supreme Court might strike down this legislation,

effectively ruling to preserve its own power, and whether or not Netanyahu will abide by that ruling if it doesn't go his way. Take a listen. If Israel's Supreme Court strikes down your legislation, will you abide by their ruling? I think we have to follow two rules. One is Israeli governments abide by the decisions

of the Supreme Court. And at the same time, the Supreme Court respects the basic laws, which are the closest thing we have to a constitution. I think we should keep both principles, and I hope we do. So you are committing, if the Supreme Court strikes down this legislation, you will abide by that ruling? Remember what I said. I hope that they don't strike down because I think we should abide by both rules. And it's a peculiar thing. It would be in American terms as though the Supreme Court that is charged with keeping the Constitution would nullify a constitutional amendment as unconstitutional. So it sort of turns on itself and it doesn't make sense. I hope it

doesn't happen. Prime Minister, with respect, to change the American Constitution, it has to be done by consensus. Two-thirds of the House, two-thirds of the Senate, three-quarters of the states. This legislation was not passed by consensus. A simple majority is the comparison fair. But the Supreme Court in Israel itself said that the basic laws that are passed by a supermajority in the Knesset, or not an incidental majority in the Knesset, is the basis of the Constitution. They call it a Constitution. So every country has its own, quote, Constitution. And by the Supreme Court's own definition, this basic law that they're now dealing with

is part of our Constitution. Willie, you heard there, I asked him twice. Neither time did he definitively say yes, he would abide by the Supreme Court's ruling. And to the ears of many Israelis, they feel their prime minister is hinting at the possibility of a constitutional crisis if this ruling doesn't go his way, because the Israeli Supreme Court, like the American Supreme Court, does not have enforcement power. It doesn't have police. It doesn't have an army. It just has this longstanding norm that the government respects its rulings. And if we get to a point where the prime minister doesn't, then Israeli democracy really is in uncharted waters. Willie. Yeah. And as you press the prime minister so well there,

it will be fascinating to watch if the Supreme Court does overturn this, then what? NBC's Raf Sanchez, live from Tel Aviv. Raf, well done. Thanks so much. You can watch his full interview, of course, at NBCNews.com.