Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/1/24

Episode Date: August 1, 2024

Trump falsely accuses Harris of deciding to 'turn Black' during a combative panel with Black journalists

You have used words like animal and rabbit to describe black district attorneys. You've attacked black journalists, calling them a loser, saying the questions that they ask are, quote, stupid and racist. You've had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort. So my question, sir, now that you are asking black supporters to vote for you, why should black voters trust you after you have used language like that? Well, first of all, I don't think I've ever been asked a question so, in such a horrible manner, a first question. You don't even say, hello, how are you? Are you with ABC?

Because I think they're a fake news network, a terrible network. And it only went downhill from there. That was part of Donald Trump's contentious interview yesterday at a conference for the National Association of Black Journalists, where Trump questioned whether Vice President Kamala Harris is black. We'll show you that moment and the defiant response from the Trump campaign to the widespread criticism and outrage about the former president's appearance. We'll also have reaction from Vice President Harris, who was on the campaign trail in Texas speaking at a historically black sorority event.

And then Donald Trump's day ended with a rally in Pennsylvania, his first event in that state since the assassination attempt against him. We'll play for you his joke about the widow of the man who died at that rally last month. And we'll bring you the very latest out of the Middle East following the killings of a Hezbollah commander in Lebanon and the political leader of Hamas in Iran. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, August 1st. We are now in August. I'm Jonathan Lemire, along with the BBC's Katty Kay. We are in for Joe, Mika, and Willie. And joining us this morning, we have MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle, president of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton, member of the New York Times editorial board, Mara Gay,

managing editor at The Bulwark, Sam Stein, and MSNBC contributor and author of the book, How the Right Lost Its Mind, Charlie Sykes. And Cady, we have a jam-packed show this morning, but we have to start with Donald Trump's appearance yesterday at this conference of black journalists, where, as we just showed, right from the first moment he went on the attack, he was deeply confrontational, deeply offensive, and no more so when he questioned whether his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, was herself black. Yeah, I don't know what happened to August being a quiet news month, but clearly that one's not going to happen. Here we are at the beginning of what is meant to be all of our summer holidays. And as you say, it's going to be a jam packed show, not just, by the way, in the U.S.

There's so much happening in the Middle East as well. We're going to get to that, too. But let's start that conference where the former president was combative with the moderators when they confronted him on issues dealing with race. When asked about Vice President Kamala Harris, Donald Trump questioned her racial identity. As John just said, he also claimed again that immigrants were taking so-called black jobs. Some of your own supporters, including Republicans on Capitol Hill, have labeled Vice President Kamala Harris, who was the first black and Asian-American woman to serve as vice president, be on a major party ticket as a DEI hire. Is that acceptable language to you? And will you tell those Republicans and those supporters to stop it?

How do you define DEI? Go ahead. How do you define it? Diversity, equity, inclusion. Okay, yeah. Go ahead. Is that what your definition? That is literally the words, DEI. Give me a definition then. Would you give me a definition of that? Give me a definition of that.

Sir, I'm asking you a question, a very direct question. No, no, you have to define it. Define it for me, if you will. I just defined it, sir. Do you believe that Vice President Kamala Harris is only on the ticket because she is a black woman? Well, I can say, no, I think it's maybe a little bit different. So I've known her a long time indirectly, not directly very much. And she was always of Indian heritage. And she was only promoting Indian heritage. I didn't know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black. And now she wants to be known as black.

So I don't know, is she Indian or is she black? She is always identified as a black official in a historically black college. I respect either one, but she obviously doesn't, because she was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn, and she went—she became a black person. Just to be clear, sir, do you believe that she is a— I think somebody should look into that, too, when you ask a continue in a very hostile, nasty town.

It's a direct question, sir. Do you believe that Vice President Kamala Harris is a DEI hire, as some Republicans have said? I mean, I really don't know. Could be. Could be. There are some, and there are plenty. Why come here? What is your message today?

My message is to stop people from invading our country that are taking, frankly, a lot of problems with it. But one of the big problems, and a lot of the journalists in this room I know and I have great respect for, a lot of the journalists in this room are black. I will tell you that coming from the border are millions and millions of people that happen to be taking black jobs. You had the best. What exactly is a black job, sir? A black job is anybody that has a job. That's what it is. Anybody that has a job.

All right. Mr. President. They're taking the employment away from black people. They're coming in and they're coming in. They're invading. It's an invasion of millions of people, probably 15, 16, 17 million people. OK, we'll get to the content of what the president, former president said, but that is a masterclass in interviewing. You ask the question, you ask it politely. If you don't get the answer, you ask the question again and you keep asking the question.

It was persistent and polite. Exactly what journalists are meant to do. So after spending 34 minutes on stage, Trump's team abruptly ended that interview. Trump's campaign claimed that they had to leave to attend a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The team also blamed the shortened time on audio issues ahead of the interview, which they say led to the former president waiting backstage for 40 minutes. When asked about the backlash Trump is receiving for his comments, the campaign's communications director told NBC News, quote, backlash from the truth. These people must be deranged. The campaign later put out this statement that it reads in part based on the unhinged and unprofessional commentary directed towards President Trump today by certain members of the media. Many media elites clearly want to see us remain

divided. You would think that the media would have learned something from their repeat episodes of fake outrage ever since President Trump first came down the escalator in 2015, but some just refused to get it. This will be their undoing in 2024. As I said, polite and persistent questions exactly what we're meant to do. Trump himself also commented on the interview writing on Truth Social that he, quote, crushed it. John, I think, you know, the campaign's clearly still struggling. They don't they haven't found the right way to attack Kamala Harris. At some points they go after her policies, which seems to be the most fruitful area for them to attack the opposing candidate. But these attacks on her personally or attacks on her race or her gender or all black Americans race or biracial people's race,

which is, by the way, the fastest growing racial group in the United States, just don't seem to be landing where I don't know if the campaign even thinks they're landing well, but they're seeming to pretend that they think they're landing well. Yeah, certainly, as we'll get into with our panel shortly, Trump wanted that fight. He wanted to go in there and have that spectacle, that confrontation. But I don't know that it played like he thought it was going to play. I mean, certainly there are some undecideds in this country. There are people who are just now tuning into this race. And these comments about the vice president so deeply offensive and to your point, Katty, show just a lack of coherent strategy right now from the Trump team. And as we'll, Katty, show just a lack of coherent strategy right now from

the Trump team. And as we'll get to later, they leaned into some of the race stuff again at the Harrisburg rally later. A lot of his surrogates are still playing about DEI, questioning, you know, vice president's heritage. You know, and I just there's real, real risk there to so many Americans who are just going to be outraged at what they hear from the Republican ticket. And it shows a campaign right now that just isn't quite sure of its footing. That is clear. So Vice President Harris was in Houston yesterday speaking to members of the Sigma Gamma Rho sorority. This is the second Divine Nine sorority Harris has addressed in a week. The vice president herself being a member of the Alpha Kappa Alpha historically black sorority.

At yesterday's event, she directly addressed Trump's controversial appearance earlier in the day at the NABJ conference. Donald Trump spoke at the annual meeting of the National Association of Black Journalists. And it was the same old show. The divisiveness and the disrespect. And let me just say, the American people deserve better. The American people deserve better. So, Mara, let's start with you and just get your your reaction to what we heard from the former president in that venue about Vice President Harris yesterday.

You know, I think lately Donald Trump has been trying to do his best impression of someone who actually respects women and likes black people. And now that Kamala Harris is the front runner and there's so much energy and momentum behind that campaign and really excitement about someone who represents the future of the United States, a multiracial democracy, multiracial people, multiracial people are the fastest growing segment of America. I think that now Donald Trump is afraid. I think he is probably losing this election. And I think he feels that. So what he's doing is he's going back to his old playbook of racism that really propelled his campaign back in 2016 when he started talking about Mexicans as rapists. And this is really just birtherism 2.0. It's clearly offensive. I do believe he went for a confrontation. I think it was a way of saying to his base and not just just any Republicans, but to the deepest part, the most racist part of that base. We as white Americans, we still get to define race in America.

And I think it was a way of making himself feel big. I mean, I think he could not help himself. I watched that event yesterday. I usually go to NABJ conventions. I wasn't there yesterday. And it was really disturbing because, you know, what he did is he went into that room and really thumbed his nose at every journalist in that room, at every black person in America. He does not get to define who is black American.

And by the way, white Americans know that Kamala Harris is black. Part of the experience of being black in America is the fact that we actually can't change the color of our skin and we don't want to. We're proud to be black. To be black is to be American. And this is something that Donald Trump is afraid of at this point. He doesn't know. He doesn't have answers for the American people. He doesn't have anything to offer except for more racism. And that's what we've turned to. I mean, this is bankrupt.

And I don't think that it's going to make him feel good. It's going to play well with that part of the base. But this is not going to expand the tent. I think this was desperate. And I think it shows that he knows he's in trouble. Reverend Al, we've known Donald Trump for a long time. You've known him longer than I have. What we saw yesterday is just another exhibit of a badly damaged man on stage.

And I don't know about you, but watching him, it occurred to me that the culture has passed him by. He's playing an old school politics that has always worked for him. Hate, envy, resentment, fear of the other. But the culture that we live in today is so accelerated that you can measure it by a stopwatch. It just moves so quickly. And his act is old. He's got an old act. And as Mara pointed out, he knows partially internally that it's old and it's not working. And now he's confronted by an opponent who has electrified the Democratic Party within a week, electrified the party. Where do you think Trump is going to go on this? Well, first of all, what has been perplexing to me is that we've been asking the wrong question.

A lot of people, when it came out that the National Association of Black Journalists had invited him, were saying, why would you invite him? The real question is, why did he accept? He accepted to go to do exactly what he did. He wanted to go and say, I will stand up to these blacks. I will put them in line. That has been the basis of his campaign to go from Obama is not American to Harris is not black. It's the same song, just a different lyric. And that is what he feels. Put him in the White House in 16 and it'll put him in the White House now. I think you're right when you say it's an old song, but if you're an old singer and you only have one song, you've got to

sing it and hope the crowd likes all these goodies. And that's what he is doing. He went there to confront black journalists. If those black journalists, some many objected, but if those black journalists on the stage thought they were going to do an interview with a presidential candidate who came to woo black voters, they would have won mistaken. He wasn't mistaken. He knew exactly if they had opened up saying good afternoon, Mr. Trump, we're glad to have you. How is your wife and kids? He did the same thing. Secondly, when they asked about it, a DEI candidate and he asked her to define it and they went back and forth on defining it. He doesn't know what DEI is. All he knows is it stands for diversity and blacks and others. And therefore he's against it because his crowd is

against it. He is not one that knows any policy. He knows nothing about content. And if you look at Donald Trump yesterday, you're looking at a performer who never read briefings, never knows content. And he's gone up against a woman who's thoughtful, who's has a proven track record, who now is going to get every ball that Barack Obama got. Barack Obama was a Harvard graduate, a U.S. senator, and he said, but he's not American. And I have his birth certificate, which he never delivered. Now he's going to deliver that she said she was Indian when she was celebrated as the first black district attorney in San Francisco, first black attorney general in California, first black woman U.S. senator from California, first black woman vice president.

But all of a sudden now we didn't know she was black. I mean, how long are we going to keep playing this old song of Donald Trump? Donald, it's time to get off the stage and let some folks come on. Yeah, there was one more thing that I noticed when I watched the event yesterday, which was the deeply held personal racial animus and contempt that Donald Trump showed for the black women interviewing him and the journalists in the room. I believe it's going to be if he does take up Kamala Harris's challenge to debate him. I believe that's going to be a problem for him with everyone outside of that Republican, the most rabid right wing base. People are going to see that at one point he even reached over to tighten ABC News's Rachel, Rachel Scott's water bottle, which was just an expression of dominance. He couldn't help

himself. It was almost as though he could not take personally take the fact that these black women on stage had the platform they belong on the stage you're black and you're one that's right you shouldn't be even here questioning me right by the way you couldn't get the sound right you black folks don't even know how to have it i'm late because you couldn't get the sound because you big girls don't know any better the whole thing was his attitude, which is why I've been marching on him for 30 years. I wasn't surprised. I was surprised that everybody was surprised. This is the subject of your most recent piece about this is what happens when Donald Trump is challenged by black women. We should note, though, this is the first time

that Trump has faced tough questions in a long time. He simply doesn't sit for interviews like this, but there was obviously a political dimension to it as well. He thought he was going to benefit. But he made other news, too, including on the January 6th convictions. Let's look at that now. I would love to ask you about January 6th. You've called yourself the candidate of law and order. When Time magazine asked you if you would consider pardoning all the rioters, you said, yes, absolutely. You called them patriots. 140 police officers were assaulted that day. Their injuries included broken bones.

At least one officer lost an eye. One had two cracked ribs, two smashed spinal discs. Another had a stroke. Were the people who assaulted those 140 officers, including those I just mentioned, patriots who deserve pardons? Well, let me bring it back to modern day, like about five days ago, we had an attack on the Capitol, a horrible attack on the Capitol. You saw the people that were protesting and spraying these incredible monuments, bells, lions, all these

magnificent limestone and granite with red paint, red spray paint that will never actually come off, especially in the limestone. It will never, I'm a builder, I know about this stuff. It'll never, you'll see it in a hundred years from now. They viciously attacked our government. They fought with police. They fought with them much more openly than I saw on January 6th. What's going to happen to those people? What's going to happen to the people in Portland that destroyed that city? What's going to happen to the people that tried to bring it? Would you pardon those people? Oh, absolutely, I would. If they're innocent, I would pardon them. They've been convicted. And by the way, the Supreme Court just under.

Charlie Sykes, Donald Trump says if they were innocent and then he's then reminded, well, they were convicted. But this is him leaning in again to the base play and just shredding any sense of norms about the democracy, but also law and order. Yeah, well, first of all, I'd like to say, I mean, Rachel Scott put on a masterclass of interviewing. I know it was a controversy about platforming him, but I think she exposed him and very, very impressive. The fact that she kept coming back to these these questions. But again, this is a revealing question that, first of all, there's going to be no new Donald Trump. Donald Trump has been saying this now for months, that he is embracing the January 6th attackers. And she made it very graphic. She was specifically talking about the rioters who attacked and beat police officers.

And he kept deflecting. He kept refusing to answer. He kept coming back to it. And the one clear answer was absolutely. He intends to to pardon them. So, you know, I mean, I watched this performance and his rally last night. And we can talk about, you know, what what his strategy was and what he intended to do. But but I also think, you know, that what you're also saying is a complete lack of impulse control. You know, that, you know, as Mike Barnicle says, this is a deeply damaged man who who is really sort of, you know, once again, in the fat Elvis stage of his career, he's just, you know, that was very revealing that in his statement, he's going back to when he came

down the golden escalator back in 2015. This man is relitigating his original playbook because that's what he's got. And I think that was what my takeaway from all of this was, that he keeps going back to things that he thinks work. And I also agree with Mike when he says that you really have the sense that this is a man who thinks that things that worked back in 2015 are going to work now and the culture has not changed. But it was a bizarre performance. And I'm really glad that they invited him and that they shown the spotlight on what's going on inside this deeply damaged 78 yearold man's mind. Yeah, just to jump in on that, because I think it's 100 percent right, I'm struck by how similar this all sounds. The echoes from 2012, frankly, when he really was starting the birtherism stuff. I mean, people forget, but back then he was talking about

sending a P.I. to Hawaii to dig up records on Obama's birth, offering five million dollars as rewards for anyone who could find the birth certificate, quote unquote. And the line yesterday was not just that is Kamala Harris black or Indian or how does she identify, but you should look into that again. It's the same exact routine that he's used time and again. And to Charlie's point and to Mike's point and to everyone else's point, I think it's not just that we've moved on as a culture, which I think a large portion of us have, but not all of us, I should say. It's that I think there's no sense of, you know, it's not, it's just not original, right? Like in 2015, it all was crazy and weird. And some people were drawn to it because it seemed abnormal and different.

I think in 2024, people are just like, this is tired. And that's why I think the most telling thing yesterday wasn't what he said, but how Harris handled it, which was that she didn't dive in and argue with him. She put it within her framework of we can't go back. And she said, we're just tired of this stuff. We don't need this stuff. Let's move forward. And I think that's actually a fairly effective rhetorical device. And she should continue to deploy that. Yeah. Sandy, make a good point here about Trump trying to recreate what he did in 2016, that, you know, that so many believe that he was elected in part because of a backlash to having the first black president who sat in that Oval Office for eight years and that now he is trying to stir up this sort of racism identity politics again,

asking these questions that we should be clear are offensive and racist. Charlie Sykes, thank you so much for joining us this morning. Still ahead here on Morning Joe, we will have much more from Donald Trump's combative appearance at that conference of black journalists, including what he had to say about his new running mate, J.D. Vance. Plus, new overnight, Israel has confirmed that the leader of Hamas's military wing was killed in a recent strike. It comes amid growing fears of a broader war in the region. Richard Haass and retired Admiral James Trevitas will both join us next with their analysis. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be back in 90 seconds. The Israeli defense forces say the leader of Hamas's military wing was killed in a Gaza airstrike back on July the 13th. That's

according to a spokesperson for the IDF who says he was struck when fighter jets hit an area in the southern city of Khan Yunus. That military chief is believed to have been one of the masterminds behind the October 7th terrorist attack on Israel. Meanwhile, Iran's supreme leader has issued an order for the country to strike Israel directly in response to a strike in Tehran that killed a leader of Hamas. That's according to the New York Times, who spoke to three Iranian officials briefed on the order, which was reportedly given yesterday morning. Iran and Hamas have accused Israel of launching the lethal strike into the Iranian capital, while Israel has neither confirmed nor denied that it carried it out.

The official who spoke to the Times said Iran's commanders are considering another combination attack of drones and missiles on military targets in the vicinity of Tel Aviv and Haifa, but would make a point of avoiding strikes on civilian targets. Yesterday, the Iranian mission to the UN posted on social media that the retaliation will be special operations and intended to instill deep regret in the perpetrator. Joining us now, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's the author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away, available on Substack, and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Stavridis.

He is chief international analyst for NBC News. James, let me start with you. The signals from Tehran seem to be that they have to retaliate in some way, but I'm reading them as saying they don't want to escalate this further than necessary. Is that too optimistic a reading of what Tehran might be thinking at the moment? Well, it's a hopeful rating, but I think it's largely accurate. I'd say 80 percent chance they want to keep this thing contained. I think there's always in a situation like this, we all know this in history, kind of a 20 percent chance of some kind of escalation, perhaps a miscalculation. I think the question is, how are they going to respond, Caddy?

And just to do it by dominion, if you will, they could go by air and they could do another wide range, massive drone kind of attack, throw in more ballistic missiles. They could narrow that and go after one specific target, making the air defense harder. They could go maritime and go after some of the Israeli offshore infrastructure. They could go by land, if you will, special operations, try and assassinate one of the Israeli leaders. And then finally, they could use cyber, although I think they're overmatched in cyber. So they've got a lot of options. I think they will want to keep it contained. However, I'll close with this. In the last couple of days, you've seen these two

assassinations. One in U.S. terms would be like killing a combatant commander up in Lebanon, say the commander of all forces in Central Command, General Kirilla. And, of course, at the inauguration of the Iranian president, they take out essentially the number two figure of Hamas. That's like taking out Vice President Harris. And oh, by the way, they just confirmed the killing of Deif a month or so ago. That's like taking out Lloyd Austin. So the proxies are really getting smashed here. Iran is going to respond. Let's hope your prescription is right, Caddy. So, Richard, let's pick up on the admiral's point there. I have some reporting today how the U.S. is perceiving this, that yes, in the wake of the terrible strike in the soccer field that killed

children and teenagers, that they felt like the Israeli strike in Beirut was proportional. That's what you do in the wake of such a devastation. We should note Israel has not claimed responsibility for what's happened in Tehran. There's wide-held belief that they were behind it. But that's a very different thing. And the U.S. feels like that's a significant escalation. So my two-part question to you is, why did Israel do it? And what impact do you think it has on the ongoing ceasefire talks in Gaza and the threat of a wider war? Look, there's a difference, as you point out. It's one thing to go after the military commander in Lebanon. Something very different to go after the lead person for Hamas who's conducting the negotiations to free the hostages. And this is further evidence, as if you needed it, the priority for Israel, for this Israeli government, is not freeing the hostages.

It is decimating Hamas. So I think it tells you that it obviously makes the negotiations that much more long shot. United States can urge that these negotiations go ahead. We will, in one way or another, work around this. I think also we'll probably push for some kind of a stand down in southern Lebanon. The idea is to get the Israelis to pull back a little bit militarily, not to go in heavily to get Hezbollah to go north a little bit to see if you can come up with more a diplomatic arrangement there rather than essentially a new war. The danger is that you've got two possibilities, though, of major war. Obviously, interestingly enough, Jonathan,

not in Gaza. Gaza is essentially done militarily. Israel has pretty much run out of attackable targets. One is the north, whether you're going to have a major escalation between Israel and Hezbollah. The other is Israel and Iran. And that's the real danger. And the Admiral Stavridis, Jim was talking about, can you orchestrate this? We were this close in April to a war between Israel and Iran. Imagine if just one of those Iranian drones had struck a schoolyard in Israel. They shot over 300 missiles and drones. Not one caused a loss of life. If this time they shoot however many weapons at Israel, one of them may cause a loss of life. Israel then will go back hard. So the question is,

can we navigate or orchestrate this? I think we were incredibly fortunate in April. I'm not so confident we'd be as fortunate now. And Iran will feel Iran was humiliated. Going after Haniyeh was not simply going after the chief envoy. It was a real humiliation of the new president, Iran and of Iran itself. It showed again they could not protect their own territory. So, Admiral, to Richard's point, I mean, we could be on the precipice of a two front war for Israel, one against Hezbollah, the other against Iran. Israel is a small nation. Comparatively speaking, it's got a small army, a good army, an effective army, but a small army. With all of this going on, with all of the individual assassinations that Israel has allegedly conducted, what happens to the peace docs and the hostages uh i think that they as richard just said um there

are at least a possibility of kind of working around this but not over the next few days certainly so they will be in a position of freeze the frame once again and my heart breaks for them. So let's see what the Iranians do in response to what has occurred here. And don't forget, the Israelis have struck in a way that has created real damage to these proxy networks. We mentioned, by the way, Hezbollah to the north and Gaza with Hamas in the south. You've also got the Houthis in the Red Sea who will have a vote in this as well. So we're in a very, very dangerous short period here. Hopefully after this, I certainly hope Richard is correct that we can work around this and get back to the negotiating table. Not right now. So, Reverend Sharpton, let's take a moment to talk about the domestic

political impact here. We know that the ongoing war in Gaza has been a political problem for President Biden, members of his own party, young progressives in particular, very unhappy with his handling of it and is seemingly too much support for Israel and their estimation. Obviously, now Vice President Harris is at the top of the ticket. She has broken with him a little bit in terms of rhetoric, perhaps not policy. But if this war continues, ceasefire talks break down. Certainly, this could be an obstacle. With developments in the last couple of days, how do you see this playing out for her? I think that the challenge will be as this potentially escalates and you're dealing with Hezbollah and dealing with Israel.

And a lot of fear is that what has happened and continues to happen in Gaza will be overlooked if you have an escalating war. To answer your question, Vice President Harris will then have to deal with a new reality of an escalation where you're dealing with a Hezbollah where it's not as defined about innocent people being killed or harmed in Gaza, which does not mean that will not continue, but it will not be the spotlight. And you're dealing with Hezbollah against Netanyahu. And I think she's going to have to be able to manage that and at the same time deal with the humanitarian crisis that many of us are concerned about in Gaza that may no longer have the spotlight on it. Yeah, I think it's also a reminder that as we move toward November, we could see foreign events, wars, you know, some humanitarian disasters, which is, of course, continuing to unfold in the Middle East right now, that could really impact this race. We probably will hear more. I believe there's no choice but for the vice president to talk more about her views on foreign policy.

She hasn't been forced to do that yet. That's going to be a test. And of course, you know, Donald Trump as well. I think, though, a lot of his discussion has been about, well, there were no wars when I was president. The reality is that his support for the settlements that Netanyahu so strongly backed is probably also going to come up. So we will see, I think, some bleeding over into into the race. But I also have to question how much foreign policy is really going to move voters beyond the uncommitted movement in this year's election. That think that's exactly right. It usually, not always, usually doesn't play that big of a role. We shall see. Retired four-star

Navy Admiral James Trevitas, thank you, Admiral, for joining us this morning. And coming up here on Morning Joe, Katie Ledecky continues her dominance in the pool at the Summer Olympics. We'll show you her golden swim and the rest of the Team USA highlights from the fifth full day of competition. Plus, our own Willie Geist joins us live from Paris. Morning, Joe. We on the East Coast. It is another hot and humid day in store for us. I am sorry to report back to politics. Now, former President Trump is lashing out at a group he says should have supported him more in the 2020 election.

America's Jewish community. Trump spoke at a fundraiser over the weekend hosted by a group of Jewish real estate developers in New Jersey. For more than 30 minutes, Trump riffed on the Jewish people in this country that hate Israel and complained about how his pro-Israel decisions while in office did not earn him a higher share of Jewish votes. The publication Jewish Insider reports, Trump said, I do all these things. When I first ran, I said, I understand. I haven't done anything yet.

Typically, a Republican gets 20% of the Jewish vote. I got 25%. That wasn't so good. Trump continued. Now I've done Golan Heights. I've turned around the Iran nuclear deal. Bibi begged Obama not to sign it. It was a horrible deal.

It's a short road to having a nuclear weapon, a very short-term deal. I terminated that. I did all these things for Israel. No president has ever been so good to Israel by far as I have. And I got 26 percent. I went from 25 to 26 percent. Think of it. I do all these things. This is not a quid pro quo. I was unbelievable for Israel. I got one point extra for all this. I ended up at 26 percent. All right. Meanwhile, Trump appeared to agree with a radio host in an interview Tuesday who called second gentleman Doug Emhoff a, quote, crappy Jew.

Trump repeated comments he has made before lashing out at Jewish voters who back Democrats. And he told ABC radio host Sid Rosenberg that Harris dislikes Jewish people and Israel even more than Biden did. Rosenberg then brought up the second gentleman. Take a listen. They tell me that this this Harris's husband, Doug Emhoff, Mr. President, is Jewish. He's Jewish like Bernie Sanders is Jewish. Are you kidding me? He's a crappy Jew. He's a horrible Jew. Rosenberg says he's a crappy Jew. Trump agrees. When asked if Trump meant to do that, Trump's campaign responded this way. He obviously wasn't agreeing with that sentiment. Stop taking talking points and transcripts from the Kamala folks. They later

added Kamala has stoked anti-Israel hate on school campuses with her dangerous and divisive rhetoric. The Harris campaign responded that Vice President Harris believes Americans want a president who unites our country instead of divides it, uses the power of the presidency to help families instead of hurt them, and has a vision for our future instead of taking us backwards. Richard Haass, so much to get into there. He's also accused the vice president of not liking Jewish people. Of course, she's married to one. Just give us your thoughts as to this litany of offensive comments. Well, there's a thread this morning. It takes on African-Americans and now here Jewish Americans.

First, he is essentially trafficking in the trope of dual loyalty, that American Jews only care about Israel. He's overlooking the fact that the last I checked, American Jews are Americans. They are Jewish Americans. We are American citizens. And the idea that they only care about Israel is, again, that's something that's been used by anti-Semites historically. Second of all, we can have a big conversation, Jonathan, about what does it mean to be pro-Israel. Pro-Israel does not mean unconditional support for the policy of the government Israel any more than being pro-American means everything we do is always right. Last I checked, you could be pro-American and a patriot and maybe think the Iraq War in 2003 was a big mistake

or Vietnam was a mistake. Same thing with Israel. You could be pro-Israel. I like to think of myself as pro-Israel. I have disagreed with a lot of what Israel has done in Gaza. So I don't appreciate Donald Trump telling me as an American what order, what order would form my vote, much less what does it mean to be pro-Israel? Sam Stein, we're sitting around here at the table at 30 Rock in New York City, and I can just feel, I can just sense that you've got something on your mind to say about this. I can just sense it's ready to burst right out over the airwaves. So go. Well, thank you, Mike.

I do have something on my mind. I appreciate that. It's I mean, it's essentially what Richard said. This is deeply offensive. He has, he being Trump, assumed that he can define what our interests are as Jews. He has assumed that he can define how Kamala Harris should identify herself racially. It's all binary. And the binary fault line is, do you support him? And I listened to that interview he gave in which he talked about his vote going up from 25 to 26 percent.

And the sort of logical conclusion is that, in fact, it is a quid pro quo. He says, oh, it's not a quid pro quo. It is a quid pro quo. And what he's dangling out there is that he will not pursue policies that are supportive of Israel unless he gets a higher share of the Jewish vote in this election. And that's sort of a very rude, grotesque way to think about politics. You have to vote for me. And if you vote for me, you'll get the policies you want. Putting aside all stuff Richard said, that's just a classically grotesque way to think about policymaking. But that's just how he operates. And look, I'm obviously Jewish. Doug Emhoff is obviously Jewish. I think for someone to come in and say,

you have to think a certain way or you're not a good Jew, and to agree with that sentiment is, frankly, anti-Semitic. Yes. We certainly all agree with that. Sam Stein, Richard Haass, thank you for joining us this morning. No Yankee talk today. Don't even try. Next up here, the Federal Reserve signals it may cut interest rates next month. Our Steve Ratner will join us with what more on what that might look like, as well as the current state of the U.S. economy. Turning to other news now, the Federal Reserve announced yesterday that interest rates would remain steady through August. The 5.3 percent interest rate is at a 23-year high, but Chairman Jerome Powell hinted that a rate reduction may happen in September, just a month

away, as inflation continues to cool down. If the central bank lowers interest rates, it'll be the first cut since March of 2020, obviously beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Joining us now, former Treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst, Steve Ratner. Steve, great to see you this morning. So, Jerome Powell, the hints were there. How much of a rate cut could we see in September? Well, Willie, the Fed typically cuts rates about a quarter of a point at a time. But what's important is it would be the beginning of a process of rates coming down. And so what I'm showing you here is a comparison between what the Fed said in June they thought

the path of rates was likely to be compared to what the market thinks today, because we've had very good inflation numbers. And so we're actually more optimistic today about rates than they were back in June. But it shows a rate cut down to 5% this year, which would imply actually two cuts, and then a continuing decline all the way down to 3.5% or so by the middle of next year. This is obviously really good news for the Biden administration. High interest rates have been tough for consumers and for businesses. And so having a rate cut before the election would be really good news. Now, the Fed emphasized yesterday it's not in the political business. It's watching the economy, not the election. And so this is really about the economy, but it does have that side benefit.

Why is the Fed able to cut rates? Because, as I said, inflation has come down faster than most of us thought it would. This is the Fed's preferred index. It's a little different from the CPI, but it's the same idea. And if you look at where we've gotten to, we're down to 2.5 percent inflation in the most recent reading, just above the 2 percent target. And so the Fed feels like it has the scope now to start to cut rates. But September is still a couple of months away, so we have to see how things unfold. You will not be surprised to learn that Donald Trump is suggesting the Fed is playing politics and urging them not to cut rates before November. Steve, let's go to your next chart, in which it shows that economic growth

still really strong. Yeah, that's the other thing we've learned in the last couple of weeks, Willie. Sorry, Willie. That's twice nasty. Twice. The economy is performing better than we thought it was likely to be. We had a GDP number the other day at a 2.8 percent annual rate. That was well above the projection of a 2 percent rate. And this is this is, again, a very strong signal. And jobs, of course, we've created more jobs in the three and a half years of the Biden administration than any president since before Reagan.

And the great American jobs machine continues. We'll get another jobs number on Friday, which is also expected to be positive. So lots of jobs out there still. And lastly, you've got a chart there about the labor market cooling. Yeah. So we want to also recognize that just as the economy remains very strong, there are signs that these high interest rates and just the general economic cycle have begun to cool the economy a little bit. So the unemployment rate has been ticking up a bit. It's up to 4.1 percent. This is still considered to be a very, very low unemployment rate. Four percentage is considered to be full employment. But it does suggest that there is some cooling going on, as you can see from this upward trend. Another way to look at the labor market is comparing the number of job openings to the number of people looking for jobs. And so this is the number of job openings. This is the

number of people looking for jobs. You can see that as we came out of the pandemic, as many of us certainly saw, we had a huge number of job openings relative to the number of people looking for jobs. You can see that as we came out of the pandemic, as many of us certainly saw, we had a huge number of job openings relative to the number of people looking for them. It was hard for employers to find people to fill those jobs. We're getting a lot closer now. We're just about about a point nine ratio. We're just about back to some kind of equilibrium. But let me just also comment on one other related thing. This chart is a coincidence because Donald Trump yesterday said that immigrants were stealing American jobs. And that is not the truth. That is far from the truth. The point, as I've tried to make here, is we have more jobs than we have people looking for jobs. And so they're not stealing jobs. And in fact, part of

why we've had that really strong job growth that I showed you a minute ago is because we've actually had this unusually high rate of immigration. And so we've had people coming in the workforce, filling these jobs, creating jobs. And that has been a good thing for the economy and for America. Yeah, there are so many studies now that show that immigrants increase GDP rather than the opposite, almost across the board. Morning, Joe, economic analyst, Steve Ratner, thank you for joining us.