Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/28/24

Episode Date: August 28, 2024

Trump indicted again in federal election interference case following Supreme Court immunity ruling

And a good morning to you, and welcome to Morning Joe. The sun coming up here in New York City, 6 a.m. It is Wednesday, August 28th, and we have a lot to get to this morning, including Special Counsel Jack Smith trying to salvage the federal election interference case against Donald Trump, filing a revised indictment against the former president. We're going to bring you expert legal analysis on this new development in just a moment. Meanwhile, Donald Trump now says that he will debate Vice President Kamala Harris in two weeks, but the Harris campaign says that one major

issue still needs to be resolved. And we'll have more details about the operation that rescued an Israeli man who was held hostage by Hamas for more than 300 days. And that comes as Israel launches a broad operation in the West Bank with raids and airstrikes in that territory. I'm Jonathan Lemire, along with U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kay. We're in this morning for Joe, Mika and Willie. And we're happy to say we will be joined by the co-host of MSNBC's The Weekend, Simone Sanders Townsend, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle and NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent, you just saw her on way too early, Ali Vitale. So lots to get to this morning. Let's dive right in. Beginning with legal news. Former

President Donald Trump is blasting a revised indictment against him as shocking and as a direct assault on democracy. Trump fired off that response on social media late yesterday, just hours after he was indicted once, over his efforts to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss. That effort culminated in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Yesterday, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed a superseding indictment, which was voted on and returned by a new federal grand jury. It included the same four charges that Trump faced in the original indictment, which was filed last August. They include conspiracy to defraud the United States,

conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiracy against rights caddy. Yeah, so this revised indictment is intended to deal with the Supreme Court's decision back in July that Trump had broad immunity from charges relating to any official acts as president. And while the charges are the same, some of the evidence has been essentially whittled down in light of that ruling. Specifically, the indictment removes all references to Trump's attempts to use the Justice Department to advance his claim of election fraud and is written in such a way to highlight

that Trump was a candidate for office, something courts have recognized in the past to be private conduct, even if that candidate happens to be the current incumbent. A source familiar with the Trump defense team tells NBC News this revised indictment was, quote, not a surprise, but the team did not necessarily expect it to be filed yesterday. Joining us now, former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin.

Lisa, thank you for joining us. I know you cover this every day at the time. When you look at this revised indictment, does it satisfy the conditions that the Supreme Court put on the idea that a president cannot be tried for official acts? Has Jack Smith managed to thread that needle? No, Katie, anybody who tells you definitively yes or no that he's threaded that needle hasn't read the Supreme Court decision very carefully. That Supreme Court decision lacks a lot of guidance to lower courts as well as to the special counsel's office, because it says that a president is entitled

to presumptive immunity for his official acts, but it doesn't necessarily define with precision what's official or even how the special counsel could rebut that presumption. And it also says the presumption of immunity is rebuttable for now, suggesting that the Supreme Court could revisit that issue even on this superseding indictment. That having been said, I think Jack Smith and his team made a very good faith effort to pare down the indictment and particularly take out a number of allegations, not just pertaining to the Department of Justice, which was the one concrete thing that the Supreme Court said was off limits, but also to recast certain of the allegations in a way that would comport with the Supreme Court's ruling. One example that I'll give to you is, for example, the Supreme Court said that presidential communications are usually things that are within his official duties, but there may be circumstances in which the president using Twitter was talking mostly as a candidate or even in his personal capacity. You see now in this revised indictment at the very front, Jack Smith and his team acknowledging that

while Trump may have used Twitter on occasional for official purposes, for the most part, he was using his tweets for purely personal, unofficial purposes, trying to reframe the former president's use of Twitter so that by the time they get to January 6th and some of the tweets that are at issue in this indictment, they've already really done the work to say this isn't a guy who's communicating with people as commander in chief. He's communicating with his candidate hat on. And therefore, it's on limits, not off. So, Lisa, with so much uncertainty as to the fate of this indictment, let's talk about what comes next. I assume an appeal of some sort from the Trump campaign. Walk us through some some next steps here and the best you can,

what a timetable might look like, because, of course, as any criminal indictment or criminal matter involving Donald Trump has to be looked at through the prism of an election year. Absolutely. And I think, John, for people who are expecting some sort of resolution before the election, this is yet another unsatisfying step. But Jack Smith and his team are taking the long view here. They are trying to, as you noted at the beginning, preserve as much of their case as possible

with an eye toward eventually trying a case against the former president if they are able to. And that means no rush. What I think will likely happen next is we'll see motion practice where the Trump people will get an opportunity to say this does not comport with the Supreme Court's ruling and that they'll move to dismiss this superseding indictment. So in a way, we're going back to square one. But again, Jack Smith and his team are taking the long view. On a longer time horizon, they'd rather do it right than do it rushed.

And this revised indictment is a reflection of that. OK, so meanwhile, in an interview that aired last night on CBS News, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson was asked about the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling. In your dissent, you wrote that the court declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can, under circumstances yet to be fully determined, become a law unto himself. It sounds like a warning. Well, I mean, that was my view of what the court determined. You were concerned about broad immunity.

I was concerned about a system that appeared to provide immunity for one individual under one set of circumstances. When we have a criminal justice system that had ordinarily treated everyone the same. So, Mike, there's little debate about where Justice Katanja Brown Jackson would come down on this particular ruling and on her desire, perhaps, to get that immunity ruling limited, as she said just there. I guess the question is going to be for Jack Smith. Has he put together a new case that would satisfy some of the more conservative members of the court and allow him to go ahead with the cases it's now written? Well, it seems to me, I'm not a lawyer, obviously, but it seems to me that what Jack Smith did was basically edit the original indictment, pared it down for approval to get under the wire of the Supreme Court decision.

But I think there's another aspect to this that is on the minds of more than a few people. A couple of aspects. One is Merrick Garland's running his tutelage over the Justice Department. Why did it take so long to get this case moving? We are coming up on four years passage of time from January 6, 2021. And here we are still in the weeds of legal back and forth. And the key word, I think, out in the public, Lisa, when they think of this case is the word again, Donald Trump indicted again. And you can feel the shoulders of the average voter just shrugging and moving on because of that word again, and the timeless factor of this investigation and indictment process.

I can understand, Mike, how folks at home might feel a sense of fatigue or exhaustion by hearing that word again. And I would encourage people to, instead of looking at this as a wholly new indictment, to look at it as an attempt to comply with the Supreme Court. It's not anti-democratic. In fact, this is the way it's supposed to function. Whether or not we think that the Supreme Court's ruling was legitimate, Jack Smith and his team are trying their darndest to comply with it. And that includes bringing this case before a new grand jury so that Trump and his lawyers couldn't complain that a grand jury that had heard impermissible evidence was the one that passed judgment on this new winnowed down indictment. This is their effort to cross all their T's, dot all their I's, and really preserve this case for the long haul, even if, as you say, we are here where we are because of some delay on the Justice Department's part in the first place.

Yeah, delay from the DOJ and also by legal maneuverings from the Trump team, where they have now had three of their four cases almost certainly push back beyond the election. But we should note his sentencing in New York still, at least for now, is scheduled to be held in a couple of weeks. We will see what happens there. We really appreciate MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin for starting us off this morning. Lisa, thank you. And as we mentioned, Donald Trump reacted to yesterday's superseding indictment with real anger. In a series of posts on Truth Social, Trump railed against the revised filing, incorrectly arguing that the Supreme Court had granted him full immunity. He called it an attempt to interfere with the election,

a direct assault on democracy, unprecedented abuse, and the single greatest sabotage of our democracy in history. We can do plenty of fact checking there. Trump also wrote this. It is DOJ policy that the Department of Justice should not take any action that will influence an election within 60 days of that election. Of course, though, Trump is the one who has continuously sought to delay the trial until after the election. We should also note he benefited from DOJ action ahead of the 2016 election when FBI Director Comey reopened an investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails. Now, speaking from the campaign trail yesterday, Trump's running mate, Ohio Senator J.D. Vance, weighed in.

I don't think that it's changing anything legally. I think it's clearly an effort to try to do more election interference from Jack Smith. He should be ashamed of himself, and it's one of the reasons why we have to win, because he should not be anywhere near power. Simone, the hypocrisy here is just off the charts. As noted, not only did Trump benefit from a DOJ maneuvering back in 2016, he himself, he himself has been indicted for election interference for what happened in 2020 and then January 6th. And now he and his running mate are claiming that that's what's happening to them.

So looking at this through the political lens, how much do you think this will matter? And certainly it matters in terms of right or wrong. It matters in terms of the rule of law. But how much do you think this will matter? And certainly it matters in terms of right or wrong. It matters in terms of the rule of law. But how much do you think it matters for voters? Look, I do think it matters for voters, Jonathan. But if you look at all of the, not just the polling, but the focus groups and in talking to voters, what they say would matter most is whether or not he was convicted, a trial actually happening.

And when it comes to that, we're not going to see a trial now prior to Election Day, given the Supreme Court rulings and coupled with Donald Trump's delay tactics. So I do think, though, it's really important. And you've seen the Harris campaign do more of this and Democrats writ large. And in this ninth hour, 11th hour almost, it's going to be very critical to talk very specifically about what exactly has happened, just to push back on J.D. Vance and others who would assert that this is election interference, to not allow them to twist and make up a narrative that does not exist. Because the reality of the situation is, is that Donald Trump has been charged for crimes essentially that he committed years ago. But because of the slow nature of our

justice system, this is a conversation we are still having. But the idea that this is all made up and that Democrats just did this is something that there is a subset of the electorate that is susceptible to. So Democrats are going to have to be aggressive in speaking just the facts. So I reported earlier this year the real frustration from the West Wing about how slow the Department of Justice investigation was going, how long it took Merrick Garland to bring those charges. And President Biden, you know, talked about it some, but not as much as some of his fellow Democrats would like. But Ali, we heard from Vice President Harris in Chicago last week, more directly taking on the idea that Donald Trump was a convicted felon. And I know there were some Democrats that I talked to there who were pleased to see that.

So what's your sense from others in the party or the Harris campaign? You know, how much of this Donald Trump's legal woes will be part of her argument during this campaign, including in that debate in just a couple weeks. It's innate to her candidacy at this point. Even if you think back to 2019, when she did her first presidential run, during that first debate, many people at the time were saying to me they want to see her prosecute the case against Donald Trump. That debate was the initial trial stage for that.

Of course, the headline became busing and other things with Joe Biden. But now we're back to that same central theme. She is a prosecutor by trade. We watched the ways that she's starting to give sort of the opening argument at the DNC in this case that she will build against Donald Trump. The convicted felon piece is, of course, just one brick in that wall that she hopes to build. It will, of course, include other things like democracy, like January 6th, like his economic policies and the like.

All of that is going to be central because you're not just going to focus on one thing. You have many issues to speak to and many voters to try to put into the coalition. I also think, though, as we're talking about the wheels of justice turning, in some cases, frustratingly slowly, the reason that they're in such tension with the politics of justice turning, in some cases, frustratingly slowly. The reason that they're in such tension with the politics of this moment is because of the real 50-50 nature of this race. I know that polls show a current bump for Kamala Harris, but I think all of us sitting here agree this was always going to be a tight election. And it does leave open the possibility that if the

Trump-Vance ticket then becomes the Trump-Vance administration, it will likely dismiss this case and you will never hear it. And so as a journalist, I would love voters to be able to see this adjudicated through a court of law. I think voters deserve to see the kind of candidate that they are considering and voting for in their totality. But then there's also the politics of it, which is that they may never hear this case because, of course, Trump won't let them hear this case. And that's always been part of the central delay tactic from the Trump team. Yeah. And that notion of prosecutor versus convicted felon, of course, is going to play out at the debates. And speaking of debates, Donald Trump now says he will participate in the presidential debate with Vice President Kamala Harris. The former president posted on

his social media platform last night that he had come to an agreement with the Harris campaign about the rules for the September the 10th event, which will be hosted by ABC News. Trump wrote that the rules will be the same as his June debate with President Biden, meaning that the microphones would be muted while the other candidate is speaking. But the Harris campaign pushed back, saying that negotiations on the mics are ongoing. And in a statement, he mocked Trump for letting his handlers overrule him on the issue. What's going on behind the scenes here, Simone? Is this Donald Trump jumping in, you know, prematurely to try and force the vice president's hand?

Are they trying to get extra leverage to make sure those mics are cut off, realizing that it served them well in the first debate and assuming that it'll serve them well in the second debate? Yeah, honestly, Katty, I think it's quite possible that prior to the reporting about this and Politico and other outlets,

that Donald Trump was not necessarily aware of the nitty gritty of the negotiations. His team and his staff who were doing the negotiations with the Harris campaign were, but he probably was not necessarily aware of the nitty gritty of the negotiations. His team and his staff who were doing the negotiations with the Harris campaign were, but he probably was not. And when he was asked by NBC's Jake Traylor at that Vietnamese restaurant just a couple, what, two days ago yesterday, if he would, if he would like the mics muted, he said, you know, probably, I would probably want them unmuted, but they said they agreed to what we agreed to before. So I would just say that this is an this this this post is Donald Trump trying to box Vice President Harris in.

But let's remember the whole reason that these debates are happening this way and not being negotiated by the commission on presidential debates is because the then Biden campaign boxed in Trump. I do not foresee the Harris campaign acquiescing to Donald Trump's and his team's request here. And I really think that we are going to be in a position very soon to where the vice president herself is saying, well, Donald Trump seems scared because why would he allow his handlers to make him have his mics muted? And then that's Donald Trump with his back against the wall. And what's he going to do? Buck the staff, buck the system, and the mics will be unmuted. So this is the process. Yeah, it certainly does feel like we're going to have a few more twists and turns with negotiations

before that September 10th debate scheduled for Philadelphia. So additionally, we're learning about an incident that took place when former President Trump visited Arlington National Cemetery for a wreath-laying ceremony on Monday. NPR was the first to report that two Trump campaign staffers had a confrontation with a cemetery official who tried to prevent them from filming. Trump campaign spokesman Stephen Chung denied portions of the report, saying that no physical altercation occurred, adding that the campaign would be willing to release footage, but that an official had tried to physically block members of the former president's team during the cemetery.

Arlington National Cemetery later put out a statement confirming an incident took place and a report had been filed. The statement reads in part this way, federal law prohibits political campaign or election related activities within army national military cemeteries to include photographers, content creators, or any other persons attending for purposes or in direct support of a partisan political candidate's campaign. So Mike Barnicle, you know, the Trump campaign attended this event on Monday. It was the anniversary of the death of some American service members in Afghanistan as part of the evacuation effort there three years ago. They're trying to make that a major problem for the Biden-Harris administration in the context of this campaign. But I know a lot of military veterans were very uncomfortable with the idea that Trump was there at all and that, you know, he even at one point posed for a photograph with family members with a big smile and thumbs up on their face. Now, we should note

some of the family members were doing the same, but that's their right. Donald Trump, it's seemingly very strange that he would do the same. And yet and some of these veterans were sort of just aghast that that even in any way, shape or form, Arlington National Cemetery, arguably the most sacred place in our country, was being used as a backdrop for a political purpose. Jonathan, I looked at the same pictures that you're alluding to now and describing at Arlington, taken with the former president, and the thought rolled immediately through my mind is nothing sacred. That is sacred ground. And the idea that any candidate of any party would use intentionally or unintentionally, use that sacred ground as a prop for a political campaign is beyond condemnation. It's terribly upsetting, obviously,

to people who have buried loved ones in Arlington National Cemetery. It's terribly upsetting to many veterans. It's terribly upsetting to people who view it as a spectacle. And it ought to be terribly upsetting to any American who values what the military does for this country worldwide and has done for this country for centuries and will continue to do for this country. And of course, this comes just days after Trump suggested that a civilian medal, the Medal of Freedom, was better than the Medal of Honor because the army soldiers who receive the Medal of Honor are often either killed or wounded. And, of course, we've been reminded of late how Trump used to refer to veterans, even deceased soldiers, as suckers and losers. A comment confirmed by his own chief of staff.

So, everyone, stay put. We've got a lot more to get to. Coming up next here on Morning Joe, we'll preview the Harris-Walls campaign trip to Georgia today for a bus tour across that battleground state. It comes as Democrats sue the state election board over new rules that they argue would allow individual county board members to block the certification of legitimate election results. Plus, we'll talk to a Democrat from another swing state, Congressman Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania, about his call with a coalition of Taylor Swift fans who are backing Kamala Harris for president. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be back in just 90 seconds. Welcome back. The Trump campaign seems to be embracing a form of voting that its candidate had previously called corrupt. The Trump team, along with the RNC, has launched a new effort in the battleground state of Pennsylvania,

calling on voters to cast their ballots by any means necessary, including using mail-in and absentee ballots. The campaign and the RNC released a statement on the new initiative, a website called SwampTheVoteUSA.com, claiming it gives Pennsylvania voters the ability to directly request mail-in ballots, bypassing the Pennsylvania Department of State website. RNC Chairman Michael Whatley added this as President Trump has consistently said voting by mail, voting early and voting on Election Day are all good options. But just a couple of days ago, their candidate was expressing a very different message about mail in voting during this interview with Dr. Phil. I know there are things that you are not in favor of this ballot harvesting, this mail in ballots. It's all terrible. It shouldn't be allowed. It's a whole different

mindset. But it is. You're right. Republicans like to go there on Tuesday and vote in person. And that's been for a long time, many years, decades, decades. It's a custom almost. It's a family custom. It's a beautiful thing. The Democrats play a different game. Anytime you have a mail-in ballot, there's going to be massive fraud.

He's done a series of interviews with Dr. Phil this year, Allie. So this is, I mean, despite what the RNC and the campaign said, trying to push voters, say, look, hey, mail-in ballot, that's a fine option. Trump just can't do it. Not only in that interview with Dr. Phil, but of course, you know, his complaints about mail-in ballots and suggesting that it would rig the process were at the very heart of his efforts to claim the 2020 election was fraudulent. So, you know, this is mixed messaging for some Republican at home.

And there's got to be an impact also on down ballot races. Yeah, there's the mixed messaging, even just in the last half hour that we've talked about, right, where he says that he's OK with having mics unmuted during the debate. But his campaign says that that's not what they want. That's a contradiction, a contradiction. There's probably no real impact of that on voters. But this is an impact that will be seen on Election Day because Trump has primed his base to be at least skeptical, if not outright against the idea of voting early or voting by mail. The entire reason that exists is so that more people have access to their right as an American to vote for who will lead them. And Republicans in the past have especially been successful with turning out early in

terms of mail-in balloting. I think specifically of states like Florida, where they have previously seen success in this method of voting. And so Trump is really only hurting himself by trying to continue to erode the confidence in the system of people having a breadth of ways to exercise their right to vote. He's right. Some people do have a custom of going to the polls on Election Day. That might be a nice family thing for them. For other people whose schedule or their work does not allow for that, they have these other options that are also perfectly valid. And I think that's one of the things that's incumbent on us to express to voters of all political stripes. These are all valid ways for you to go to the ballot box. It is, though, counter to what the

RNC and the Trump campaign are trying to do in an election of razor ballot box. It is, though, counter to what the RNC and the Trump campaign are trying to do. And in an election of razor-thin margins, this is going to be one of the things that could make a difference. I think all of us could see a world in which if Trump doesn't do a good job of turning out his base and it turns out that mail-in voting was more prevalent and prominent for Democrats, that's something that Trump will probably rail against, too. I mean, all of this just sort of continues to lay the brickwork that he loves for continuing to erode trust and faith in the way that Americans vote and elect their leaders. Spare a thought for Trump's campaign staff who are desperate for him to stay on message. He, of course, probably doesn't really like mail-in

voting for some reason, but his campaign corralled him into saying it. And now he's back to what he thinks. So a candidate who is, it is impossible to get him to stay on message, whether it's on the economy, whether it's on being personal, whether it's on something as simple as whether he likes mail-in voting or not. Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz will embark on a campaign bus tour of Georgia today. It is Harris's seventh trip to the state this year, and her second since she announced her presidential candidacy. It will be the Democratic ticket's first trip to the state together. The tour is going to start in Savannah before making stops in southern, more typically red Georgia counties. The trip will culminate in a solo Harris rally tomorrow evening back in Savannah.

And joining us now, political reporter for The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Greg Blustein. Greg, so obviously Trump needs Georgia to win this election in a most likely route to 270 scenario. But Harris is clearly making a play for it this week. And she's going to areas of the state where I guess the idea is they may not win them. But if you can run up the numbers enough in those more red counties, you can afford to lose a little bit in some of the bluer counties. That is exactly right. I mean, these are areas that Democratic presidential contenders hardly visit, even back when Georgia was much more competitive than it was about 10 or 15 years ago. And now they're visiting again. I mean, this is this is a part of it. I'm in the

Savannah area right now. And candidates, Democratic candidates hardly ever visited here. Look, the campaign is very clear. They don't think they're going to win some of the deep red parts around Savannah just a few miles from here. But they think they can cut into the Republican margins. And if you shave those Republican margins in some of these places by two, three, four or five percent, then it starts to accumulate. You can't just rely on Metro Atlanta as a Democrat anymore. And Joe Biden proved that in 2020. And Senators John Ossoff and Senator Raphael Warnock proved that in 2021 and 2022. Greg, it's Simone here. I'm wondering about the impact of this. Like, do you see shades of what Senator Warnock did in his campaign and campaigning throughout Georgia, especially in rural Georgia, in places where, yes, there are white voters. There are there are black and Latino voters in some of these rural areas as well.

They usually don't get a lot of attention from Democrats. You're exactly right. This is the sort of tricky two-step that the vice president is trying to pull off. And so far, she's doing it. She's energized the base, but she's also reaching out to independents, to swing voters. And they're not just in the suburbs. We talk a lot about those swing voters being in the metro Atlanta suburbs, the Philly suburbs, all that. They're also down in rural Georgia. There's not as many of them, but there are plenty of independents,

swing voters, disaffected Republicans, you name it, who are open to that message. And she's trying to make that message. And I think you'll see that today. She might go to some majority black rural counties, but she also might target, you know, majority white rural communities as well that have conventionally gone deep red. So, Greg, let's take the Republican side of this. It, of course, has been well chronicled that Donald Trump has attacked the popular Georgia governor, Governor Kemp. He has gone after the secretary of state, Georgians up and down the ballot, much of the chagrin of

those local GOP. Of late, Trump has tried, at least for now, to play nice, to make up a little bit with Kemp. How is that being received there in Georgia? How is Kemp going to campaign, if he will, for Trump? And how are Republicans, do they think this will work? Those immense offenses that could help keep this column or put this column in Trump's put the state in Trump's column? Yeah, and a word about how this has been received is skepticism. You know, the Republicans here often use the same phrase to describe this tenuous truce, which is,

to house a card. It can fall at any moment. The former president could rattle off another tweet, just like he did right before his rally in Atlanta a few weeks ago. Governor Kemp, from his standpoint, he didn't start this fight. He doesn't want any part of it. This is not what he wakes up thinking about. But Donald Trump still blames him for his 2020 defeat. He's still going after one of the most popular politicians in Georgia, probably the most popular politician in Georgia continually, and someone he needs, at least someone in his corner, to win and to reach out to those swing voters that I was just talking about, many of them who voted for Senator Raphael Warnock, a Democrat,

and voted for Brian Kemp, a Republican, just a few years ago. Political reporter for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Greg Blustein. Thank you, Greg, as always, for your insights there. We appreciate it. And Allie Vitale, before you go, give us a sense as to your final thoughts here on Georgia, which, as noted, is a state that it would be hard for Trump to get to 270 without Georgia. Not impossible, but hard. But now we see the Harris team feel like it is really in play. Really in play. And you see that because

that's where the ticket is, of course, spending some of these crucial days before Election Day. Of course, they'll be back more than just this week. But what I think about in Georgia is twofold. First, the thing that you're bringing up here, which is that this ongoing feud with Kemp doesn't actually help Trump. But it also extends to the idea that people who are kind of Kemp-style Republicans in Georgia are probably more in the Republican fashion of someone like Nikki Haley. And it brings up the issue of why the Trump campaign is not doing sufficient outreach in the view of many former Haley supporters to try to get those voters back into the fold.

Whereas we've also seen the Harris-Walls ticket trying to make inroads with those kinds of voters who are Trump skeptical or Trump naysayers, but still want to keep their sort of conservative credentials. That's why someone like Adam Kinzinger at the DNC in a primetime slot could be so impactful. But the other thing you think about in Georgia, and I'm sure that Greg would agree with this, is just this larger idea of how women in the suburbs are going to play. That, of course, will cut along racial lines, but specifically the idea of how the Harris-Walls campaign will appeal or try to white women who may have a tendency of voting conservative, but also could have some real skepticism and concern about Trump at the top of the ticket. Those are the kinds of voters that I've been meeting for years. The Harris team knows that this is something that they have to make inroads with,

and they're certainly focused on that. And that bus tour begins today. Ali Batali, thank you so very much. Coming up here on Morning Joe, we'll move to the major developments in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. As Ukraine continues its offensive in Russia, and Israel has launched military raids within the West Bank. Former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Trevitas joins us next with his insights. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Ukraine's top military commander says 30,000 Russian troops have been pulled from the battlefield in the south

to defend against Ukraine's incursion into Russia. He made the comments yesterday while claiming his forces have captured 100 Russian settlements since this counter-offensive began. However, he warned that Moscow is building up its own forces in Ukraine's east where Russian troops are advancing. All of this comes as Moscow continues to shell cities throughout Ukraine. President Zelensky revealed this week that F-16s were used to shoot down Russian missiles on Monday as multiple regions were targeted. Pretty complicated

situation at the moment in Ukraine. Not sure where the balance of power lies on that front. Yeah, such a bold offensive by the Ukrainian forces. But now we see what will happen next. Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Israel forces today carried out large-scale raids in the West Bank. According to the Palestinian health ministry, nine people have been killed there. Israel's foreign minister posted overnight on social media that Israeli forces are working to, quote, thwart Islamic Iranian terrorist infrastructures. Joining us now, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Tavridis. He is the chief international analyst for NBC News. Admiral,

so good to see you this morning. Let's start with the Middle East. What is your read on what Israel is trying to do in the West Bank? Yeah, let's level set for a minute. We tend to talk a lot about Hezbollah to the north, Hamas in Gaza Strip and the Houthis on the Red Sea. Those are three distinct fronts for the Israelis. Here we're seeing them in the West Bank, which has been relatively quiet. But an operation where they kill 10 Palestinians, say, you know, population adjusted, that would be like the feds going into New Mexico and killing 350 terrorists. So this is a significant operation by the standards. And it shows you that Israel is fighting a war on multiple fronts. But what is the risk, though, that it could inflame the situation further? I mean,

this is West Bank different than Gaza. Also, of course, negotiators are in Cairo as we speak, trying to hammer out this deal for a ceasefire deal that would lead to the release of more hostages. We know one had been rescued just in the last day or so. They're not at the finish line yet for these negotiations. And it seems like every time they get close, there's more violence that delivers potentially a setback. Exactly right. And that's the real concern, is the longer term ability to deliver a ceasefire. I think that everything that is happening in the West Bank is going to have a chilling effect, shall we say, on all that. And it happens as a backdrop of Iran kind of lurking back there, preparing perhaps to retaliate for the assassination of the leader of Hamas carried out in Tehran a few weeks ago. So this situation is in flux, to say the least. The Israeli move into the West Bank shows you

they believe Iran is fomenting unrest there. And again, it shows you the challenges of Israel facing multiple threats on multiple axes. And Mike Barnicle, we know the Biden administration has been desperately pushing to get this deal done. But the highest ranking members of the government have some real skepticism whether the parties involved want to reach an agreement. Yeah, well, that's one of the key obstacles, it seems, to any ceasefire agreement. But, Admiral, this morning, as we're talking right now, there are two carrier strike force groups in the Mediterranean. There are a total of 18 warships in the Mediterranean. There's submarines in the Mediterranean. There's enough Tomahawk missiles to level half of the Middle East.

You have an Israeli government fighting in the West Bank. Gaza is basically an open furnace destroyed from stem to stern. The Israeli government, parts of its cabinet seem to be actively opposing any move for a ceasefire or a peace agreement and a recognition of a Palestinian state. So my question to you with all of this on the table is, if indeed there were a peace agreement and an agreement to establish a Palestinian state, given the disruption, West Bank, Gaza, what would the geography of such a Palestinian state look like? Wonderful question. I think the conventional answer would be it would include both the West Bank, where Israel is, as we talked about a moment ago, conducting counterterrorist operations really directed against Iranian influence there.

So West Bank and the Gaza Strip. And of course, you're absolutely correct. By the way, like the nautical metaphor, Gaza destroyed from stem to stern. It really is. It's going to have to be rebuilt. The good news is that is not a requirement to boil the ocean to do that.

It's a relatively small space, two million people, significant, but could you rebuild it with Saudi money, U.S. support, other Arab states, UAE pitching in? I think you could, Mike. So that's kind of the outline of what this would look like. The challenge is not the geography. The challenge is the governance. And here, Israel, I think correctly, is adamant that Hamas will not have a role in that going forward. That's going to require the Palestinian Authority up in the West Bank to really step up. You're going to need a new generation of leadership there. Hey, final thought, you mentioned those carrier strike groups. I commanded one of them, as you know, USS Enterprise. Alongside them, by the way, are U.S. Marines who are embarked in big naval vessels, so-called large deck amphibs. Those Marines are there to not conduct ground combat operations, but for evacuations of Americans if necessary. So, yes, there's a lot of American

firepower there. It's designed to send a signal to Iran not to get involved in this at this, as you point out correctly, Mike, very difficult moment. So before we turn to the latest out of Ukraine, we want to show you the moment one of the few captives was brought home alive from Gaza almost 11 months after the Hamas terror attack in Israel. NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley has more on that incredible rescue. Freedom for a hostage held captive in Gaza. After 326 days in captivity, hostage Qaid Farhan al-Qadi was rescued by Israeli commandos and safely returned home. A rare moment of celebration. al-Qadi is only the eighth hostage who's been rescued alive

in a military operation. Dozens more are thought to remain in captivity. al-Qadi rescued in what the IDF is calling a complex operation by special forces in southern Gaza, from inside Hamas's vast tunnel network, where soldiers say they found him alone. The 52-year-old father of 11 had been working in security at a kibbutz in southern Israel when he was captured on October 7. Al-Qadi is an Arab Bedouin, a mostly Muslim minority in Israel. At least 17 of them were killed during Hamas's terror attack in October. His family overwhelmed with joy and relief. We prayed for him, his brother says. My mother prayed for him more. Her prayer reached the sky.

Those still in captivity hoping for al-Qadi's kind of liberation. Extraordinary scenes there and some really, really good news. Admiral, let's turn now to Ukraine and get your analysis as to what we're seeing here. This Ukraine offensive into Russia certainly caught Putin by surprise. It's been pretty humiliating, to say the least, and they're still pounding away at targets in Russia. That said, some concern has arisen that that perhaps is leaving Ukraine vulnerable now for some sort of counterstrike from Russia. What's your take? This is a very bold move on the part of the Ukrainians. You kind of have to think back to the Korean War and Douglas MacArthur reaching around the North Korean ranks to take the beach

head and inch on and get behind them. Really bold military move. That's the good news. The bad news is when you create that kind of military salient, think a peninsula inserted in the side of Russia. The bad news is it can be surrounded. It can be cut off. Putin is probably moving significant forces there right now to contend with this. He's also, as you mentioned, Jonathan, launching massive strikes against the Ukrainian electric grid and their infrastructure, continuing the war crimes for which he is famous. So this one is poised right on a knife edge. Katty asked earlier, what's the balance? And I think that's the right question to be asking. In my view, at the moment, Russia is still going to continue to grind away. Russian military strategy is kind of three yards in a cloud of dust to go back to Coach

Woody Hayes. But the Ukrainians are going to continue to show creativity, innovation, bold military thinking. This is an example of it. I think the forces are poised on a knife edge on that battlefront. All right. We will be watching all of the latest developments. Retired four-star Navy Admiral James Tavridis. Admiral, thank you as always. Still ahead here on Morning Joe, our legal experts are standing by to break down the new indictment against Donald Trump

in his federal election interference case. Plus, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Congressman Jim Himes of Connecticut. He'll be our guest. Morning Joe is coming right back. And good morning from Chopper 4 with a great shot of the Statue of Liberty as the sun comes up in New York City. Amazing. Don't get dizzy up there. Time now for a quick look at some of the morning papers from across the country. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette leads with a deadly crash involving multiple tractor trailers that caused a portion of a major highway to close for almost 17 hours. According to police,

a grass fire causing low visibility led to three 18-wheelers colliding, killing one of the drivers. One truck was a military vehicle carrying explosive devices. Crews were brought in for a lengthy evacuation of the highway, and the devices were removed. To Alaska now, the Anchorage Daily News is covering the cleanup efforts from the devastating landslide in southeast Alaska on Monday that killed one person and injured three others. Officials say land detached from a nearby hillside after a period of unusually heavy rain and then slid into a town of almost 14,000, leveling several homes and businesses as well as cutting off power. Crews are racing to clean up the scene before more expected storms

hit the area, which they fear may trigger further slides. And an update on a story we brought you yesterday. The Boston Globe reports that a New Hampshire resident has died from the eastern equine encephalitis virus, the first death from that illness in the state in 10 years. Triple E, as it's known, is a very rare but deadly virus spread by mosquitoes. Ten communities in Massachusetts have been deemed critical or at high risk for the virus, with several towns announcing nighttime park closures and advising residents to limit outside exposure from dusk to dawn when mosquitoes are most active. And finally, to Wisconsin, where the Green Bay Gazette

is highlighting Packers quarterback Jordan Love and his new Love for Cleats campaign. For every touchdown that Love runs or throws during the upcoming NFL season, he will donate new Nike cleats to an entire school football team in the state of Wisconsin. All K-12 schools in the state can apply to receive cleats through the Hands of Love Foundation website,

and they will be selected based on the level of need. Love, one of the bright young stars in the league. Very nice gesture there.