Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/3/23

Episode Date: August 3, 2023

Trump will be arraigned in DC federal court today; here's what to expect

Do you think he knew that he lost the election? Do I personally believe that? At first I wasn't sure, but I have come to believe that he knew well that he had lost the election. Now, what I think is important is the government has assumed the burden of proving that. The government, in their indictment, takes the position that he had actual knowledge that he had lost the election and the election wasn't stolen through fraud. And they're going to have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a high bar, of course. It's a high bar. Now, that leads me to believe that they were only seeing a tip of the iceberg

on this. You think Jack Smith has more? Oh, yes. I would believe he has a lot more. And that's one of the things that impressed me about the indictment. It was very spare. And there are a lot of things he could have said in there. And I think there's a lot more to come. And I think they have a lot more evidence as to President Trump's state of mind. Donald Trump's former attorney general with an ominous prediction for the former president in the 2020 election case. It comes as Trump faces arraignment today in federal court in Washington. We'll get a live report from Washington, D.C., and legal analysis on what we can expect from today's hearing. Meanwhile, former Vice President Mike Pence just gave his most direct criticism of his former boss.

We'll play those comments for you. Also ahead, the new reporting on a private meeting between President Biden and former President Obama over concerns about the 2024 election. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, August 3rd. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of way too early White House bear chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg, congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany, and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson.

So, Willie, you know, yesterday I expected to hear I think we all expected to hear the best that the Trump defense team had, the best that the Trump apologists in the media had. And man, that was the best they got. Donald Trump's in really big trouble because as first of all, as Barr said, it's the tip of the iceberg. There's going to be so much more coming in here. It was a very spare indictment to get things moving, but there's so much more to be seen. But we saw Savannah Guthrie. We're going to plan the clip in a second. We saw Savannah Guthrie interview Trump's lawyer. They're still talking about the First Amendment when on the very face of the Jack Smith indictment, Jack Smith said, you have the you have a first amendment right to say to say what you want to say. You have a first amendment right to lie. You do not have,

though, a First Amendment right to commit a conspiracy to overthrow the federal government of the United States. I mean, it just makes absolutely no sense. So they're either talking about the First Amendment or over on another news channel. Some people were sitting there talking about a two tiered justice system and talking about Hunter Biden's hubcap rolling off his 67 Impala or something. We just heard it. We just heard it. That was bad. A 67 Impala. Those, you know, those hubcaps, they bounce the right way. They can take out an eye. But they're talking about this two tier system. And as we've said, and I may have said it a little harshly yesterday when I said we don't care if Hunter Biden goes to jail. I didn't mean it that way. What I meant was if he should, if he's done something, if he's found guilty, he goes to

jail. Hold on. Yeah. Oh, wait, that's what we do in America. But for some reason they can't say if Donald Trump's done something, if he's guilty, he should go to jail. So they're they're still there. They're there. This is what again, we talked about it yesterday. Kevin McCarthy and people on another cable news station spent from Election Day 2020 to January 6th undermining confidence in America's voting system, in American democracy. It's ended up costing a billion dollars. It'll probably cost them closer to two billion dollars.

But they did that and they haven't learned their lesson. Now, now that Donald Trump, it's like they're willing to just totally screw America. To trash America for this guy. I don't want to see his face. Take him down. I don't want to see his face. Take him down.

I don't want to see his face. Now they're willing to trash America. They've already trashed democracy for that guy. And if you listen to him yesterday, if you listen to Republicans in the House, if you listen to people on other news channels, they're literally willing to trash America's judiciary, our judicial branch, the very branch in Madisonian democracy that separates us from other countries the most, if you follow history. It's always the great leveler. They're willing to trash that now, Willie. Just because Donald Trump got caught stealing nuclear secrets,

because he got caught stealing secret war plans, because he got caught stealing all of these other documents and burrowed them away in his beach club in Florida, and now they get... I don't know if I told you this. We've got a 45 page indictment and everybody in here that's testifying against Donald Trump. They're all Trumpers. They're not Democrats here. Citizens, they're citizens, servants, the public servants who were serving Donald Trump, people that said we really wanted him to win badly, but not so badly that we were willing to destroy the United States Constitution

and American democracy in the process. And as we said yesterday, every one of these people that testified were testifying against their own self-interest, because if Donald Trump had been in the White House four more years, they would have gotten more powerful, ultimately more richer and more well-connected in Washington and the world. So there you go. Networks and little members of Congress in the Republican Party willing to trash American democracy and now the judicial system in the name of Donald Trump. This is badly. How many off ramps, Joe? How many times have they been given the chance, big chances, like he took nuclear secrets and war plans to Mar-a-Lago and waved them around at his beach club or at Bedminster? No, that was a bookkeeping issue.

Okay, how about an attempted coup against the government as detailed in this 45-page indictment? But what about Hunter Biden? And by the way, that is the political defense. What you're hearing on Capitol Hill from Republicans is, well, yes, we heard about the indictment. But did you hear what Hunter Biden did? Did you hear what this new witness said, drawing, attempting to draw some equivalency there? And you're right. On the legal front, Donald Trump's new attorney, John Loro, was on several networks, including NBC News yesterday morning. And the defense is the First Amendment.

Above the fold, New York Times, First Amendment is likely linchpin of Trump defense. That's where they're going, Joe. But as we talked about at length yesterday, and you just reminded us, in paragraph three, I think it is, maybe four, Special Counsel Jack Smith takes that away from them by conceding, yes, you had the right to say all these things, including lies, as he put it. You can say whatever you want. What you can't do is conduct a criminal conspiracy.

And speech is often part of a criminal conspiracy. Willie, let me read it really quickly. And thank you, because, as you know, I am a dumb country lawyer. I like waving things around. I don't know exactly where they are. But thank you for telling me. It's paragraph three. Thank you for bird-dogging it for me.

All right. I'm sorry. I regress at times. Paragraph three. The defendant had a right, says Jack Smith, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even claim falsely that there had been outcome-determinative during the election, and he had won. He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election

through lawful and appropriate means by seeking recounts, et cetera, et cetera. Indeed, in many cases, the defendant did pursue these methods in testing the election results.

His efforts to change outcomes in these recounts, audits, legal challenge, though, were uniformly unsuccessful. So he had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and to even claim falsely, Willie, that there'd been election fraud. He has that right if he wants to do it. He has that right. And so Jack Smith gets rid of that, as you say,

in the third paragraph. And these bumbling lawyers are going around the First Amendment, First Amendment. Judge and the jury is going to look at it and they're going to say, well, wait, well, they get Jack Smith talks about that. And the third paragraph. So I don't know. I guess they just have absolutely nothing to defend him on. Yeah. And Attorney General Barr, former Attorney General Barr, as we just played, completely waved away that fence. He was Trump's attorney general. He said that's a complete nonsense, the First Amendment. But that's what they're going with, Chuck Rosenberg. I'm curious what you've made in the last 24 hours of the defense we've seen from Trump's team so far, whether it's the First Amendment. We haven't heard as much, though we've heard some from other politicians, of the good faith argument, which is that he actually believed the election was stolen

and he merely was pursuing some of the things he had heard. Now, unfortunately for him, there are 45 pages of evidence saying, yes, his aides and his cabinet members told him that he'd lost and that, in fact, these were lies, so that disrupts that as well. But what do you make of what we've heard on the First Amendment grounds here? Yeah, I'm glad you asked me about that, Willie. There is a technical legal word for it. Mr. Barr used it. It's absolute nonsense. Think of it this way. Speech designed to commit a crime, speech designed to commit a fraud is not First Amendment protected speech. If I lie on my tax return, that's speech, but it's not protected by the First Amendment.

Willie, if you and I are running a Ponzi scheme and we solicit money from Joe and Mika and we tell them we're going to invest it in our investment fund, and instead we buy a boat and an island and a minor league baseball team. That is not First Amendment protected speech. That's a crime. Instructing a witness to destroy documents subpoenaed by the grand jury is speech, but it's not speech protected by the First Amendment. So I completely agree with Mr. Barr on this point. That defense that the First Amendment precludes prosecution of Mr. Trump here is nonsense. It's garbage. It may work in the political arena. It will not work in court.

Period. The end. Well, let's look at what's going to happen in court today. Former President Donald Trump will be criminally charged today in Washington, D.C., for allegedly trying to disrupt the same government he once swore to protect. At four o'clock this afternoon, Trump will be arraigned in D.C. federal court on four felony charges stemming from his alleged efforts to block the peaceful transition of power following his 2020 election loss. The charges are conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding,

obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. Members of the D.C. Police Department could be seen setting up security barriers outside the courthouse last night ahead of the former president's arrival. Gene Robinson, we haven't had a chance to get your take since this this came down. It's it's a remarkable document, 45 pages. And the president of the United States, the former president of the United States, once again marching into a courthouse to be indicted. Yeah. And we get inured to this because this is the third arraignment we will have seen of Donald Trump. Nonetheless, this is different. This is this is incredible. A president of the United States attempted to cling to power, attempted to stay in our history. And it is historic that it is now being addressed with this indictment. So this is a—we're in a different realm now. You know, I certainly agree with you and Chuck. I'm not even a country lawyer, but obviously the First Amendment

defense is a dog that won't hunt. But I think the more likely route that the Trump lawyers are going to try to go is advice of counsel that, well, he really believed that he was listening to the noted constitutional scholar, John Eastman, and he was just listening to his lawyers. Now, the weakness in that, of course, is that the attorney general of the United States and the White House counsel and the deputy White House counsel were all telling him, stop, this is ridiculous. This is, you know, you've got to stop this stuff. This is nonsense. And the other reason is that the lawyers he was listening to are all unindicted co-conspirators. So, you know, there's that pesky crime fraud exception to attorney-client privilege, and it also, I think, would pertain here. These were co-conspirators.

These were not lawyers giving disinterested advice. And so I just I don't know where he goes with this, except the political case. What about Hunter Biden? Well, yeah, he's got the political case. What about that hubcap that fell off of Hunter Biden's 67? And Powell acting as if the media is sitting here weeping and crying and covering for Hunter Biden. Que sera, sera. Whatever will be, will be. Like it's like we're on Doris Day's side on this one. Whatever will be, will be with Hunter Biden. And there's just no equivalency, political equivalency, moral equivalency to that, whatever it ends up being. And a former president of the United States trying to overthrow the federal government.

This is like Benedict Arnold's cousin, like stealing an apple from, you know, whatever. It's just the attempt to. OK, that wasn't the best example. They're just trying to describe it. We've got four hours. We can work on it. Yeah, let's play it. I'm going to be working on that one. Benedict Arnold's nephew stealing a British frigate.

I don't know. When you watch the right wing or even just Fox all day, they never read the indictment. They actually never read the counts. They kind of him and a hominid around it and, you know, free speech. And they actually never read the indictment and actually talk about these charges and talk about the fact that you don't bring an indictment without proof. And talk about many of these things we saw play out in front of our eyes, done by Donald Trump and many of these things we saw corroborated during the January 6th hearings. You never hear

that, you know, because it's too much fact for them. Do you know, Willie, how she knows that? Because she keeps it on that station. You have to wonder why Trump supporters don't believe this is real. Reactive. And I'm like, please don't do that. Please don't. No, let's let's watch. You have to. You can't be blind to what's happening. Access pottery. Let's not. Well, don't don't get all. But she she won't listen to me.

I want to go to Chuck really quickly. Chuck, if I know I get what you're saying, know what they're saying, that's it. I have so much respect for what you're doing there. It's disinformation. I just can't do it myself. So Chuck, I didn't learn. So let's just touch on the advice of counsel that Gene Robinson brought up. I mean, I would think part of the problem is it's not exactly forum shopping, but Trump had his White House counsel around him. He had lawyers all around inside the White House. He had advisors. They all told him no. He went out and basically went forum shopping to find the craziest conspiracy theories he could find, especially after his own

lawyer said, Mr. President, you got nothing here. January 20th, 2021 is going to be your last day. So he goes out and finds people like Rudy Giuliani, whose legal theories Trump himself call crazy. Will advice of counsel carry any water in this court as a possible defense? Yeah, I'm glad you asked me that. So first thing, Joe, there is a defense known as advice of counsel. You see it from time to time. It's a real thing. So I think the more important question is, would it pertain here? And there are two basic elements to it. In order to have an advice of counsel defense, let's say, Joe, you, a wonderful country lawyer, are my attorney. And I want to rely on you for advice you've given me to help prove that I had no intent

to commit the crime I'm charged with. There are two requirements. One is that I am completely candid with you, my lawyer, about all the facts of the case. And that the other, element number two, is that I act in good faith upon your advice. And we know, you know, past his prologue, Mr. Trump has had trouble with both of those elements, candor and good faith. So it is a real defense. It may be available to him here to try and trot out in a court of law, but he would have to establish again that he was completely candid with his counsel,

as I was with you, and that he acted in good faith upon the advice of counsel. And I think those are stumbling blocks for Mr. Trump in any setting, certainly in a court of law. So let's take a look at the day ahead. Joining us now, NBC News justice reporter Ryan Riley. He is outside the courthouse in Washington, which is just a matter of blocks away from the United States Capitol that was attacked on January the 6th, 2021. Ryan, good morning. So we know President, former President Trump is waking up in Bedminster, New Jersey this morning. He'll fly down to Reagan National later this afternoon. What do you expect to see at the courthouse today around four o'clock?

A lot of secrecy. I think they're going to bring him in through the garage and bring him up through the elevators. The courtroom that they've chosen here is in the annex of the building behind me. It's the newer facility. It was built around 2005. And what it actually allows them to do potentially is bring Donald Trump in. And it's the same way they brought a lot of grand jurors in. They brought them in through the garage, bring them up through the back elevators, and then potentially bring them right into the courtroom. From what we understand, there will be about 11 seats available to the media, but that's going to be on a lottery system.

So despite all of our producers' hard work overnight standing in line here, we're not guaranteed necessarily to get a spot inside the courthouse. But there's going to be lots of overflow, and there's going to be a media room. So we're definitely going to be at least looking at this on a closed circuit television, being able to see what's happening inside the courtroom. It probably should be a very short hearing. I expect, you know, going forward in this case, we're probably going to see some change of venue motions. Those have all failed in January, six cases before. And the Justice Department has a lot of evidence to point to that D.C. jurors are able to handle these cases appropriately despite the Democratic

leanings of D.C. In both the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers case, there were acquittals on certain charges, not for the defendants overall, but for several counts, there were acquittals on both of those cases. And there's been other acquittals in January 6th cases altogether. So they have some evidence that the voir dire process can work here, that jurors can swear their oath, can take the evidence on its face. And despite maybe not being particularly fond of Donald Trump, can look at the facts and decide them fairly. You know, when Chuck was sort of talking about the First Amendment grounds, it struck me that potentially one thing that you would expect if that's going to be the defense of Trump here is that they would be calling for the charges against Hunter Biden

in that gun case to be dropped, because then Hunter Biden has a First Amendment right to lie about being a drug addict on a gun form. So that's just, you know, I think that Chuck is completely right that That is not something that is going to have much merit in this courtroom behind me. And especially, you know, given the judges who know a lot of the facts about these cases. Just yesterday, we saw another defendant who was charged, who was actually a Cardinals mascot who ran around the stadium in St. Louis, painted in red. And he was just arrested yesterday. This was someone who a lot of conspiracy theorists believe was an undercover officer. But nope, the sluice identified

him. And lo and behold, he was arrested yesterday. So these January 6 cases are continuing to churn. And now Donald Trump is just one more Florida man charged in connection with January 6. The Redbird was an unofficial mascot. Oh, unofficial. OK, good. That was very disturbing. So, Ryan, let me ask you about security there. Obviously, a coordinated effort between the D.C. Metro Police, the Capitol Hill Police and a federal agency, Secret Service involved as well with the former president being there. There was some anticipation around the arraignment here in New York City and lower Manhattan. New York City police said, don't try that here. It's not going to work. And by and large, most people stayed away. What are they expecting there in terms of a crowd?

You know, yesterday we did see somewhat of a crowd as well as the day before. Not massive, handleable, but I think, you know, these bike racks are going to keep people away from the building. Hopefully, you know, when I saw them when I was here last night, seeing them bring them out, it just sort of was like, you know, bike racks, very on theme for January 6th. That's what was the first thing breached down at Peace Circle, just a couple of blocks over here to my left during that initial breach, and that was not something that stood up. But, you know, Donald Trump hasn't summoned anyone to come here. I certainly expect a lot of

supporters to show up, but it's not this mass event. And it was done on a pretty quick time frame. So it wasn't as though you could get necessarily a ton of people to show up because this is, you know, only basically 48 hours from when we learned about the charges on Tuesday. So, you know, we should see some supporters here, perhaps harassing reporters out here on the street and perhaps trying to get their moment on camera. But, you know, obviously, D.C. is now in a posture where they can react to this pretty quickly and have a decent security situation set up here. Well, let's hope it's a peaceful day. President of the United States, the former president of the United States, will be arraigned today at four o'clock Eastern time in that courthouse behind you. NBC News

justice reporter Ryan Riley. Ryan, thanks so much. So, John, he mentioned change of venue, potential change of venue, highly unlikely. Donald Trump yesterday suggesting the state of West Virginia would be an appropriate place for this trial. Coincidentally, he won by 40 points there in both of his elections. Yeah, this was Trump's take here on social media. He says it's moved to an impartial venue, such as the, quote, politically unbiased nearby state of West Virginia, which, A, West Virginia had nothing to do with January 6th. And B, yeah, he won it by about a thousand points in both 2016 and 2020. No ulterior motive there, I'm sure. That seems unlikely to happen. A couple other quick notes here. I was talking to someone yesterday concerned about security around it and makes the point

of that Donald Trump's most violent supporters, those who would be likely to cause trouble, well, they're already in jail for January 6th. That hopefully reduces some of the risk there. Some of the news outlets have journalism students who paid them to stand in the overnight in line to try to get them a seat in the courthouse today. But we don't know if that's going to happen. But, Jackie, we should also note, though, I know you've been covering this so very closely. Trump's got a new legal team in place for this. These proceedings starting to make the media rounds. Tell us a little bit about about what we know of them and beyond perhaps the First Amendment considerations, what other possible defenses might we hear from them today? And we should finally note that in previous indictments,

arraignments, Donald Trump has then addressed the media afterwards. They haven't said whether he will or not today. Yeah, there are a lot of TBDs right now, John. But on our part, at this point, a lot of the media outlets are simply well-oiled machines when it comes to operating around Trump's indictments, as this is the third one. We are anticipating that Trump is going to potentially have a press avail or might be doing a very last-minute rally in the area. But a lot of that is up in the air. And as we've seen, there is a lot of bravado, public statements, you know, claiming that that Trump is welcoming these indictments. People and allies on his campaign arguing that this is only good for his polling numbers.

But at the end of the day, when Trump has appeared in the courthouse before the judge to enter his plea deal, he's appeared dour and extremely unhappy to be there, although, you know, in the aftermath has always made the rounds either at, you know, cafes around Miami or, you know, parading through New York City in his motorcade. But he does have a new legal team that has a little bit less experience than the media does in attending these arraignments. He has Todd Blanche, who has been with him since Alvin Bragg dropped charges related to hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. He was previously representing some other Trump people, was brought on to the team, is probably the most well-respected and seasoned lawyer that is now helming the entire Trump legal effort. There is also Christopher Keis. He was the lawyer that Trump brought in last year who was sidelined on the Mar-a-Lago documents case, is

now more involved with that case. We haven't seen much of him with regards to the January 6th investigation. And then there's John Lauro. He is the TV lawyer that we've all seen these past few days, who also is someone who is well respected and has experience with this. But as Chuck and a few people noted, has been making some interesting behind the eight ball arguments about what Trump's legal defense is going to be primarily focusing on issue of free speech when Jack Smith's charges have very savvily avoided some of that issue by, you know, I talked to a number of lawmakers, January 6th committee members yesterday, who actually commended Smith with dropping the insurrection charge and instead going with that final charge

of conspiring against people's right to have their votes counted because it does help the help prosecutors avoid this this argument over free speech and instead gives juries a little bit of an insurance card to judge Trump on his conduct as opposed to his opinions or beliefs. All right, Jackie, and still ahead on Morning Joe, much more fallout from Donald Trump's latest indictment and the reaction from some who were inside the administration, like the former chief of staff for Mike Pence, plus new developments in these special counsels and other investigations. I still can't believe Mike Pence's chief of staff had to call the Secret Service. I'm glad they did. Yeah. On January 5th, after Trump basically threatened, threatening. It was pretty ugly. And they had. I'm so glad for for Mike Pence and for his family that his chief of staff was smart enough to call the Secret Service and say, hey, Donald Trump's going to put our lives in danger tomorrow. Basically, he did. And they were ready. A lot of people did the right thing. And there was a lot

of crazy stuff that went down. Food against the wall in the White House. I mean, this is just it is an incredible time in history. Plus, new developments in the special counsel's other investigation into Trump. Why Jack Smith's team is citing potential conflicts of interest in the classified documents case. Also ahead, what we're learning about a private talk between President Biden and former President Obama concerning the 2024 election. It sounded like an important talk. Yeah. You're watching Morning Joe. What will be, will be. Now I have. 33 past the hour. Welcome back to Morning Joe. We are following new developments this morning in the special counsel's other case against former President Donald Trump. Now, is this one where he tried to launch an insurrection to overthrow the United States?

No. Is this the one where he stole nuclear secrets and secret war plans against Iran? It's not the hush money to a porn star that he had an affair with that nobody denies. Not even Donald Trump. But it's not the case where he was accused of rape by the judge. No, and defamation. The judge actually said he raped him.

It was sexual abuse. He was held liable. But the judge then came back and said when they were making motions. That actually was rape. The judge said, well, actually, in common usage and the way the U.S. Army uses the term rape, the way it's defined in dictionaries, rape is you committed rape.

But that's not this case. And there's still another lawsuit because he continues to defame this woman with wild abandon. But this isn't the rape case. This isn't the rape case. She's suing him again. It's not the rape case. And it's not the case where he stole the nuclear secrets. It's not that one either.

OK, but so it's. Wait, no, it is that one. There's so many. So it's not the case that he tried to overthrow the federal government. It's not that one. OK, it's the. OK, it's the rape case. Jack Smith has asked.

I'm not the rape case. I'm sorry. It's the case where he tried to steal nuclear. Right. Not try. He stole nuclear secrets and lied about it. Right. Okay.

Yeah. I got it. So Jack Smith has asked Judge Aileen Cannon to schedule a hearing to discuss potential conflicts of interest in the case involving Trump's handling of classified documents, including military secrets at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. NBC News has learned the issues stem from defense lawyer Stanley Woodward's representation of Trump aide Walt Nada and other witnesses in the case. According to a court filing yesterday, Woodward's current and past clients include three people who could be called to

testify against Nada. Nada is charged with conspiring to obstruct the government's efforts to reclaim classified documents. Woodward at one point also represented, represented Yusil Tavares, who is anonymously named in the indictment as being asked to aid in the alleged conspiracy to delete security footage at Mar-a-Lago. Tavares was not indicted in the case, and there are reports he may have cooperated with the DOJ after receiving a target letter last month and obtaining new legal representation. Despite Tavares obtaining new counsel,

Woodward's ongoing representation of NADA could still be an issue. So, Chuck, I mean... That itself is a massive case. Chuck, yeah, I we've seen judges before bring up concerns about overlapping interests here. You're actually talking about the freedom, the possible freedom or the incarceration of several here, I would expect a judge to step in and say, counsel A, you cannot represent these two or three people whose interests are diametric, could be diametrically opposed in their dealings with the government. Do you suspect that's what we're going to see? I do, Joe. I think you're exactly right. Look, this is relatively simple. If an attorney represents,

let's just make it easy here, two people, and one of them is a witness at trial, and one of them is a defendant at trial, then that attorney has information because he represented both of them that he could use to the advantage of one and the disadvantage of the other. That's a conflict. It's not that complex. The government was absolutely right to raise the issue with the court. The court has to hold a hearing on this. Now, of course, if the government succeeds in getting one of the lawyers kicked off the case, that slows things down a little bit. So be it. It's more important to protect the rights of all of the individuals involved in the case and the record on appeal than it is to go faster

than you ought to go. I'd like to see all these cases tried before the election. That may not happen. Moving to conflict out an attorney will inevitably slow a case down or could slow a case down. But as a lawyer, you always have a duty of confidentiality and loyalty to all of your clients forever. That doesn't end when one of them is charged and the other one becomes a witness. It lasts forever. And so you cannot use, as a lawyer, confidential information you got from one person to help another. That's the conflict. It seems relatively straightforward to me. The government is right to ask for a hearing.

And I imagine the judge is going to very seriously consider asking Mr. Nauta to find another lawyer. I can't imagine that he wouldn't because, again, their interests likely moving forward will be diametrically opposed. Here's Bill Barr yesterday talking about the wreckage that Donald Trump has left in his wake regarding some of these co-defendants. These two individuals, Noda and the Carlos, are dragged into this thing, their lives turned upside down by Trump to pursue, you know, this caper of his. And he leaves in his wake ruined lives like this, the people who went up to Capitol Hill, these individuals,

many of the people who served him in government that got sucked into things. And he just leaves all this carnage in his wake. Do you think he cares about that? No, he doesn't care about that. Loyalty is a one-way street for him. Loyalty, a one-way street. We all know that, Gene Robinson. Carnage.

The thing is, again, just to build out a little bit on this, though, it's ridiculous, actually, that Walnotta and the other criminal defendant have the same attorney as Donald Trump. It's ridiculous because at some point, and this would be true in any case, at some point, if you're working, you know, at the direction of a principal and they ask you to do something illegal for them, your interest diverges sharply with the principal the second everybody gets arrested because you're able to strike a separate deal with the state or with the feds, whatever it is. And this is the case everywhere. I just can't imagine the judge. I can't imagine anybody allowing these two co-defendants to be tied to Donald Trump with a lawyer who will not

be giving them advice that is in their best interest, their best interest on how to stay out of jail. Exactly. It seems obvious to me that that that NADA needs to find another lawyer, that this lawyer does have this conflict, Woodward, and that seems to be the end of that. You know, this is something I've rarely said, but Bill Barr makes such an excellent point there, because look at the wreckage. Look at the wreckage from the Trump indictments, just the ones that we have so far, right? The first one, the Stormy Daniels payment. Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, went to jail because of that caper.

Look at the documents case, you've got Noda and, you know, just in the hot seat, potentially going to jail again. He's trying to follow Donald Trump's orders. And in in this case, in the January 6th case, you've had more than a thousand people, I think, face justice. Many of them go to jail, some for a seditious conspiracy after Donald Trump fired them up and sent them off to sack the Capitol. Essentially, it is it is amazing. And it would be a travesty for all these other people to suffer the consequences of Donald Trump's selfish, egotistical, egomaniacal behavior and for Trump himself not to face consequences. And it is just right that he's facing consequences. Jackie, what will you be watching and looking for today as we watch this historic moment happen before Before our eyes, I don't know if we'll actually see Donald Trump, but there'll be reporters in the room.

The former president, his third arraignment, federal arraignment before a judge who has sent January 6th rioters to jail. Yeah, Mika, I mean, it's going to be really symbolic and historic to watch Donald Trump walk up those same stairs in the D.C. district court that over a thousand other insurrectionists who are simply following Trump's lead and directions to storm the Capitol on January 6th, who have already been charged and in some cases sentenced, you know, again, at the behest of Trump's directions in the lead up to January 6th. And on January 6th, I'm definitely going to be watching sort of the dynamics between Trump and Judge Tanya Chukin, the Obama appointed judge who's going to be who was assigned to this

case, who's actually handed out some of the harshest sentences to January 6th insurrectionists. But I want to return to this Stanley Woodward situation again as well. And I think it raises this broader situation of just how remarkable all of these cases are. There are co-conspirators, witnesses, people who might have to be called to these court cases to testify against Donald Trump, who are all still working for the former president or financially tied to him in some way. Usel Tavares, he is that IT worker who was being represented by Stanley Woodward. He was one of seven people being represented by Woodward, who only gave incriminating evidence

and told the truth once he switched lawyers. The thing that Jack Smith was arguing yesterday is how is Woodward going to cross-examine his former client in a court of law, especially as that client, that former client is not waiving his rights to confidentiality. And I think it just raises the broader question of, you know, some of these people who we're going to be seeing accompanying Trump on today to the courthouse and afterwards, especially in the case of potential press avail. These are people who were mentioned in the indictment, either in some veiled term as a co-conspirator, people like Boris Epstein, who continues to work for former President Trump,

and people like Jason Miller, who continues to be a senior advisor, Susie Wiles, who is a top person on the Trump campaign, all people who have come before Jack Smith and cooperated in some form or another, either with Wilds, considered one of the Republican circles, one of the most important, powerful, smart campaign minds in the state of Florida. She's up and run Donald Trump's campaign, apparently based on reports. He's she's the one he showed, you know, these maps of war plans. So she's thrown right into the middle of that stuff. And secondly, I just want to say maybe it's a generational thing. But, you know, when when Bill Barr calls a conspiracy to steal nuclear secrets, a caper, a caper, a caper. Well, I would say stealing an apple pie from the top of a wedge is a caper.

But I think he's actually there's a little bit of a I think he's talking about Trump's stupidity there. Honestly, kind of putting it in quotes because he is so dumb. And what he's done with these documents is so dumb. Everything that he does, he does out in the open. And you read these indictments, all of them. He's so dumb. He just knows how to play the media. And some people fall for it.

It is funny. Well, not funny. It is tragic for Donald Trump, isn't it? That he's been, you know, he's been working the New York Post and the Daily News since 1975, 1976. And he really at some point never really figured out where the sharp line was between, you know, a page six columnist and Jack Smith. It's going to it's going to likely call. And I'm serious here. It's going to likely cause him his freedom because he's been able to get away with stuff his entire life. He just for some reason never figured out, you know, you don't cross the feds.

You don't do illegal things and expect to be able to be your way out of an indictment and a charge that could send you to jail for life. You're right. He's operated with total impunity for all of his adult life in New York City in his early days in politics. And it's all a game to him. Everybody has to be loyal or they have to be disposed of. And now he's learning that this is not a game, that Jack Smith is taking this thing very seriously and that our justice system takes his alleged crimes very seriously. On your point about Susie Wiles, Bill Barr said something interesting in that interview last night when he was asked what he would say to these new lawyers, to John Loro, to others that are around Donald Trump. And the former attorney general said pretty simply, well, you're all going to become witnesses. You're all going to

have to testify. He's going to commit some other crime. He's going to do something else. And you're going to be accomplices. You're going to be in the room. So you have to decide if that's worth it to you. Wow. That's amazing. The Washington Post, Jackie Alimani and former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg. Thank you both very much for coming on this morning. Most definitely. Chuck, we are not a simple country lawyer. No, he's not. I listen to every word he says. I would not want to be as a simple country lawyer across the table from him. No. Look at him. No, I would not.

He seems so gentle. Yeah. Look at that. He raised that eyebrow. Just slightly. A legal killer, baby. Okay. A legal killer.

Well, we appreciate your insight, quite frankly. Do you see what he did with that? We're just trying to get through this. Coming up, a controversial downgrade of the United States credit rating. It has the markets in the red this morning. We'll explain what prompted the move and tell you the reaction from one of America's top banking executives. Also ahead, Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal joins us in studio. We'll talk to him about bipartisan legislation to protect children on social media. Also, his reaction to Trump's

latest third indictment. Morning Joe is coming right back. global stocks fell yesterday after fitch downgraded the u.s credit rating from triple a to double a plus fitch is one of three major credit rating agencies that evaluate a company or a country's ability to pay its bills on time. The agency decided deteriorating political conditions, including the debt ceiling standoff earlier this year in the January 6th riot. There's reasons for its decision, J.P. Morgan. And when we said a CEO responded, I said, I hope it's Jamie. It's Jamie. Because Jamie, no, Jamie's got no BS. No, he doesn't. No. So I was saying,

I hope it's Jamie. And here it is, yes. J.P. Morgan CEO, Jamie Diamond, correctly called the move ridiculous, saying the U.S. remains, quote, the most prosperous nation on the planet. The White House also pushed back the downgrade. Let's bring in. This is important.

We have a president emeritus. Oh, my. Of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. Oh, he looks so erudite. He does. Also, our rookie golf analyst. Well, he tries. So, listen, I'm of two minds here, you know, because I have one of those complex minds, you know, where, as Fitzgerald said,

Richard, I can hold two competing thoughts in my mind at the same time. Aren't we all glad I can? Number one, I think you agree with me. We've talked about it before. Our national debt's a problem. It's over $30 trillion. That is an a problem. It's over $30 trillion. That is an ongoing problem. We need a long-term plan to bring that under control, a glide path, so to speak, that doesn't wreck the economy.

At the same time, we've got a $25 trillion economy. It keeps growing while China stagnates at $17 trillion. California has a larger economy than every other country, than like three on the globe. Texas, a bigger economy than Russia. And you look at our economy, it may not be the greatest it's ever been. It's better than just about every other economy on the globe. So the question is, if you're downgrading us, I mean, are you downgrading everybody else on the planet? Because there is no safer investment on the planet right now than the United States of America. It was an odd time for Fitch to do this, the rating service, simply because the news is pretty good about the U.S. economy, both absolutely and relative to others. But if you take a step back, I think they are onto

something. As you said, Joe, it's the massive accumulation of debt. But really what they focused in on was the politics of Washington. And it's actually consistent with the story of the week, which is the dysfunctionality of American politics, the fact actually consistent with the story of the week, which is the dysfunctionality of American politics, the fact that we've come up to the edge several times. Republicans left town. Virtually none of the spending bills got dealt with. They're going to come back. And then what? And there's no confidence, essentially, that the politics of Washington will allow the United States to deal with these issues. And I think their pitch is on firmer ground.

So I get what Jamie Dimon and Larry Summers are all being critical. But I think if you pull back the strategic take on whether our politics are up to it and we're not just another economy, the dollar's role is central to the world. The American economy is a quarter of the world's economy. So the real question is, will our politics get in the way of our economics? And I think that's a fair question. I think it's a fair question. But, Gene, if you look at the recent past, you know, the United States is going to take care of itself. I will say, and I said it on this show, whenever it's like, oh, my God, the debt ceiling, we're going to spiral into that i was like no no

no they're not no they're not if anybody that knows washington i've been through this time and again as a member of congress and then somebody in the media they always do the deal i don't care what side's and moaning and saying they're not going to join in, they always get the call from the top CEOs, from their top contributors, from their top PACs, and the call goes something like this. You're not really going to let the United States government default on your debt, are you, Mr. Speaker? And whether that speaker's Newt

Gingrich or Kevin McCarthy, Gene, it's not really a question. It's not a question. It's an order, which is do your damn business so my business doesn't get wrecked. I mean, so that's why, again, this Fitch going, oh, they can't pay for their debt. It's ridiculous. It always gets resolved and it always gets resolved not because we close our eyes and hope it gets resolved.

It always gets resolved because our $25 trillion economy and the people who run it demand it gets resolved. Yeah, it always does. And look, I don't know exactly what they're smoking over over at Fitch, but it's like they all of a sudden realize that there's some there's some political polarization in the United States. And, you know, it's like, oh, oh, shocked and and and horrified. It's been that way for a while. We've been to this brink of, you know,

default for many times now. And yes, in the end, we always honor the full faith and credit of the United States. And it would be better, I think, if we did away with the debt ceiling and did away with this ridiculous exercise. And obviously it makes people nervous. But to decide just out of the blue, apropos of nothing, that, oh, gee, this is a problem. We've got to downgrade them. It just seems ridiculous to me. I'm with Jamie Dimon. It doesn't actually mean anything.

It doesn't mean anything. And again, I can't tell you that famous clash song. I'm so bored with the USA. I'm so bored with with these whiny debates about the debt ceiling because they always get resolved because they have to get resolved. You know, Willie, also on the January 6th stuff, yeah, scared the heck out of us. Some of us were even yelling the morning after on this show, shouting vulgarities. I can't remember who was or during. It was a frightening time for us. But here we are a couple of years removed. And what have we seen? Justice rolled down like mighty waters. Over a thousand of those rioters arrested, over 500 of them already serving jail time. Nobody got away with anything. And yes, the reason why we're not going to see rioters this week is because the people most likely to riot are either arrested in jail or going, yeah, I'm fine.

I'm just going to go on 4chan and and in my mom's basement and type out my complaints while eating Cheetos. Like this system has held and it's held pretty damn well. Yes, slowly but surely. And there is a direct line between January 6th, 2021, that horrifying day that we all watch and that many people experience from inside the building. Many members of Congress, many of our colleagues in the media and to today. Now, accountability, the president, the former president of the United States, the president that day, who helped lead those people to the Capitol at four o'clock this afternoon, will be arraigned in D.C. federal court. Not far at all from the scene of so many of those crimes on January 6th will be inside the D.C. federal court. He'll be arraigned on four felony charges stemming from his alleged efforts to block the peaceful transition of power following his 2020 election loss. A reminder, the charges are conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights.

So, Jonathan Lemire, this is an extraordinary day. We've seen a couple of arraignments already with this former president. But this day in a courthouse, there really is just a couple of blocks from the United States Capitol. Donald Trump returns to Washington to answer this first step anyway, the arraignment to answer for what he is alleged to have done to cause the damage that day. It's actually become a familiar ritual, but it shouldn't be less stunning that the former president of the United States is going to be going to a courthouse. He's going to be processed by law enforcement. He's going to have to stand. He's going to be taken into custody. He's going to have to stand in front of a judge and enter a plea. We expect, of course, it to be not guilty. We don't know. And then he will be released. And then he'll be released. He'll resume campaigning for the White House, Richard. And we don't know yet if we will hear from Trump publicly today.

After his last two arraignments, he did hold media availabilities speeches that night. This campaign hasn't said, if you will, this time. Certainly, at the very least, he'll be on true social. But just speak to us about what this moment means. This is the kind of thing for a leader trying to cling to power, to defy the wishes of the voters. This is the kind of thing for foreign policy expert that we see in other countries. We've never seen it here. And even if this case, some believe, might be difficult to prove, isn't it an important step for this democracy that we're trying?

It's an important step for the democracy that we've reached this point. We like to say we're a country of laws, not of men. But we're going to find out. We're going to test it. Just right now, it looks like the laws are prevailing. But we'll see what happens with the legal process. We'll see how the political calendar and the legal calendar play out. What happens with, we're 15 months away from the next presidential election. See what happens there. So the rest of the world is looking at this. We're looking at this. It's uncharted. But I think it's too soon to feel good in the sense about the primacy of the law, the primacy process and so forth. We'll see. But this is as direct a threat, Jonathan, as we've had in our history. Let's not kid ourselves. This is as frontal an assault on the rule of law,

on American democracy. Donald Trump is violating essentially what I would call the cardinal tenet of a democracy, which is that we all have the obligations to put the country before our party or our person. And what he is doing, what he did and what he is doing is he continues to violate that cardinal obligation of a democracy. So he's on trial. But in the funny sort of way, we're on trial because there's a legal process here. But ultimately, there's a political process. And the question is, what prevails?

Joe, let's put that calendar back up for a moment. I mean, that is an extraordinary calendar. You know, we've sort of just become so inert to everything and immersed and all. Just take a look at that. I mean, that's a man running to be president of the United States. Look what his next year or so looks like. You've got an arraignment today. Potential Georgia, we'll call it a likely Georgia indictment coming later this month.

Maybe a debate. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't show up. But just go down the list. And then once you get into the caucuses and the primaries, he's going to be hopscotching between states where he's trying to win an election and to courtrooms up and down the East Coast. Yeah, I mean, it really is unbelievable. And they're getting ready in Georgia.

Yeah, getting ready. They've got the barriers up and the sheriff is speaking out. Talking about he'll be treated like anybody else, going to get a mugshot. That's a Georgia indictment, possibly serious possible mugshot before the first GOP presidential debate with with several other indictments before him. It's really something. But if you look at that, if you look at that schedule, if you look at that calendar, Richard, you know, you've you have written a book and you've expressed concerns about how we've met the enemy and the enemy is ourselves. I would I would only say, though, again, you look at the thousand people arrested for the January 6th riots, a 500 that are in jail now. You look at the fact that the most powerful guy in the country of for for 40 years is now facing justice. I would say that's quite a confirmation that here it looks at least for now that no man is above the law. That sends a very clear message

to our friends and enemies alike. It does. And so far in that sense, so good. It's terrible that we've reached this point, but it's impressive that the center is held, if you will, the political and legal system, Joe, has held. But, you know, it ain't over till it's over. We'll we'll we'll see how it plays out and get into something that Jonathan was referring to. You know, we're used to seeing this thing in other countries, this kind of illiberalism, the idea of basically what Donald Trump represents here is an American strongman. In Latin America, the old phrase was cordilio. That is what we're seeing here. And the real question is whether we will let him get away with it. We, the juries, and we ultimately the voters. So I think in a funny sort of we know who he is what we don't yet know is who we are and it's on us to find out well we know who the majority of

us are but he has a lot of powerful powerful supporters and a lot of his supporters have powerful platforms and they're still out there and they're still doing what they're doing even today well i mean come on let's let's let's face it. He's got one powerful platform that has generated so much of this reality that we now live in. You look at a recent poll, 91 percent of Fox News viewers don't believe he did anything wrong. That's because they're plugged into it. They see it every day. And, well, we will let other people pass their judgments on whether that's a good thing for Western democracy.

They want him to show up at the debate more than they want to cover the story. Yeah. Because they have the debate. Right. And they want those ratings. And that's Donald Trump's ploy on this entire country. A ploy for ratings and going to businesses and going to people who feel left out and appealing to them and getting their support, crowd size ratings. That's a sweet spot. And that's how he gets

people under his. You left out the most important thing for him, money. He wants money. And I will say yesterday we were talking about the two hundred and fifty billion, two hundred and fifty million dollars that he stole from people for for the quote, stop the steal effort. I think Jack Smith's got to circle back around. That's a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker scheme. That's a Steve Bannon scheme on a large scale. I suspect we're going to be seeing more of that. But Richard is right. We've seen this in Venezuela with the strongmen. We've seen it now in former democracies like Hungary. That's now an illiberal democracy with Orban, started to move that direction in Poland. Poland appears to be

pulling back. We're seeing it right now in Israel. That is very depressing to see what Benjamin Netanyahu is doing to that democracy right now. And we're seeing a battle for democracy and Western values right now in the United States. We'll see how it plays out. Richard Haass, thank you so much. Thank you, Richard.