Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/4/23

Episode Date: August 4, 2023

Trump pleads not guilty to new charges

Ultimately, what President Trump said is, let's go with option D. Let's just halt. Let's just pause the voting and allow the state legislatures to take one last look and make a determination as to whether or not the elections were handled fairly. That's constitutional law. That's not an issue of criminal activity. Well, that's actually an admission. You can say something is not criminal, but that doesn't make it true. That's Donald Trump's attorney in the 2020 election case,

seeming to admit that the former president did exactly what he is accused of doing. All he wanted to do is impede the counting of electoral votes. All he wanted to do is impede a process that's, well, it's stated there in the Constitution. That's all he wanted. All he, like a bankrupt, all he wanted to do is rob a bank. Take all the money. I mean, this is exactly what he's charged for. And he admitted it. Yeah.

You know, watching Mr. Loro and political defenders like Lindsey Graham, we'll talk about him in a minute, attempt to defend Donald Trump over the last couple of days. It's clear they don't have a lot to work with. Mr. Loro is a real attorney, unlike some of the other attorneys that Mr. Trump's had around him. He was a prosecutor. And if he can't seem to come up with a cogent theory of the case of why Donald Trump was acting legally around the 2020 election in the days leading up to January 6, because the evidence in that indictment, the allegations in that indictment are so overwhelming. They're hopscotching around, hoping to find something, but nothing's hitting yet.

Well, then, of course, but nothing's hitting yet. Well, and of course, they're not going to fight anything illegally because they're boxed in illegally. They're going to lose illegally. So what they're trying to do is trying to create something for Chinese religious cults that run conspiracy websites that maybe will catch hold and trial balloons catch hold on on Fox News and other networks where they can create an alternative set of facts. So, of course, none of this, none of this has anything to do with defending Donald Trump legally. Because, again, he can he started out talking about the First Amendment. OK, that's fine. It's something that you would do if you were in a political debate. But legally, he knows that holds no water

because, again, at the top of the indictment, what do we have? We have Jackson saying, hey, anybody's free to say what they want to say about the election, even if they want to lie that it was rigged. That's his First Amendment right. That's taken away in the first couple of paragraphs.

So they started by talking about the First Amendment. That doesn't hold water. And it's such a stupid argument if you actually read this indictment, which a lot of people in Fox News don't. They doodle on it. You know why? Because they don't want to read it. And the Wall Street Journal editorial page today, shameful, shameful. It makes me sad. It's the editorial page I've been reading all my life. They go full and you never go full Trump. If you're on the Wall Street editorial page, they went full Trump today. You never go full Trump. They blame it on the Democrats and they are not really, you're not going to believe this. They say Joe Biden's old. They say Joe Biden's old. So you've got all of this

going on. And then you get Lindsey Graham, who's a lawyer, saying, I don't trust juries now. So here you have people who said, we don't trust American democracy after Donald Trump loses. And now Fox, some of these people in Fox News, Lindsey Graham, some Republicans are now saying we don't trust the jury system. We don't trust American democracy because Trump lost. And we don't trust the jury system because Donald Trump stole nuclear secrets and he's being held to account for it. And Donald Trump tried to steal an election that they all know he tried to steal. And Lindsey Graham even said, I'm off this train. And then the three people in the hound dog chased him around Washington National Reagan Airport. And he goes, OK, well, I'm back on the train.

And it's just it's so bizarre, man. It's so bizarre. They're willing to trash every American institution for a guy that's never been loyal to them. Lindsey Graham said yesterday that Donald Trump can't get a fair trial in Washington because of the jury pool in Washington. Remember, in the E. Jean Carroll case, the defamation case, when that was decided, Marco Rubio said the jury system is a joke. Another lawyer saying the jury system in the United States is a joke. This is the way it works. You're tried in the place where you're alleged to have committed a crime. As E. Jean Carroll's attorney pointed out to us later on Morning Joe, those jurors were not from Chelsea and Tribeca. Some of them were from Manhattan, but they were from other places around New York. It's how the jury system works. But what you're hearing is fear from those politicians that if they don't rally to Donald Trump's defense, even on this, even after reading

this indictment, that they're going to lose. They're going to lose his voters and they might lose their own power. But after reading this week, after reading people who work for Donald Trump, page after page after page of testimony, people that Donald Trump brought in to his inner circle, people that Donald Trump selected for cabinet members as his White House counsel, all saying the same thing that Donald Trump tried to steal the election. Even after that, what is worth it for these people? What is it worth for the Graham to try to excuse an attempted coup? What's that worth? I just I must say, sometimes, Mika, you get frustrated because politically I'm too pragmatic. Right. I bend over backwards too hard to understand too many people's views and it frustrates you.

I've got to say, in this case, I there's no getting this. I've been a member of Congress. It's it's not worth this. It's not worth betraying your country. It's not worth turning a blind eye to a coup. It's not worth going to the best schools in America, getting one of the best editorial jobs in America, reading this and knowing better and trying to blame Donald Trump's attempted coup attempt? On Democrats that want to use this in an election? On the Biden crime family?

On Joe Biden being old? Come on, man. You're better than that. I know. Because I know you, because I've been reading your work my whole life, because I served with some of you in Congress through difficult times. You're better than this. Don't listen to me. Don't listen to the Washington Post or the New York Times or MSNBC or CNN. Don't listen to podcasts. Just listen to the people who worked for Donald Trump, the people that Donald Trump selected himself, the defendant's vice president,

who personally stood to remain in office and gain by the defendant's ticket, whom the defendant wanted him to rig the election. Mike Pence refused to the senior leaders of the Justice Department who stood to gain. They wouldn't have been acting attorney generals in the first term or the second. They would have been the attorney general. They would have run the Justice Department if only they had gone along with Donald Trump's lie. Senior White House attorneys, the people who defended him when he used his office,

when he used his office to ignore Congress's authorization of weapons to Ukraine. He said, no, no, Dzylinski, you need to give me dirt on my political opponent or I'm not sending you the weapons. They defended him through that. But here, every senior White House attorney told him he was wrong, that he could not overturn the election and he needed to leave. Senior staffers on his reelection campaign. I mean, come on.

This isn't a liberal conspiracy. And you can you can read your Chinese religious cult websites all you want. But you're another're lying to you? You know Kevin McCarthy's lying to you? You know they're all running scared, but scared from what? What are they running from? That's more frightening than an attempted coup against the United States government, where cops were brutalized, four eventually died. of one former reality TV host wanting to maintain power and become an authoritarian leader here in the United States. What's worth that? I'd say nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And yet they continue to march America toward the cliff. Yesterday in Washington, D.C., for the first time ever, a former president of the United States was arraigned for his alleged efforts to subvert American democracy. Just a few blocks away from where he took the oath of office and from where his supporters carried out an unprecedented act of violence just a few years later, Donald Trump pleaded not guilty to four felony charges stemming from his actions after the 2020 election. The charges, 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. No cameras were allowed in the courtroom yesterday, where only around 100 people were present. Trump in a blue suit and red tie was seated about 10 feet away from the man leading the prosecution against him, Special Counsel Jack Smith.

When the former president's lawyers introduced themselves to the magistrate judge, they referred to their client as President Trump. The judge then referred back to him as Mr. Trump, a reminder that everyone is equal in the court of law. The former president himself spoke only a few times, mostly to acknowledge he was aware of his rights. He was asked to state his name and age, to which he responded, Donald J. Trump, John, and seven, seven. Most of the arraignment typical in nature, but before Trump agreed to the conditions of his release, the judge did give him an unusual

warning. She reminded Trump that it is a crime to try to influence a juror to threaten or bribe a witness or to retaliate against someone providing information to prosecutors. When asked if he understood that violating those terms could result in his bond being revoked, the former president said simply, yes. Let's bring in the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico and author of The Big Lie, Jonathan Lemire, former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent, Ken Delanian and founder of the conservative website, The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes. Good morning to you all. Ken, I want to begin with you because you were at the courthouse in a room, not inside the courtroom, but in an adjoining overflow room. Tell us more about what

took place inside the courtroom and the relationship 20 feet or so apart between Jack Smith and Donald Trump in that room. Good morning, Willie. Yeah, that was my one advantage from watching on video in the media overflow room is that I could see Jack Smith's face. The reporters in the courtroom were behind him. And I watched Jack Smith, who was sitting behind his prosecution team in the first row, as Donald Trump entered the courtroom, where every other face turned to point towards the former president, of course. But Jack Smith did not. He stared straight ahead. He made a point of not looking at Donald Trump

as he moved his way towards the defense table and sat down with his lawyers. I thought that was very interesting because there was a lot of observations that Smith seemed to stare down Trump at the arraignment in Miami. He did, of course, look at Trump at other times during the proceeding while he was talking.

Just in general, this was, I thought, a much more sober and serious and even tense atmosphere at this arraignment than the one down in Miami. Down in Miami, the magistrate judge there was pretty loose, was making jokes. And the other interesting thing is that Donald Trump didn't say a word at the arraignment in Miami. His lawyer answered on his behalf and pled not guilty. Yesterday, Donald Trump was essentially questioned, even grilled by Magistrate Mokchila Upadhyay, asking him the standard questions that you would ask a defendant, you know, your name, your date of birth,

and then sort of going through the list of charges and the potential penalties, which in some cases are 20 years or more for each count, and then giving him a series of instructions as conditions for release. And the most important one, she said, was that she should not commit any crimes while free. And then, Willie, as you said, that unusual instruction that he should not bribe or intimidate a witness. Well, I talked to lawyers afterwards who said that everything she said in terms of those instructions was standard for a defendant in Washington, D.C., except for that one. They hadn't heard that before. So that was interesting. Also interesting was that the magistrate kept folks waiting, including Mr. Trump, for 20 minutes.

There was a period of sort of stone silence as as the Smith team sat at their table across from Trump and his lawyers at their table. Todd Blanch, one of Trump's lawyers, appeared to be conferring with Mr. Trump, reading what looked like the indictment and possibly explaining the indictment to Mr. Trump. He seemed, you know, he seemed animated and inquisitive. People in the courtroom said that he was looser, perhaps, than the last one. When he was asked his name, he, you know, Donald J. Trump. Then he added John. Ask his age. He said seven, seven, seventy seven. But look, the upshot here was that this is Washington, D.C. This is different from Florida. I've covered trials and criminal cases in that courtroom and other courtrooms that look exactly like it. And for me, it was bracing. It was jarring to see the former president sitting at the defense table in that courtroom. Next hearing scheduled for August the 28th,

just over three weeks from now, when a trial date will be set. There'll be a lot of haggling and negotiating back and forth about when that'll be. That's obviously critical to see whether it'll get in and completed before the election. So, Joyce Vance, I want to ask you about that admonition from the judge that Ken just mentioned. We should underline it again. She told Donald Trump it is a crime to try to influence a juror to threaten or bribe a witness or to retaliate against someone providing information to prosecutors. Did that strike you as unusual, too? You know, it is. It's very unusual, Willie. is when I prosecuted someone who had firebombed the house of a witness coming very close to

injuring small children as part of the activity in a very violent drug organization. And in that instance, the judge did admonish the defendant at arraignment, not only that you can have your bond revoked and go back into custody if you commit new crimes, that part is standard, but talked with him specifically about taking any action against witnesses against him. And so what comes to mind when you see a judge doing this with Donald Trump is she's a good judge. She's being very careful.

If she gets to a point down the road where there's a hearing about revoking Trump's bond, she wants it on the record that she gave very specific advice, that there could be no efforts to try to influence witnesses, jurors, anyone else involved in the case. She was dotting her I's and crossing her T's. So let me ask Joyce really quickly. I'm just curious. And I'm just curious. Donald Trump hears that from the judge. He then goes out and he, you know, he says his process is like it's a scam. You know, his usual witch hunt scam, stuff like that. I don't know how judges, federal judges in Alabama would respond to that where you practice. But where I practiced in Northwest

Florida, I suspect Judge Collier or Judge Vincent would throw my client in jail and call me in and dress me down and say, so you have a client that I admonish in my courtroom. He walks outside and says, I'm conducting a witch hunt here. I'm going to let him sit in jail until you can go in. And I can tell you, at least in Northwest Florida, the judges would then look at me and say, counsel, if you can't control your client, you might better get off the case because if he says it again, I'm going to put you in jail. Now, I think for people that practice in northwest Florida, that's not that much of a stretch. I mean, so I'm really surprised that any defendant is allowed to say that a judge is conducting a witch hunt and that the entire judicial system is a scam.

So, Joe, your courts in what we call lower Alabama and my courts in Alabama, I think look very, you know, they're not pleased by this kind of behavior. I also have the benefit of having started my career as a lawyer in Washington and practiced in front of these courts where they do offer a little bit more room to ramble for defendants in these sorts of political cases. And here's the reason. I don't think any of us will like the reason, but it's something that exists. Donald Trump, who's now Mr. Trump in court, is still a candidate to be president of the United States. And in the course of his campaign for that office, he has certain First Amendment rights. I think what the judges will do here is they will stand well back from the line where there could be any sort of litigation over whether they violated his rights.

But I think that there's still a line there that Trump cannot cross. And this sort of rhetoric that we're all used to him, you know, expressing about witch hunts, that might cost him some jurors. If this case goes to trial during the Vordire process, there may well be witnesses who will be influenced by his comments and who will not be able to set aside what they've heard come out of the former president's mouth. He may lose some witnesses he would have liked to have had on that jury. So some of the officers who helped defend the Capitol during the January 6th insurrection were present for former President Trump's arraignment yesterday. One of them, Officer Harry Dunn, who joins us now. He is the recipient of the Presidential Citizens Medal for his exemplary contributions to our democracy surrounding January 6th. He's also the author of the forthcoming book entitled Standing My Ground, which will be released

this October. Officer Dunn, your reflections after watching this unfold yesterday. Hey, good morning, y'all. Thank you for having me on. Yesterday, I didn't expect much. I didn't expect to find any new evidence or any revelations, but it was refreshing, if you will, so to speak, to see the president, the former president, treated like any other criminal who violates the law sitting in that courtroom going through the judicial process. You know, this obviously must have stirred some real emotions in you yesterday watching this, what it has impacted you personally. Just tell us a little bit about how you felt. There's certainly no closure here yet. You know, this trial is going to go on for

months, if not longer. But just in this particular moment, tell us what it meant to you. Yeah, it did evoke a few emotions, physical ones, too. I noticed I got an alert on my smartwatch, and my heart rate was up over 100 beats a minute. It was shortly after he walked in the courtroom, just seeing him just stirred up some feelings and emotions. But like you said, it isn't closure. I wish it would have happened. I said that he should have been arrested or charged or investigated on January 7th. But no, it's not closure, but it is a necessary step to get that closure. You know, accountability is being held accountable for your actions, which that is being happening now. That's happening now. But justice is, looks to me, justice looks like a guilty verdict.

Officer Dunn, good morning. It's great to have you back with us. You and some of your fellow officers, I know it's not easy. It's probably not something you choose to do, but you have been coming out publicly and reminding, importantly, reminding the country about what happened on that day because there have been so many efforts by Trump and his followers to change the story and to say, no, actually, what you saw isn't what happened. We know what happened. You know what happened from the inside. So I would ask you, apart from what we saw yesterday, how are you doing? How are your fellow officers doing now, two and a half years on since January 6th? Well, hey, Willie, good to talk to you. But think about it though, like one of the reasons, you know, for me speaking out is therapeutic. It helps me get my feelings, get my emotions out.

But also, like you said, people are trying to whitewash what happened and trying to act like what we went through wasn't real. And as long as that happens, you know, as that's continued to happen, we have to continue to speak out and push back against it. You know, silence is complicit, complicity. You know, we have to have individuals that are willing to tell the truth about what happened and not just bystanders in democracy. Like, democracy isn't a spectator sport. And we need people out there telling the truth about what happens, especially while there's so many people that are saying that what happened on January 6th didn't really happen. But as far as how I'm doing, I don't want to speak for all of my officers or all of my coworkers, but, you know, some individuals have shared with me that this is a triggering experience

and they want it to be over with. I think a lot of people do. Everybody expresses the sentiment that they want it over with. I mean, hell, I do too. But the sentiment that they want it over with. I mean, hell, I do, too. But here we are. We're moving slow, but we're moving and it needs to be done. All right. Officer Harry Dunn, thank you so much. Greatly appreciate it. Your new. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you so much for your service. We greatly appreciate it. And this new book, Standing My Ground, is going to be released this October. I want to show you the reaction

from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham to Trump's latest indictment on Wednesday ahead of the former president's appearance in court. Any conviction in D.C. against Donald Trump is not legitimate. So they're accusing, they're charging him with the crime of taking bad legal advice. That's what this is about. They're trying to criminalize the attorney-client relationship. They're trying to criminalize exercising of the First Amendment. The judge in this case hates Trump. You could convict Trump of kidnapping Lindbergh's baby in D.C.

You need to have a change of venue. We need a new judge and we need to win in 2024 to stop this crazy crap. I mean, it is so disgusting. Lindsay knows better. He obviously knows better, but he's slandering the judge. He's he's attacking the jury system. And it's very interesting. The judge who's going to actually be overseeing the case was unanimously confirmed by the Senate in 2013 by a vote of 95. Unanimous to zero. She was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. And again, just like the Republicans used to defend the FBI, they were the ones defending the FBI against attacks from progressives. The second the FBI actually investigated Donald Trump.

Well, suddenly they hate the FBI. Suddenly they hate the military. They hate military leaders. They slander the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. We can go on and on. Charlie Sykes, you know, Marco Rubio slandered, you know, attacked the jury system. Now, Lindsey Graham's attacking the jury. We know and they know the bedrock, the bedrock of our judicial system. We the people. That's how Madison had it set up. And Applebaum wrote this yesterday. If the Republican Party responds to the Trump indictment solely by attacking courts and judges and its leaders continue to work to delegitimize the legal system.

I'm not sure how we recover. Well, I just let's let's make this very simple for people, Charlie. Our former party from Election Day 2020 through January the 6th trashed American democracy, told Americans and the world you can't trust fair and free elections if our side doesn't win. Fox News paid like close to a billion dollars for the lies that they spread about the election. And they're going to probably have to pay close to another billion dollars. We turn the page. What lesson is learned from that? Absolutely nothing, because now they're trashing the judicial system, which I would say is, you know, it's it's almost it's Madison's like crown jewel. It's the great leveler

of Madisonian democracy. But now they're trashing that again for Donald Trump. Do you agree with Ann here? I might be a little extreme for me, but she says, I'm not sure how we recover. I know Mika does. No, go ahead. I know I could not agree more strongly with what Ann Applebaum is saying. You know, yes, what what Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio are saying is pathetic and it is same old, same old. But it's also and I think this is what we need to pause for a moment. This is dangerous. What you are seeing is a full on attack on the legitimacy of the constitutional order. They are attacking the FBI. They are attacking the Justice Department. They are

attacking the judges. They are attacking the juries. They are saying that the actions of these the juries and the judges are illegitimate. What does that mean? Where do you go with that when you basically have knocked over all of the props of the rule of law? Now, they may not be sitting around saying, OK, we are going to be rejecting, you know, James Madison's design here. But I mean, this is where their hackery has led them. And it is dangerous because if in fact, you know, some of this rhetoric that you're seeing now, you know, the Biden regime or the FBI is the Gestapo. I mean, keep in mind, this goes beyond demonization because you don't argue with with the Gestapo. You don't litigate with the Gestapo. You go to war against the Gestapo. So the question is, if you doubt the legitimacy of the government,

what do you think that people out in the country are going? How do you think they're going to react to all that? So this is very Charlie. Charlie, let me let me follow up on that, too. Yesterday, we get the news out of New Hampshire that I guess it was this weekend. You actually had the number two Republican saying that he was going to go after the bureaucracy by, quote, slitting their throats, slitting the throats of bureaucrats. This is what Ron DeSantis said. You have the most senior member of the Republican Party in the United States Senate talking. Yeah, hold on. Talking about how IRS agents are going to go to his home state and with AR-15s and gun down middle class business people.

I mean, this this has become such a violent party with such violent rhetoric. Well, let's let's listen to DeSantis really quickly and have you respond. All these deep state people, you know, we're going to start slitting throats on day one and be ready to go. I mean, where again, I was saying before, I don't I don't understand what's worth trashing the rule of law, what's worth trashing American democracy. I just I guess I don't I can't even imagine how our party got to a point where a front runner guy in second place would say, I'm going after the deep state and I'm going to start slitting throats on my first day in office. This is fascism, is it not? Well, look, it's not just a race to the bottom. I wrote a piece, I think, for MSNBC a few months ago saying the brutality is the point. And there is this contest now among Republicans, not just, you know, it's not just the cruelty is the point,

it's the brutality is the point. You listen to and it is if there is a contest of who can be the toughest, who can be the most savage. Are we going to put drug dealers up against the wall and shoot them the day that they are convicted? You know, Donald Trump wants to put spikes on the top of the border wall. Rhonda Sanders comes in, says, you know, hold my beer. I will actually slit throats on my first day in office. And I think it's not just the it's not just the I guess it's the crudity. And it is the appeal to this visceral sense of we are not in a normal democratic order. We need to destroy our enemies because they are evil. And we're going to use the most violent means necessary.

So, again, there is always the danger of being numbed by this. But this is dangerous, particularly when you have tens of millions of people out there who are listening to this and are trying to figure out how do you respond? How do you respond to the Gestapo? How do you respond to an illegitimate regime? What do we think is going to happen next year if this continues? And Willie, the consequences. I mean, you talk about how I.R. agents are I.R.A. R.A. R.A. R.S. agents are going to be coming to hometown used in Afghanistan and bring them to the United States to gun down Trump supporters? That the FBI is coming to kick down doors armed to go after Trump supporters? This is all a calculated campaign.

And my God, it sounds like it's a calculated campaign to whip up civil war, to create to create a civil war where no civil war exists. And that's some perception of toughness, I guess, or masculinity or whatever. Ron DeSantis, who in a recent poll trails Donald Trump by 43 points. So I think trying to be the mini version of Donald Trump isn't quite working for him. But in some way, that's their vision of toughness. And I guess they see Donald Trump doing it and they figure it's been working for him for eight years. So maybe I'll try this on as well. But Jonathan Lemire, obviously, that kind of stuff and a whole bunch of government organizations and unions came out and condemned that rhetoric from Governor DeSantis because he

said it before. It's a line he uses out there. We're going to slit the throats of members of the deep state saying it figuratively. We know. But obviously, that kind of stuff, that that culture, that language of violence can lead to real violence, which is what we're talking about, why Donald Trump was in a courtroom yesterday. Yeah, we saw it happen. Trump, of course, has used violent rhetoric since his 2016 campaign, talking about Second Amendment people and Second Amendment solutions when invoking Hillary Clinton. At times, he's endorsed acts of violence at his rallies. We know, of course, he stirred up the crowd on January 6th

with a tweet about it being wild. We know about his call out to the Proud Boys. Stand back and stand by. Of course, he stirred up the crowd on January 6th with a tweet about it being wild. We know about his call out to the Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. This is something that has real life consequences. It wouldn't just be January 6th. We have known that, as we've discussed on the show, that there are municipalities across this country who are having a hard time finding election volunteers, finding poll workers because of the threats they have received from Trump and his allies, Rudy Giuliani in particular, in years past. And just last week,

I spoke to some White House officials before this indictment came down, but it was anticipated. And they talked about how they've had to coordinate with federal and law enforcement, state law enforcement about the rise in political violence that could be coming before next year's election. And this sort of rhetoric just adds fuel to those fires that are already burning, that are already simmering. And there's a real fear of an explosion again next year. And Joe and Mika, I talked to some senior law enforcement just last week. The number one threat in this country right now is domestic extremism and the idea of political violence could be on the horizon. Absolutely. Joyce Vance, given the guidance that the judge gave to Donald Trump, American citizen in the courtroom, equal under the law, what about his behavior? Might he need to curb if If you were his attorney,

what might you tell him to change in the days and weeks to come? So if I was his attorney, I would be in the unfortunate position of telling him he had to stop talking publicly about all of the cases against him, three, maybe four by the end of the next couple of weeks. And I think something that we know at this point it's baked in is that Trump will not stop. He is constitutionally incapable of keeping his mouth shut, even when it's his own best strategy. So look, his lawyers are going to be fighting a losing battle. On the one hand, they're facing very serious charges, and they get worse every time Trump opens his mouth. I promise you that when the prosecution closes in a jury trial, they will play many of Trump's own words. They will have, you know, posters that will depict his social media expressions because he seems to be engaged. And we've talked about this for this before in this long, slow process of confessing in public.

And much of the case against him comes out of his own mouth. Kindleian, give us a time frame. What's your best guess from reporting and also people you talked to yesterday at the courthouse and throughout the day about the time frame for this trial. When do we expect this this trial to begin? Joe, it was very clear from that arraignment that this judge, Chania Chutkan, wants to get this case to trial, as does prosecutor Jack Smith, and that the Trump side's strategy is going to be delay, delay, delay. So the magistrate judge presented, for example, three dates for the next hearing in the case, August 21st, August 22nd, and August 28th. Wow.

Jack Smith's team stood up and said, we want the soonest date available, please, Your Honor. Of course, Donald Trump's lawyer, John Lauro, said we'd like August 28th. He won the day because the magistrate has to defer to the schedule of the defense attorney who has other clients in other cases. But that was an example. And then they immediately started arguing about, you know, prosecutors said, look, our intention here is to seek a speedy trial. And John Loro stood up and said, wait a second, we need to understand what the scope of the discovery is. And there's a lot of reasons for delay. So you can already see it. It's going to be that's going to be the huge issue in this trial is Trump trying to delay it. But a lot of legal experts I've talked to think that this is a streamlined case

with one defendant without the complexities of the classified documents that you have down in Florida, so that it's very feasible with the right judge who's interested in moving the case along to get this trial, get this case to trial before the November election and perhaps even before next summer. It's an average of a year and a half in D.C. for a complex case to go to trial. But there's every interest, at least on the prosecution side, and it appears by the judge to get this case moving, guys. NBC's Ken Delaney and former U.S. attorney Joyce Vance, thank you both very much for coming in this morning. And Charlie Sykes, thank you as well. And still ahead on Morning Joe,

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy falsely compares Donald Trump's stolen election claims to actions taken by Hillary Clinton and Al Gore after they lost their own presidential races. Why do they lie through their teeth when they know there's video to show they're lying? Because they have platforms they can go on where nobody holds them accountable. That's why. They let them lie?

Yes, they let them lie and they don't ask any questions and they just can spew lies as long as they want to millions of people. They have a platform to do it. They don't play the videotape that shows actually that they're lying through their teeth. They're never held accountable. That's where we're at. Plus, Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis weighs in on the status of her years long investigation into election interference in Georgia. What she's saying about any possible impact from the special counsel's probe. Also ahead, as former President Trump was in court, President Biden was on vacation.

We'll talk about that split screen between two men who could very well face off next year. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Oh, no. Burning down. Development this morning out of Southern California, where two Navy sailors are under arrest, accused of providing sensitive national security information to China. NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell has details. The Justice Department says the two Navy sailors have each been arrested for selling military secrets to China. Sensitive military information ended up in the hands of the People's Republic of China. The first defendant, 22-year-old Jinchao Wei, faces espionage charges. Wei sent national defense information to China, including documents, photos, videos, and technical manuals.

In exchange, his intelligence officer paid Wei thousands of dollars. Authorities say Wei, a machinist made on the USS Essex in San Diego, sent the Chinese intelligence officer photos of military hardware and vehicles and divulged information about warfare exercises. The second person charged in a separate case, 26-year-old petty officer Wenhang Zhao from a naval base in Ventura County, California. Federal authorities allege Zhao received approximately $15,000 from a Chinese intelligence officer in exchange for sharing

operational plans, Navy movements, and blueprints for a radar system at a U.S. military base in Okinawa, Japan. In short, Mr. Zhao chose a path of corruption. The indictments come amid heightened fears about China-based cyber espionage, with Microsoft reporting that Chinese-backed hackers broke into the email accounts of State and Commerce Department employees, including the Secretary of Commerce. Andrea Mitchell reporting for us there. Coming up on Morning Joe. We're now learning what was and what was not discussed between Hunter Biden's business associate, Devin Archer,

and then Vice President Biden. The transcript of Archer's closed door interview with the House Oversight Committee was released yesterday. We'll go through it, show you how it contradicts what Republicans like Committee Chair James Comer have been saying. We're back in a moment. You believe that this is now officially the Joe Biden bribery allegation? And do you believe that you will be able to prove that, Jim Comer? I sure hope so. And I do believe that there's a lot of smoke and where there's smoke, there's fire. We just heard testimony today that Joe Biden had lied to the American people. I sure hope so.

That was the chair of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, on Monday, claiming there's a lot of smoke regarding. They're blowing the smoke in and then they're saying there's a lot of smoke. Regarding Hunter Biden's business dealings. It's their smoke, actually. And whether Joe Biden was involved. He said that just hours after the committee received closed door testimony from Hunter Biden's former business partner, Devin Archer. But as we learned from Democratic committee member Dan Goldman, Archer may have actually contradicted Comer's point. And yesterday, the transcript of that closed door interview was released, confirming Goldman's account. It turns out Archer told the House Oversight Committee that he has no knowledge

of Joe Biden altering policy to benefit Hunter. Archer also said he was present for roughly 20 instances of Hunter putting his father on speakerphone in the presence of business associates. Archer said none of the conversations focused on business and that they talked about things like fishing and the weather. Let's bring in right now senior congressional reporter for NBC News, Scott Wong, who's covering the release transcript. Also with us, Washington Post opinion editor and writer Alexi McCammon. Congratulations on your new role. It's fantastic. So this is really something, Scott.

We have the Republicans going out crowing. Oh, we've got him. We've got him. And it's sort of like what we were talking about earlier in the show, saying things that the transcript proved to be wrong. Go into the transcript and the so-called smoke around all of this. Good morning, guys. 141 pages of transcript were released by James Comer, the GOP chairman, yesterday.

It just so happens that it happened on just hours before Donald Trump was arraigned in federal court, as we all witnessed. And so Democrats believe that this was really rushed out, that this was an attempt to distract from Trump being in court. Here's what we know so far, that upon reading through this transcript, Devin Archer testified to lawmakers that he had no knowledge that Joe Biden had committed any wrongdoing. He was pressed several times on that point, and that was a huge takeaway. Furthermore, as you just mentioned, he, Devin Archer said that he had no knowledge or evidence

that Joe Biden had changed policy, that he was impacted at all or changed U.S. policy based on things that his son had done. And so that really has undercut this argument from Republicans like James Comer, like Jim Jordan, that that there was some impropriety or wrongdoing or illegality on the part of then Vice President Joe Biden. Hunter Biden is an entirely different question. He, of course, very clearly was trying to trade on the Biden name. Archer said that multiple times, that he was portraying this appearance or, quote, an illusion of, you know, of influence. And so that was something that was that was very clearly stated by Archer that Hunter Biden was trying to impress his employer, Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company, but that

no evidence of impropriety was committed by Joe Biden. Scott, good morning. This was presented, this interview with Devin Archer by Republicans and by some media outlets as a smoking gun, almost that we've got him here. He is Hunter Biden on the phone with Joe Biden. We've made the connection. And as you read through this transcript and I've been reading along as well, it says just the opposite, which is that they ask him leading question after leading question. So there were phone calls to Joe Biden. And again and again, Devin Archer answers, well, yes, there were because Joe Biden calls Hunter Biden every day. They talk. Sometimes that would be at dinner. He put him on speakerphone and he said it was about geography, weather, wherever the vice

president happened to be at that moment, traveling somewhere and says explicitly it was never about business. So was there anything just to be fair here? Was there anything, as you read through the transcript, that looked like it did, in fact, connect connect Joe Biden to Hunter Biden and his business dealings? No, Archer was pressed several times by both Republicans and Democrats about those roughly 20 instances over the course of the 10 year relationship between Archer and Hunter Biden, where Hunter Biden would be hanging out at dinners or hotel rooms with business associates around the globe. And, you know, because he spoke to his father on a daily basis, would oftentimes put his father on speakerphone. He was asked specifically, was business ever discussed? Was official business ever discussed? Anything related to Burisma? And the answer always came back from Archer. Absolutely not. They were, as we have discussed, talk about the weather. How's the weather in Paris? How's the weather, you know, wherever Hunter Biden happened to be? very clearly established from Devin Archer that there was no business ever discussed. However, Republicans continue to insist that this is somehow evidence that Joe Biden was

deeply involved in the business dealings. But again, no business was discussed, according to Devin Archer. Hey, Alexi, Jonathan, congrats again on the new gig. So as Scott just mentioned, there was a sense that the Republicans maybe even rushed out this transcript here to sort of deflect from the attention of what's happening with Donald Trump and another example, perhaps, of them doing Trump's bidding. So I was curious as to what you're hearing there, because about a week ago, Speaker McCarthy started talking about an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, then seemed to tap the brakes on it. But then Trump at his last rally suggested, hey, full steam ahead. Walk us through that balancing act where McCarthy is so reluctant

to ever defy Trump, but he himself has acknowledged there's no evidence there. And some moderate Republicans are saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, you're going to put us in a really bad situation. And to your point, it's not even just the moderate Republicans anymore. It's the far right folks like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is now conceding that it would be difficult to get many of her colleagues on board to actually move forward with an impeachment proceeding against President Biden. often in wondering whether he cares about Republicans keeping the House in 2024, because so far he seems singularly focused on helping Donald Trump win the primary and get reelected. And as you just alluded to, there are something like 18 Republicans who hold seats in districts that Joe Biden won by healthy margins across the country. These extreme, really baseless claims that Joe Biden is corrupt is not going to work in districts like that. Impeachment proceedings are a drag on the American people. We've seen that in poll after poll. And Republicans, as we see time and again, they're having a really hard

time running against themselves. They can't run against their own record because they're not doing much for the American people. They don't want to run against Donald Trump because of all the problems that he has. And so they're trying to create this boogeyman out of Joe Biden by way of Hunter Biden. And what's remarkable is that with control of the House, they've created this committee to explore the weaponization of government. And yet there are zero facts that they should otherwise be so willing to share, you know, every single day. But they can't present the facts because they can't find them. They can't find them on Hunter Biden. And they they and if they could, they would tell us. The Washington Post's Alexi McCammond and NBC's Scott Wong,

thank you both very much for being on this morning.