Morning Joe - Sen. Lisa Murkowski to vote NO on Blanche nomination

Episode Date: August 7, 2026

August 7, 2026 – 6am: Iran latest: Oman, Tehran reach agreement on Strait of Hormuz, demands commitment from U.S. before Strait reopens “Behind the Curtain: Trump’s Quicksand”: Jim VandeHei discusses the latest piece he co-authored for AXIOS Jake Sherman shares his exclusive sit-down interview with Trump for Punchbowl News Sen. Lisa Murkowski to vote NO on Blanche nomination Graeme Wood discusses his latest piece for The Atlantic, “What happened to Al-Qaeda?” To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

The sun coming up over Washington at 6 a.m. on a Friday morning in August. Good morning. Welcome to morning, Joe. It is Friday, August 7th. I'm Willie Geist. Joe and Mika off this morning. A lot to get to, including the deal between Iran and Oman to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. We'll go through what reportedly is in that agreement. President Trump, meanwhile, is pushing back on reported munitions shortages after five months of war with Iran. Also, I had a big question ahead of the midterm. for Republicans, will the president's MAGA base show up to the polls without Trump on the ballot? Jake Sherman, the Punch Bowl News, joins us with a look at his new conversation with the president. And a busy day on Capitol Hill, the Senate has a long to-do list before it leaves town for more than a month. That includes a vote on Todd Blanche's nomination for Attorney General. We'll take a look at what actually might happen there with us this hour. The co-host of our 8 a.m. hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, and Lamere, CEO and co-founder of Axios, Jim Van Dhi, and MS now senior Capitol Hill reporter and the host of way too early Ali Vitale.

John, before we dig in, I went to bed. The Red Sox were losing. I exhale. They said, okay, we had the day off. At least we pick up a half a game. I wake up and they came back in one and now we're only a half game behind the Yankees. My God, what is going on in Boston? I am running out of ways to describe this, which is a problem considering what we do for a living.

The Red Sox yesterday were down five to two early and then seven to five. And then they tied it in the ninth, seven, six. They then trailed in the tenth, tied it. They trailed in the 11th, tied it. They trailed in the 12th. Tied it. They won in the 13th. I mean, it is extraordinary what they're doing here.

They used every pitcher in the bullpen. If this game had gone another inning or two, Sully from Framingham was going to have to get a couple innings. And they have now won in their last 36 games, they're 31 and 5. We are just along for the ride. Barnacle and I and Joe, we're on a group chat that is mostly just question marks

at this point because we don't know how else to deal with this. You know, look, they'll cool off at some point. Of course, we still continue to think they're not that good, but man, they're on a run right now. And you're right, Willie. They are now just a half game behind the Yankees as we barrel into the weekend. And we see the ALE standing there.

It is absolutely magical and it defies explanation. Amazing. I mean, even as a Yankee fan, you have to marvel at what's happening. A lot of roads still ahead. We'll see if they can keep it up. But it has been extraordinary. And that concludes our discussion of the Red Sox for this morning. All right, let's get to the news.

Oman, as I mentioned, has agreed to the framework of a deal with Iran to temporarily reopen the Strait of Hormuz. That is, with two Middle East diplomats with knowledge of the negotiations, tell our reporters at MS now. The diplomats did not describe the details or what issues remain unresolved. It's not yet clear whether the United States will support the deal. Iran's top negotiator, meanwhile, has accused President Trump of undertaking theater diplomacy on loop. Earlier this week, Iranian State TV reported the country's deputy foreign minister demanded a list of concessions from the United States,

including ending its naval blockade of Iranian ports, addressing sanctions, and tackling the issue of continued violence. in Lebanon. President Trump was asked by reporters yesterday about any progress toward that potential deal, as well as ongoing reports of munitions shortages. Has it been reached to reopen the street of hernows? Well, I don't want to say it has been. It's sort of open right now. You know, we have a thing called the blockade headed up by the U.S. Navy, and we control it. And now, we control it, but they can always shoot something. They always have something or drop a mine.

and if you have one mine sitting out there, you sort of mess things up because people don't want to take their billion-dollar boats and accidentally get hit by a mine. But I think we're doing very well. I'm involved in the negotiation. I think we're doing fine. It could be said. Fortunately, I built up so much during my term.

I rebuilt the military and also loaded it up with a lot of stuff. We have certain types of munitions that are very powerful. that we have unlimited, virtual unlimited supply. We have others where it's a little bit tighter, and we're getting them in on a daily basis. As you know, our defense companies are building more plants right now than at any point in history. So on that question of munitions, John,

you co-wrote a piece for The Atlantic, along with your colleague, Nancy Yusaf, titled How the U.S. squandered its strategic advantage. It reads in part, after five months of war with Iran, stockpiles of long-range weapons are so low, current and former U.S. defense official told us, they don't believe the U.S. has enough to combat a threat in Asia. The remaining supplies, depending on the munitioner,

as low as 20 percent of what the Pentagon would like to have in hand. President Trump raged at the assessment his national security team gave him at Camp David on Friday, which showed the U.S. military was running low on the munitions that would be necessary for Trump to order an escalation against Iran. Senior administration official familiar with the meeting, told John and Nancy. They go on to write, White House aides are concerned Trump is losing his leverage in the conflict. He has threatened Iran many times, but is rarely followed through.

Tehran knows that. In the five months since the war started, the president has never faced such a weak position. So for all that we heard right there, John, from a president who frankly looks exhausted, maybe bored by this war, would like it to just go away. He's protesting this idea that the United States military is low on munitions. Pete Higgs at protests that publicly defense secretary, but ask anybody else in private or military officials in public, former military officials, they will tell you this is a problem. No question that it is.

President Trump has wanted out of this conflict for months now and is growing increasingly frustrated that he's boxed in with no good options here. And what has been, as we enter now coming up in mid-August, the biggest issue is they're running out of these munitions, particularly these interceptor missiles they use for defense, for military bases in the region there, but they're also around the globe. And some of that was used in the Ukraine comp. They sent some to Europe a couple of years ago. And they've had to use far more than expected here in the Middle East because Iran has had a much greater supply of weapons than the U.S. anticipated. And they've gotten more and more online, including these new very cheap drones

that they've been able to sneak through defenses. And it's a lot, takes a lot less to manufacture a drone. than it does one of these very expensive missiles. So that's part of the thinking here. And look, the White House and Pentagon, as you know, has pushed back against some of this reporting. But within, we talk to officials, we talk to sources, and anyone who has any knowledge of the DOD right now acknowledges this is a significant problem

and it's informing the president's thinking because they have wanted to, they've at least considered escalating the conflict against Iran in recent weeks, trying to punish them, pummel them, thinking that might bring Iran to the negotiating table. But they can't because they're afraid if they strike Iran. Well, Iran's going to strike back and we might not have enough missiles to defend our assets and bases in the region.

Therefore, we've got to hold off. And at least temporarily, it seems like, Willie, sign on to a bad deal in Iran that's going to give Iran far more control over the Strait of Hormuz than we ever would have accepted even a few months ago. So this illustrates the bind that Trump is in that he has no good political options. and frankly is running out of the equipment, the military supplies he needs to think about choosing that avenue as well. And you can hear in the rhetoric that the Iranian regime understands all of this and is kind of calling the president's bluff when he says we're going to attack you and wipe out your civilization or whatever the line of the day is. Let's bring into the conversation, decorated combat veteran and former commander of U.S. Army Europe.

Retired Army Lieutenant General Mark Hurdling. He's an MS now military analyst. General, it's always great to have you with us. So what's your assessment of what you're seeing here? I think to the casual viewer, to the casual American watching this war, assuming the Pentagon has a plan, assuming the Pentagon has stockpiles for whatever the United States may need to do, something for something that didn't expect, perhaps, that pops up around the world. How did it get to this point? Well, it got to the point based on Jonathan and Nancy Yusef's article, where key elements of the U.S. ammunition supplies have been depleted. What's even worse than that, Willie? I'll say that the president and the Secretary of Defense credibility has also been depleted. The U.S. military is not out of ammunition. They are running low on specific types. And those types are the interceptors, the Patriot missiles and the Thad missiles,

which are very expensive, the kinds of things that shoot down cruise missiles and drones that are coming in. They're also becoming shorter on something called the Atacom's missile, which is a ground to ground. It's a deep strike missile, as well as a new missile that the U.S. military has developed over the last couple of years called the Prism, which shoots longer than 300 miles. So what we're talking about are key standoff ammunitions, the kinds of things that allows you to fight deep against an enemy. If you don't have those kind of things, you can't hit enemy targets at a long range. Therefore, the primary mode left is short-range stuff. And that means soldiers becoming involved in battle, Marines becoming involved in battle,

airmen bringing their aircraft closer to the fight, which all basically threatens the U.S. service members. When you're talking about a potential attack into Iran, it is an extremely tough geographic and population-based country. It is three times that we've said this so many times before. It's three times the size of Iraq. or Iraq. It has more of a population. Its territory is not flat sand like Iraq is. It is mountainous. Cities, a 92 million people population. So you're talking about a very tough face-to-face fight

when you can't have the standoff ranges that you would need. The other thing that's important is we are protecting our allies in the region and we've moved a lot of things there. The four soldiers that were killed a couple of weeks ago, the two men and two women. Those two men were from Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with their air defense equipment, the Patriot missiles. The two women were from Germany. They were based in a place where I used to live called Ansbach. They were bringing in stinger missiles, short-range air defense missiles. So you can see that the Iranians have targeted the kinds of things that we need for not only long-range strikes, but also short-range. protection at different bases. And we've lost most of our partners and allies in the regions

because they have all been attacked. Kuwait, Jordan, Oman, the UAE, Dubai. So it would be a very difficult ground fight if we had to do this because you don't have the allies. NATO is not probably going to join us. And even the Gulf states aren't going to join us. And, General, you're certainly right about the alienation that many of our Gulf allies have felt about this. And look, There have been plans on the president's desk since March for ground troops going into Iran, and he and his advisors have, every time, chosen not to do that because of all the costs you just laid out. I want to read you another line from the piece, if I may, and get your reaction to it about the shortage of the interceptors they have.

We write, even when troops see Iranian missiles approaching, they are forced to decide in a matter of seconds whether to expend a limited number of interceptors or simply hope for the best. And if you will, you've obviously been in combat. Explain to those watching at home, just that sort of decision that has been made in seconds, how terrifying and challenging that is. You know, Jonathan, that is a great question, and it is terrifying. When you're looking, I use an example of a patriot, and it can be applied to the FAD missile as well. Those soldiers are looking at a radar screen of incoming missiles or drones. They're seeing a lot of targets, and they're little blue.

lips on the screen, it is somewhat like a video game. If you don't have enough interceptors on the rails, if you don't have enough Patriot missiles on the rails to shoot, you have to decide what am I going to shoot at and what's going to happen with the other inbound. So if Iran, and they have learned this lesson from many years of fighting the Israelis, if Iran says, hey, I'm going to give a swarm of drones interspersed with a bunch of ballistic missiles coming into a target in some location, whether it be a U.S. base or an allied base that has some of these pieces of equipment, the poor people on the ground, the young men and women who are manning those pieces of equipment, have to decide literally in seconds which ones to fire at and how to conserve some of their

ammunition while, like you just said, hoping for the best with the other ones. And the drones, as we've seen in the past, will create quite a bit of damage. You don't want to shoot a, you know, a $200,000 drone, if it's even that expensive, with a $15 million thad missile. That's the dynamic that you have to consider. So you have to hit the right target, and there's a whole bunch of other things coming into your position. These are terribly difficult decisions for people that to make in an instant. Retired Army Lieutenant General, Mark Hurling, General, thanks so much, as always.

Jim Van de Haid, you're writing in part about the quicksand of Iran. And your latest piece for Axios is titled Trump's Quick-Hurling. You and Mike Allen write this, quote, read the polls, watch economic indicators and talk to President Trump's inner circle in private, and the verdict on his second term seems clear. Even some longtime insider's fear he's trapped by a war he should not have waged. Tariffs, he should not have levied, monuments he should not be obsessed with. These three topics chew up much of Trump's time and attention. All three are widely unpopular in polls, and it's almost impossible to see the public suddenly

warming to war tariffs or more statues. You go on to write top congressional Republicans tell us Trump's unpopularity will likely cost them the House and perhaps the Senate. Some gently, indirectly plead with him to shift to affordability or the economy. But an 80-year-old man who made the greatest comeback in American political history appears too proud, stubborn, and undisciplined to change. Republicans privately admit. Jim, obviously you could add into that immigration as well, ice being out in the streets deeply, widely unpopular, and yet it's an issue that Donald Trump and Stephen Miller are obsessed with and continue to be obsessed with. So are the people around President Trump just throwing up their hands? We used to ask, who's the adult in the room?

Those are long gone. We know that it's just his gut and just what he's feeling every day, which in some cases is driving him way down in the polls. Yeah, I've been surprised by, in the last couple of months, the number of people who are really like Trump and want him to succeed, kind of roll their eyes and, like you said, throw their arms up. They just, nothing's getting through. Everybody's begging him to focus on

affordability. Everybody's begging him to spend the money that he's built up to help them keep the House and the Senate. Nothing seems to be moving him. He is totally fixated on the three topics that we talked about. To the tune that when you talk to people around them, it's 90 to 95% of his time

is monuments and war and tariffs. And a big, big chunk of that is the monument part. Maggie Haberman on a podcast this week said she thinks 70% of his mind share goes to building out these monuments to his legacy. Any person, I've yet to talk to a single person who goes in to talk to Trump where the conversation instantaneously doesn't move towards a model of something that he's building or a quick tour of what's happening with the helipad outback or his idea about this big arch that's going to be built in D.C. And, you know, you go back to what happened on Iran.

My God, think about that deal we're talking about in the strait, where you have this Iranian regime, this crappy evil people, overseeing this, like, totally destructive, devastated economy, mocking the president in public, bullying the president in public. Like nobody that I can think of in the course of his presidency. And then winning in terms of what they're ultimately going to get. that deal to open the strait. If they get to control a big part of the strait, which it looks like they'll be able to do, and they're going to levy some kind of fee and might be disguised as something else where they actually get to profit off of it, they're winning. Like that is a massive,

massive, massive piece of leverage that we've now given to the Iranians. And if you look at what the president said when he denied, quote-unquote, the munitions issue, he didn't actually deny it. What he said is we have some munitions where we have an endless supply. True. We have tight supplies on some. I would say it's much more than tight. It's probably at disastrous levels in terms of some of the most lethal weaponry that we were just talking about on the show. And this idea that he's so mad that he's going to potentially sue media organizations. He is mad.

And he probably should be mad because we now look weak, not just weak to the Iranians, we look weak to the Chinese. When they're looking at these reports where we're saying that we don't have the ammunition to be able to fight a war in Asia, what the hell do you think the Chinese are thinking? They're thinking, come on, let's go get me some Taiwan or anything else that they want because they know we're now operating from a place of weakness. I can't find anybody inside the White House anymore or even people around Trump, other than Trump himself,

who can make a compelling argument that the Iran war is not a quagmire, not a disaster. I can't find anyone who can give us a plausible path out of this. And guess who knows that? The Iranians, that's why they're on Twitter and other social media platforms mocking him. And as Richard Haas and others have said, Donald Trump was convinced he could be a historic president, bringing down this Iranian regime after nearly 50 years of terrorism around the world.

Thought it would be quick and easy. And now here we are almost six months later with no clear way out. Let's bring into the conversation, the co-founder of Punch Bowl News. Jake Sherman, he spoke to President Trump for an exclusive interview released just this morning. Jake, we're going to play a few of your exchanges with the president. But big picture, what were your takeaways from the president in that conversation? You know, I think the biggest takeaway, Willie, to me, and Jim just alluded to this, is that he thinks Republican voters are angry and doesn't quite get it. He said they're not angry at him,

which I think is not, I think demonstrably not true based on his approval ratings, but they think they're angry at congressional Republicans who, of course, are up for re-election this fall. And I think that's an incredibly difficult dynamic for the president. And he conceded gas prices could very well go up if he hits Iran again. What we didn't talk about because it just broke about 20 minutes ago is that Lisa Murkowski, the Republican that he, one of the Republicans that he has been extraordinarily critical of and was extraordinarily critical of her in our interview, he said she's going to vote against, rather, she's going to vote against Todd Blant for Attorney General. He said she's terrible. And I asked him, you know, point blank. I mean, his entire

agenda, Willie, has been handstrung by the several senators who he has either endorsed against or tried to defeat. And he has no remorse at all about that. And I thought that was a very interesting insight into his psyche. Yeah, Murkowski announcing about 15 minutes ago that she's going to be a no on the Blanche nomination, citing everything from his anti-abortion stances to the Epstein matter to the Trump immunity deal that makes Bill Cassidy a very important person today on Capitol Hill because if they lose him, then the Blanche nomination is lost. Perhaps why we haven't seen that vote scheduled yet, but we'll see what the day brings. Jake, to pivot back to your interview with the president, you asked him about voter turnout

for Republicans in the midterms, and I want to play what he told you. If I don't run, will those people go out and vote? And that's the one thing I can't tell. I'm going to ask him to, but I'm just watching guys like you and you're very talented people. the question is will they vote? Because a lot of them are very angry and Republicans, to be honest with you.

Why is it? I don't know. I mean, they're angry at Republicans, but they're not angry. Interesting thing. Why? They're not angry at me, but they are angry at Republicans. Okay, so he was never going to say, well, they're angry at me and Republicans, right? So that was never on the table. But I do think it's an interesting thing that he's talking to you about there. And I wonder if he connects the discontent.

with Republicans to other members of Congress. Maybe not the folks that we're talking about the Lisa Murkowski's, the Susan Collins, who have bucked him, or been thorns in his side at various turns. But I wonder, and you tried repeatedly to get him to talk about Thune. You described the relationship in the newsletter this morning as complex. But when he's mad, he says so and he attaches names to it. And I was struck by the fact that he didn't do that with Thune necessarily. Yeah, I think he understands, Sally, that Thune holds.

the keys to his legislative fortunes, as you know. I think that Thune, if he slags him too much, I mean, Thune could really strike back and has so far. I mean, it's just a very interesting dynamic that all these people who he has spoken up against and he has been critical of hold the keys to his entire legislative agenda to the extent he cares. It's not entirely clear to me.

Because on an issue like Blanche, he could have Todd Blanche stay in as acting attorney general for as long as he wants. And Joe Biden did that with Lisa Sue during his administration and as Labor Secretary when she couldn't get confirmed. But he wants Blanche confirmed on the first point, Allie. And I think you know this better than probably anybody. I mean, Republicans who vote for Trump in presidential elections who have are not guaranteed to come out and vote for Republicans for Congress. That is the story of this Republican Party going back to 2016.

And I think that is one of the things that really is challenging for Trump. And he kind of says, listen, I can ask him to go vote. Doesn't mean they're going to. And for Republicans to hear that, I think is a quite difficult thing. And I asked him, you know, if MAGA Inc., which is the super PAC that has $400 million in the bank, whether it's going to spend for congressional Republicans, Trump said yes, but he said I could spend it on anything I want, which is technically true within limits. He could spend it on other political matters and political travel and things like that. But Republicans are probably watching

this, and they've heard all of this from the president before, with a sense of fear. Because if you can't count on that Trump coalition and combine that with the fact that a midterm is really tough for the party in power, it spells trouble. Jake, I thought you're exchange. change with the president about minority leader Hakeem Jeffries was fascinating. This is a guy who has gone after in personal ways. He's called him a thug, a low IQ individual. He floated the idea that Jeffrey should be impeached. And now perhaps seeing what's coming in November and who might be the majority leader come January, it seems like he's dialed it back a little bit. Let's look. You had a meeting with Hakeem Jeffries a long time ago. You, I don't think you've had many more

conversations with him since then. Maybe you have. But what's your, what's your, what's your read of him. I think he's a nice guy. I mean, I did. He was here. We had a good meeting. You know, look, he's harsh on you. He says, I mean, he's harsh because I'm harsh on him, you know, I'm sure he wouldn't be so harsh. I've said bad things about it. Could you do business with him, you think? Yeah, I think so. Look, the people are hushing me. I'm hushed in them as part of the world. You cover it very well. You cover specifically Congress. You see a strange group of people. But I'd probably get along with them very well. I got, you know, I had, I met a essentially once.

Yep. I think I'd probably get along with him very well. I said he'd be majority leader, of course, he'd be the Speaker of the House come January, but a little flattery for Trump, almost, of Hakeem Jeffries. Would you read into that? Well, my read, Willie, is that he's right,

that Congress is a very strange group of people. Fact check true. But a fact check true, exactly. Listen, I think that the politics of the moment for Democrats It's not going to allow Hakeem Jeffries to do a tremendous about a business with Donald Trump. I think that much is clear. And I don't think, by the way, that Trump, he takes attack and that, you know, he's not going to do work with Democrats if they are investigating him, impeaching him, or anything like that. And I think the main story of House Democrats take the majority over the next two years, one of the main stories is going to be investigations, subpoenas, all sorts of over.

oversight into the Trump administration and the Trump administration's business dealings, members of the administration's business dealings. So, yes, he's trying to flatter him. And I think his inclination naturally is to have a good relationship with someone like Jeffries. But I think politics and reality gets in the way of that. The entire interview with President Trump is really fascinating. Available now on YouTube, co-founder of Punch Bowl News, Jake Sherman. Jake, always great to have you with us.

Thank you. Absolutely. Still ahead on Morning Joe. MS now spoke to some Trump voters in Ohio who say they feel betrayed by the administration amid higher gas prices due to the war in Iran. Higher prices across the board, really. We'll show you those new comments. Plus, we'll run through last night's primary results out of Tennessee, including one Trump-backed extreme Republican congressman ousted. And as we had to break, a look at the traveler's forecast this morning from Accuweather's Melissa Kostanzer.

Melissa, how's it looking? Willie, it is another hot and humid day in the northeast. Just check out Acuather's forecast of 91 in New York City, those Acuather Reel Field values closer to 100 degrees. As you look across the southeast, there's not a lot of relief except for across Florida, where showers and thunderstorms will put on another active show this afternoon. Going through some cities here, Miami,

it's the morning thunderstorms that get us, but in New York City, it'll be those major delays in the afternoon and evening. To help make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the Ackyweather app today. Mr. President, have you lobbied any of the undecided Republicans who will vote tomorrow on Todd Blanche's nomination? I will lobby if I need to. I will lobby very, very diligently because he's outstanding. He should be good. I mean, I can't imagine he's as good as there is in the country. People have such unbelievable respect for Todd Blanche. So hopefully that won't be necessary.

I spoke to some people. I did. but hopefully it'll all work out very well for the country because you're not going to find better than Todd Blanche. Will you reach out to Senator Murkowski, Senator Cassidy, for instance? Let's see if we need anybody. I'll reach out to whoever I have to, but anybody voting against him would be doing a great disservice to the country. Well, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, just moments ago,

breaking news this morning posted this on X. I have had numerous constructive meetings with Mr. Blanche, and he comes across as decent and capable. I appreciate the trip he made to learn more about Alaska, including our rural areas, and as acting attorney general, he's made several noteworthy decisions that will benefit our state and the nation. Ultimately, however, I will oppose his nomination. The politicization, even weaponization of the department did not start with this administration, but has accelerated during it. I take issue with the handling of the release of the Epstein files. The sweeping immunity protections granted.

to the president, his family, and their businesses, the statements that have been made to anti-abortion groups and the repeated targeting of individuals ranging from former administration staff to sitting U.S. senators. I am also keenly aware that the department's nearly $2 billion slush fund, which likely would have rewarded January 6th protesters, that's a generous term, some of them convicted felons, is only off the table because this nomination is pending

and the Senate has leverage. Once we vote, that will end, and there's no telling what the future holds. The country needs an attorney general who will check the worst impulses of this administration. I hope Mr. Blanche is able to achieve that if confirmed, but I simply do not have confidence that that will be the case. Senator Bukowski, as of a few minutes ago,

is a no, Ali Vitale, on Todd Blanche. So Donald Trump exuding a little confidence there in the Oval Office yesterday might be a little tighter this morning. A lot of eyes now on Senator, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, which will be a fascinating vote because he effectively was run out of office and had his political career ended just a couple of months ago by Donald Trump. Well, well, if it isn't the consequences of the president's own actions. And ultimately, we will see how Cassidy votes. But that is where the focus is going to be this morning.

Because a little bit of Senate math for you, with McConnell out, that means that we are not working with our normal 100 senators. And so it really does leave Cassidy to be the person where If he votes, yes, the nomination is fine. And if he votes, no, it's tanked. You don't get the opportunity to go to a tie and have Vice President Vance break it. And so with Collins and Murkowski now voting against, that really does leave all the marbles to the senator from Louisiana. And he has been mum in the hallways at times when he's been asked by reporters in recent days. He said, well, when is the vote effectively insinuating that we won't know how he's going to decide until we get to that point.

But the question of when is the vote is actually, an important one right now because the Senate is on the cusp of leaving town for the rest of the month of August. And this is not something that if you heard John Thune when he left the Capitol last night, there is a time agreement to start voting around 1130 this morning on some of the things they have to do on their to-do list. But the Blanche nomination was not immediately one of them. And so I think the open question as we start the day is, does Leader Thune force this on the floor and in full view put Bill Cassidy's decision on display, whatever it is? Or is this something where They table it.

They say, let's go home for August. Don't leave on what could be an embarrassing note if the votes aren't there. And then figure out what do we do in September. From a practical perspective, it doesn't change anything. Blanche is still acting. You just have a few more letters in front of his name. But at the same time, it could be a true instance of, is this finally the moment where Yolo isn't leverage? The L actually stands for Live.

And they're just voting the way that they feel they need to. Political consequences be damned. Yeah, we had Senator Tom Tillis on our area yesterday, Willie and I talked to him. And he said, you know, he was obviously very opposed to the weaponization fund and the IRS protections originally, but he and John Cornyn came around after he got some assurances. But we have, it's been pointed out by many, those assurances maybe not worth all that much. But Tillis did say, and you noticed this as well, Jim Van de Haidtile was like, look, at the end of the day, I'm a Republican, I want Republicans to win. So that might be where Bill Cassie ends up landing as well, even though obviously he's not running again, and I'm sure has some pretty hard feelings about President Trump. way in on that dynamic, but also even the fact that it's gotten to this point,

piggybacking on what Ali said, these are the consequences when President Trump goes after sitting senators, when he alienates members of his own party. And we're starting to see, and look, let's be clear, there's no Republican revolt just yet, but we're starting to see the limits, if you will, of Trump's power here. Yeah, let's be clear. There's like three or four senators who occasionally challenged the president for the most part, they all salute and fall in line. In this case, he is a victim of, if his own words, his own actions, he goes after these senators, he says things about him. They get a chance for a

little bit of payback that has to be sitting in their head. They're human when determining whether or not they're going to help him. Again, but let's be clear on top blanche, to be brutally honest, it doesn't matter that much. If he doesn't get confirmed, he can still have the job and still do all the things that Trump wants him to do. And no matter what senators want to do, the Justice Department explicitly is an arm of both vengeance and protection for the president. They've been very clear. Just watch what they're doing, watch what they choose to focus on, even why Blanche is so popular with the president himself. Nothing about this debate is going to change that. They've changed the very nature of the Justice Department. And for those people that cheer it, again, I would just

remind you, are you going to be really comfortable with that when a Democrat does the exact same thing, takes the Justice Department, says there's no more independence, says, I'm going to use that to go after my critics, I'm going to use that to protect me, might even give myself a little bit of immunity along the way. Better be comfortable with it because that's a precedent that has now been set. And Republicans aren't going to do anything to stop that after this vote. And even Senator Tillis yesterday, during some equivalencies false, in the eyes of many between this Justice Department and some of the things the Biden administration

and its Justice Department did. Obviously, there's not much of a comparison. Jim, let me just ask you, why would Bill Cassidy, these guys, when you talk to them privately, they know fundamentally that someone who was the president's personal attorney and has done all this work on his behalf since then as the acting attorney general shouldn't be the attorney general,

right? If it were Joe Biden or Barack Obama's personal attorney, they'd be up in arms and calling for the impeachment of the president. But Cassidy especially, he's on the way out, he's not running for re-election, doesn't know the president anything, the president danced on his grave after he had him defeated in a primary in Louisiana. Why would he vote yes on Todd Blanche? I mean, bluntly, like never underestimate the seductive power of getting the president to like you or getting the vast majority of Republicans to say, add a boy. There's just something kind of high schoolish about all of us that never changes. People just want to be part of a team.

and you see that. It's so powerful. I see it every single day. And I still marvel at it because we talk to so many of these people. I know what they actually think about the president. I know what they say about the president. Then I watch what they say in public. And I watch the way that they vote. And I'm like, man, like, you're an extremely accomplished person. You've done massive things with your life. You're fundamentally a pretty good guy. And yet you keep doing these votes or saying things that I know are not true. And that's not one or two people. That's the vast majority of Republicans. Let's be clear. There's not a single, well, there might be a couple.

There's a couple Republicans that are fine with everything that Trump does. But they really don't want to be talking about any of these topics. They're looking at this Senate map and they're saying, holy hell, how did we get to the point where we could lose Alaska? We could lose Ohio. We could lose these Republican states that we should never possibly have. We could lose Texas. None of these things should be in discussion. So if you're operating as a highly functional Republican Party, you would have thought about getting the best candidates to the right issue so that you can win

extend your majority in the Senate, knowing that the next Senate map works against you. But they can't do any of that. They're powerless. It's why John Thune, little by little, is saying, whatever, I'm just going to, I'm not just going to do what the president wants to do. And I feel pretty good that my guys are going to vote for me at the end of the day. Like, they're just exhausted. They're just frustrated. But there's nothing they can do. And I don't, I don't behaviorally beyond three or four, nothing's going to change. I mean, it's such a good point. It's one of the fundamental stories of this. political age, which is people who know better going along for the ride for reasons that maybe

they'll explain someday. CEO and co-founder back. I mean, we saw it again. Can I say on that, on that just one thing. Yeah. It is not just one party. Like you saw this even at the end of that Biden presidency where people were looking at their own two eyes. They saw what we all saw. And yet they would say things that are like inconceivable. It says something about Washington. It's something about humanity. It's something about politics. Access to power. Jim Van Dyke. Great to see you. Thanks as always. Jim, we appreciate it. Coming up, President Trump, again, trying to limit birthright citizenship, despite the Supreme Court rejecting his efforts. We'll tell you what he's trying to do now when

Morning Joe comes right back. Twenty-five years now after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Our next guest is asking a new piece for the Atlantic, what happened to al-Qaeda? Experts and analysts largely torn between two possibilities. Either the terrorist organization is all but defunct, or it's more of a threat than ever. Join us now, the reporter behind that piece. Staff writer at the Atlantic Graham Wood. Graham, good morning. Great to have you with us. Very interesting of this piece to read both sides of this argument. One of them saying effectively that Al Qaeda is stronger than ever, although we don't hear much about it. What's the case for that? Yeah, the case for that is there are these affiliates of Al Qaeda in West Africa,

in Somalia, and they're pretty strong. And maybe they're answering to somebody. So there's not There's no bin Laden anymore. His deputy has now been droned into oblivion as well. So there's still some people left, and they still put out these statements, and people kind of honor them. They say that they still follow that group. So it looks like that there are people who are part of al-Qaeda core, the group that committed the 9-11 attacks, who are still out there. I mean, the case against it is that they're not doing that much in the United States. You know, there's only been one attack that's claimed any human lives in the United States since September 11, 2001, by Al-Qaeda. And it killed one guy in 2019. I'm guessing that most of you just don't even remember when that happened.

So there is people out there, but they're not doing much. And that's why the experts disagree about this. Graham, good morning. It's a fantastic piece. So interesting and frankly, laugh out loud funny at times. Not a reaction one normally has when reading. about al-Qaeda. I just want to read a line here about this, the idea of he's a kind of weak or strong right now. You say you write this, both are possible, and it is

difficult to tell the difference between an al-Qaeda that is stealthily rebuilding and an al-Qaeda that is dead. A cat that is stalking its prey is exactly as silent as a cat that was hit over the head two weeks ago with a shovel. And that's the dilemma here, is that, and you make the case of the piece and dive into this a little more, please, that though of course September 11th, hard to believe, 25 years ago, was in the eyes of al-Qaeda, a remarkable success, but yet it actually maybe counterintuitively set their movement back quite a bit

because they were on the verge of maybe making some other gains. Explain that. Yeah, one thing that I tried to do was just give al-Qaeda a score, give it a grade. 25 years later, are they happy with what happened? Are we happy with what happened? But just looking at it from their own terms, you know, we've got these documents that were captured when bin Laden, was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan. And so we actually know a lot about how they were thinking

about what happened. And we have documents from before September 11 public statements where they said exactly how they thought things were going to go. And the way things they thought were going to go was America would move out of the Middle East that we just couldn't deal with being hit and the people would rise up. They would overthrow presidents. They would overthrow the governments because they wanted the United States out of the Middle East. And just objectively, that's not what happened. The United States is still in the Middle East for good or for ill. And, you know, it didn't go the way bin Laden expected it to go. And you could see in the statements afterwards that he was really frustrated that things were not going well, both on the way that the United States was reacting,

and then his own people, they just started disobeying. So I think that combination of disobedience and not getting the results that you want means you've got to judge al-Qaeda by its own terms pretty negatively. I give it a D. On the other hand, an A for the, you know, the subcategory of survival, which there still are some Al Qaeda guys out there. So that's, that's, that's a mark in their column. Yeah, because I guess the question next is, as you assess what's been, you have to question what's next. Yeah. And, you know, they keep on saying some pretty alarming stuff, like, we're going to move away from suicide bombings and just use drone attacks, swarm drone attacks. And of course, if you're in the business of counterterrorism, you're going to

listen to that. You're going to be worried about it and you better be defending against it. But the fact of the matter is they haven't mustered much of anything recently, especially inside the borders of the United States. And I think a lot of experts are, you know, they don't want to jinx things. On the other hand, 25 years go by. Things have not gone al-Qaeda's way. At some point, you have to wonder whether the cat's dead. And Willie, the piece traces where Bin Laden was in the decade after 9-11 and how frustrated he and frankly impotent he was

to really do much else in terms of terror attacks. It suggests, though, just in the few months right before bin Laden was finally killed by Navy SEAL Team 6 and about a bat, he had settled on a new strategy to try to hurt Americans financially, like trying to their pain and the everyday Americans and they make things cost more for them.

And his new plan was, to attack container ships in the Strait of Hormuz. So in that regard, he was ahead of the game, but he was then killed before he could act upon him. Developing that plan when he was killed, actually. It is an extraordinary piece. Suggest everybody give it a read and hard to believe now, 25 years since 9-11.

It's available to read online and will appear in the Atlantic September issue. Staff writer for the Atlantic, Graham Wood. Grant, thanks so much. We really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. this morning in 2024, President Trump won the state of Ohio by 11 points. That's the largest margin in that state in 40 years. So how are his supporters feeling about his second term?

We'll hear from a group of them straight ahead. Plus, Democratic Senator John Ossoff of Georgia is getting some new support from some of the reddest areas of his state, why two Republican mayors are backing Ossoff's re-election bid. Morning Joe's coming right back.