Morning Joe - Trump wants immunity for himself, not for Obama

Episode Date: July 24, 2025

DNI Tulsi Gabbard releases new documents amid Obama treason allegations

And yesterday I think the Supreme Court having to do with immunity, I heard the argument was brilliant. I listened to it last night, I thought it was really great, I thought the judges' questions were great. And all presidents have to have immunity. It has nothing to do with me. Absolutely nothing. All presidents have to have immunity if you don't have a president. Certainly not a president that the founders wanted. You don't have a president. Certainly not a president that the founders wanted. Whether it's right or wrong, it's time to go after people. Obama's been caught directly.

So people say, oh, you know, a group. It's not a group. It's Obama. His orders are on the paper. Look, he's guilty. It's not a question. You know, I like to say, let's give it time. It's there. He's guilty. This was treason. This was every word you can think of.

They tried to steal the election. They tried to obfuscate the election. They did things that nobody's ever even imagined, even in other countries. Um, no. But even if those unfounded allegations against Barack Obama had any merit, and they don't, President Trump seems to have forgotten about that Supreme Court ruling on immunity, something he repeatedly called for before that decision. There's so much really to talk about here. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Thursday July 24th with us we have co-host of our fourth hour

contributing writer at the Atlantic Jonathan Lemire, co-founder and CEO of Axios Jim Van De Hei, New York Times opinion columnist David French, and host And host of way too early, Ali Vitale. You know, this is Jonathan Elmire. Of course, we have to talk about the Red Sox remarkable comeback in the game of the year last night. But let's talk about more mundane issues first. We've been saying it every day here. We've been saying it for months now.

Marco Rubio, when he was the head of the Intelligence Committee in the United States Senate, run by Republicans, had every Republican sign on to very, very explicit language saying language, saying that Donald Trump's own campaign caused what was the exact language? A grave counterintelligence threat. And they went on and on talking about how Russia was trying to influence the outcome of the election. I mean, what's crazy about this is, and of course many people would say, some say, some say it's because what's on the front page of the Wall Street Journal this morning,

DOJ told Trump his name is among those in Epstein files. Some would say Tulsi Gabbard, and what was that yesterday? Seriously? Talk about playing down to the lowest of low expectations. Tulsi, congratulations. You just did it. And I think you may, I think expectations may have been here, and I think you may have gotten, you can't even see it on the TV screen, but if you can see my right the It is just leading to chaos and maybe maybe the president thinks hey Let's throw as much against the wall as we can throw against the wall, but as coral rove writes. Let's see it's in Wall Street Journal opinion there is a political price to conspiracy theories. We'll get into corals op-ed in a little bit

But they're actually seeing that price and they're making these wild outrageous claims. And I just, I don't think it helps the president. I know it sure doesn't help the country in the long run. And as the Wall Street Journal is also saying and others have said, you know, you got a, you actually got a decision from the Supreme Court that grants presidents immunity. So even if your wild, crazy conspiracy theories were right, they would be irrelevant. Yeah, I heard you hit the bell there talking about DNI. We don't do that much.

Hold on. There we go again. I just said it again. That underscores where we are. That underscores where we are. You know, sometimes when you have baseball parks in the summer, somebody hitting a grand slam, like happened last night, for instance, with Red Sox.

But we'll talk about that later. Maybe fireworks would go up over a stadium, right? But here on Morning Joe, we ring the bell when Tulsi Gabbard meets her low expectations. So we're going to be ringing it a lot this morning, but go ahead, Jonathan. Yeah, so she made her debut in the White House briefing room yesterday. And what, at the very least, we shall say that the bit of the timing here is a bit suspicious. That suddenly we're talking about 2016 again.

Suddenly we're talking about Russian interference again and these unfounded claims. At the same same time when the president has been well chronicled here over the last couple of weeks is been eager to talk about Anything other than the Jeffrey Epstein matter? So we'll get into it more later But there is reporting first from the Wall Street Journal then later matched by other news outlets the Attorney General Pambondi did tell President Trump that his name appears in the Epstein files not quite quite clear in what context, not suggestion there's necessarily something criminal there, but his name does appear. And of course we now know that there's been a real rush to release those files by some Republicans delaying the House even went home to avoid trying to deal with that matter. But yesterday we had the

White House really fan out on a lot of different fronts. White House reporters have in their inboxes blown up by staffers. We saw a real concerted effort by this West Wing to push this story yesterday. And look, obviously, as we say all the time, if there's new evidence, of course we're going to review it. But a lot of this here, there doesn't appear to be a there, there. Tulsi Gabbard going to the briefing room yesterday talking about declassified emails were released on Friday. Some of the House report, you know, different stands, difference than what we heard from the Senate and now secretary of state Rubio and his former role on the Intel committee there, suggesting that

there was was that the 2016 Russian interference case was actually an Obama led hoax that he and the White House and some senior administration officials looks are perpetuated this and pushed this, and that they feel like this is now a great crime that worthy of more investigation. In fact, Gabbard, even Joe, suggesting that criminal referral for President Obama could be referred to DOJ. So there was a lot in that briefing room yesterday, as we'll sift through. It's just a joke. I mean, this is just a joke.

I mean, Jim Van De Hei, this is stuff that we, I mean, we're going back to March of 2017. Like, this is Elvis in 1977 singing Heartbreak Hotel. I mean, spinning all the oldies but goodies. But I don't even think it's distracting the MAGA base. And I say that because as this attempt of distraction, and again, Tulsi Gabbard was just crazy, mind-blowing, and exactly what people said, hey, you really don't want to put her in that position because if you do, she's going to do some crazy conspiracy theories

that even counterdict what she herself said in 2018 about the Russians trying to interfere in the election. But you have all of this stuff going on. And again, it just seems to do exactly what we're doing here at 6 o' 7 in the morning. And that is not talking about what's on the front page of the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and what's on the front of mind for a lot of MAGA voters and that is

that Donald Trump's name is in the so-called Epstein files which they've said forever had to be released. Now listen what does that mean? John Kerry's name is in the Epstein files. There's a million people's names in the Epstein files that were never close associates with him. So just because your names in the file doesn't matter, doesn't prove anything, and the Justice Department has a long tradition, rightfully, of not releasing people's names unless they have enough evidence to bring it a charge. But again, this is what MAG has demanded for a decade now. And so it's a little late for them to be changing the rules mid-game, saying, oh, it doesn't matter anymore.

Yeah, Amy, a couple points. One, let's be honest. We took the bait, right? We're talking about it. We're talking about it, right. About an Axios. So it is an effective technique. He knows that. He uses it quite a bit. Two, we should applaud the Wall Street Journal. They got sued for $10 billion. There's a lot of media companies that I'm hearing whispers from my friends who work there who've been going light on some stories because they're worried about getting sued. And here the Wall Street Journal is doubling down on a very explosive set of stories about the president.

To me, what's really interesting in why all of this might matter months and years from now, is I think we're seeing in real time that the very movement that Trump created is in some ways is bigger than him, and it's now a little different than him. They really bought into MAGA. Like, Steve Bannon wasn't joking. These

people really believe in the things that they talked about. They believe in these conspiracy theories. They believe in the deep state. And they believe that Donald Trump has an obligation to them and to the movement and to the people who voted him into office to stick with it. And I think that's where the frustration is on Epstein. You look at the polls, it's the first issue I think that's where the frustration is on Epstein. You look at the polls, it's the first issue I can think of where you see Republicans legitimately divided, almost 50-50, where Republican, his base,

which is usually with him 90 to 95% of the time on most topics, is really troubled by this. And they want all of the records to be released. And by the way, they're not gonna to be released it's almost impossible to release them because I guarantee you in those files like in any other court case there's all kinds of gossip hearsay allegations phone numbers personal data there's a reason that the courts typically don't release any of this material they know that that's why they said let's let the courts figure out what can be released because they know it would be so heavily redacted as to

be mostly meaningless. And so to me, keeping an eye on that fight between him and MAGA, which transcends this, right? You saw it with Iran. You saw it with immigration. I guarantee you the President, Antrim, if he did what he wanted to do, he would probably strike some kind of deal on immigration. And he can the base has said no right no no no you're gonna you're going to deport every single person who's here illegally why because you told us you would yeah I mean and that's my reporting too I mean the president people around the president have wanted to strike a deal on immigration have talked about the possibility

of edging up to that line to try to strike a deal on immigration, but again, the MAGA base would go absolutely crazy. So the question is, is the president able to lead or is the president going to have to follow the MAGA base for quite some time? But you look, David French, though, you know, we're talking about taking the bait on all of the, you know, Tulsi Gabbard and what Donald Trump's saying about Barack Obama. It does seem to me, though, that if you're part of a news organization and one president accuses another president of committing treason to distract from a bigger story, a real story that's happening.

You kind of have to report that, don't you? Yeah, you absolutely have to debunk the nonsense and then focus on the real story. I mean, you can do two things at one time. It is not the case that all you can do is talk about one thing at one time. In fact, these first few minutes, we've been talking about two things at the same time the whole time. And so absolutely when a president accuses a former president of something approaching treason

or sedition, you need to respond to that. And it's easy to respond to it in this case, because so much of what Tulsi Gabbard was putting forward was a complete red herring. It wasn't what the Russia scandal was about. It wasn't about hacking machines or actually changing vote tallies or anything like that. It was about an influence operation to sow chaos in American politics that included a number of very disturbing contacts that did exist between members of the Trump campaign

and people who held themselves out to be Russian, to held themselves out to be Russians or contacts with people who the Senate Intelligence Committee deemed to be Russian agents. These were troubling contacts. There was a reason why they were investigated. There's a reason why Russia's involvement in the election was investigated. But it was not for the reasons that Tulsi Gabbard was laying out there.

She was pulling a misdirection, absolutely a misdirection. And so that's what you do. You debunk the misdirection. You focus back on the story that the administration is desperately trying to get everyone not to pay attention to. And David, this is, let's keep this up. This is exactly what the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, run by Marco Rubio and controlled by Republicans, wrote about 2016.

The committee found that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian effort to hack computer networks and accounts affiliated with the Democratic Party and leak information damaging to Hillary Clinton and her campaign for president. Marco Rubio continues, Moscow's intent to harm the Clinton campaign tarnished and expected Clinton presidential administration

helped the Trump campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee and undermine the US democraticS. democratic process. And Marco Rubio and the Intel committee said it posed a grave counterintelligence threat. Said Donald Trump's 2016 campaign posed a grave counterintelligence threat. So this is, again, this is water under a bridge. We can also talk about John Durham and that poor guy who actually had a reputation before Donald Trump sent him across the globe trying to find dirt on all of this and he ended up just making a fool of himself. So, David, one more thing is we're talking about

discussing two things at the same time. I want to explain, let's explain why Democrats should be very careful at this time and maybe people want to know why aren't Democrats screaming and yelling more. Well, let's talk about names in files. How names being in files are not enough. Let's talk about, oh, I'm going to talk about in this era, the original sin, which was James Comey, I believe it was on July 3rd, 2016, came out and said, we don't have enough information to indict Hillary Clinton, but then went on to indict her in a press conference for 30 minutes. It was outrageous.

It's something that the head of the DOJ should never do. He once again put himself into the election 10 days before the election and wrote a letter that was sure to help Donald Trump again, him bending over backwards, trying to be fair when in fact he was once again, you know, putting his hand on the scales of this election. And so talk about why, even though MAGA world wants this to happen, you don't just release DOJ files because they have people's names in it, again, filled with hearsay, filled with gossip, filled with people trying to get even with others. Look, I think we should release all the files that are reasonable

and lawful to release. Those are the keywords, reasonable and lawful to release. And the reason why you have those qualifiers is exactly what you explained. That these investigations sweep far and wide and they include a lot of extraneous information. Sometimes it's not even relevant to the investigation at all. Against a backdrop, because let's remember before all of this story changed the way it has changed, MAGA was very, very clear. Release everything and arrest everybody on the list. Release everybody, release everything, arrest everybody. That's not how it works. That's not how it can ever work. At the same time, however, there are a lot of unanswered questions about the original prosecution,

about Jeffrey Epstein, about his connections, about his money. All of those things are unanswered questions that do deserve answers. So therefore, there should be a reasonable, law-abiding investigation that includes reasonable, law-abiding releases. Instead, what the Trump administration is trying to do is to essentially say, move along, nothing to see here, after many of the people who are saying move along, nothing to see here, had been saying for years, release it all. This is going to wreck the Democratic Party. This is going to wreck the global elite.

And then it turns out, oh, Trump's name is in there. Now, we don't know all the context. We don't know if it indicates criminality. We don't know what it indicates. There are so many things we don't know. But then all of a sudden, we learn that Trump's name is in some of these documents and release shockingly, becomes so much less urgent, and we got to focus back on Russia and a

fake version of the Russia scandal. So there is so much of this that doesn't pass the smell test. And by the way, the Wall Street Journal applaud their courage. How many institutions have we seen cave? How many institutions? They've been sued for billions and they're still out there doing the reporting. I mean they deserve credit for this and this reporting is demonstrating you know what we suspected for some time that Trump and Epstein had a long-standing relationship and that long-standing relationship of course is going to leak into files, leak into documents and so the Trump administration does not want to be talking about this. They absolutely do not.

So it's Russia, Russia, Russia again. And Russia, Russia, Russia again. And Jonathan, it's interesting, the Wall Street Journal doing their job while Congress adjourns so they don't have to answer any questions or take any votes on the Epstein matter, which again, go ahead and take any votes on the Epstein matter, which again, go ahead take the votes. Again, we've been talking about why this information shouldn't be released if you're just doing an Epstein file dump. But again, Mike Johnson, adjourning the business of Washington, adjourning the business of America

to try to avoid having his members answering questions and taking votes. Yeah, and of course there's sensitive material there that shouldn't see the light of day. Underage women in there, other people's names in there, that is pure hearsay. So that of course has to be factored in here. And you're right, Joe, first of all, credit again,

let's say it again, to the Wall Street Journal for their fearless journalism here in the face of intimidation. And let's also recall that it was just a week ago, President Trump fielded questions on the White House law on whether or not the attorney general, Pam Bondi, had said that discussed his presence in the list with him. He said flat out, no. So that clearly now stands, the reporting contradicts that, that appears to be the president less than honest in that moment.

So Ali, as Joe just mentioned here, you know, the Congress is gone. Speaker Johnson adjourned the Congress, they wouldn't have to do this. This is clearly such a story that they're so worried about for the president, for Republicans, that they'd rather skip town, close the government, if you will, rather than face it. But before they left, they did do something.

The House did, the House Oversight Committee will subpoena the Justice Department to release all unredacted files pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein. So tell us about that, what we might learn. And it does seem, though, this is a a moment at least in narrow ways that some Republicans are willing to defy President Trump Yeah, this is the moment that they found to defy the president We'll see of course if it endures over the course of August because Republican leadership's thinking here Is that they had to skip town a little bit early? Because they knew that Republicans and Democrats together would have the votes that they needed

if they were to bring a resolution that would compel DOJ to release the Epstein files to the floor. If they did that, Republican leadership would see that resolution passed. That is not what they want. And so what we're watching the speaker do here is try to buy the White House

and the Department of Justice some time. While he's doing that, allowing lawmakers to leave town early, we've seen a little bit of action on the committee level, and that's partly why I think that leadership's thinking that August and time will kind of fade this issue from the headlines is probably not going to bear out as the right way of thinking. Because you're going to see on August 11th now the House Oversight Committee do a deposition with Ghislaine Maxwell, that's one of the pieces that we'll end up following.

The other piece of this is that a subcommittee voted to subpoena DOJ records on this. The important thing to remember there is that that subpoena is not ultimately going to lead to just a public release of these documents. That's going to mean that the committee has them, they can read them, and then you have to rely on the members to either vote for that to become public, for them to figure out other means of releasing what they find in that, but still a way that Democrats have been able to. And I think that David is right, that it's sort of a balancing act for Democrats here

who have done a good job of trying to kind of nudge this story along at any point where it seems like it could die. They've done a good job of keeping it in the headline. So that's an example of where they did well on that. But then the other thread that's gonna follow them through back to September is this discharge petition, which all it needs is the time to mature and ripen. And right now it looks like they have the number of

signatures that they would need for that discharge petition to force Republican leadership's hand when they come back in September. So I think it's wishful thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing.

I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing.

I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think going to talk about retirements from FEMA and also a new layer of bureaucracy that many fear could cost lives because of Kristi Noem. Plus we're going to go through new reporting from the Washington Post that finds Defense

Secretary Pete Hegseth's controversial messages on the Signal app may have come from an email that was more secret. Oh my God. And a reminder, a reminder, if you want to improve your backswing, if you want to get 30 more yards from your driver, if you want to get the chickenweed out of your backyard, and if you want to reverse male pattern baldness listen to the morning Joe podcast it's available each weekday featuring our full conversations and analysis you can listen wherever you get

your podcasts we were smart that way you're watching morning Joe we'll be right back Well you heard me, you're like nobody else ever knew. I would never, ever hurt, hurt you. You know I'm just a young man. I hate you. You're the best I know. You're the best I know. You're the best I know. Austin down three. And this ball to left field.

Kepler back. Still going back. That's gone. That's a grand slam. And it breaks an 0 for 20 streak for Romy Gonzalez. Was the key component in the season. I mean, Romy may have been 0 for 20, but this is a guy that has been outperforming all year.

And one of those rare guys that, when he comes up to the plate, especially against left-handed pitchers, you know anything's possible. Mike Barnicle, this was... We got Mike Barnicle here, by the way. I didn't know if I told you that. Mike Barnicle. Here we are.. Hello ladies and

gentlemen news writing legend Mike Barnacle. Mike you know this was looking an awful lot like last year we had identical record going to the All-Star break we came out of last year got swept by the Dodgers and played terribly against Colorado Rockies one of the worst teams in baseball last year got swept by the Dodgers and played terribly against Colorado Rockies one of the worst teams in baseball last year. Looked like it was starting the same way this year except for the fact we played against some great teams. But in the third game of the the the Cubs series we came back did the same last night.

Last night man that was a big win. I'm not a big believer in saying they're big wins before late August but last night was a big win. Take us through it. Well there is no doubt it was a big win. I'm not a big believer in saying they're big wins before late August But last night was a big win take us through it. Well, there is no doubt. It was a big win I mean, you're right They have a tough time on the road with the Cubs who have a great team out there in Chicago Top floor in the lineup and the Cubs may be the best in Major League Baseball They lose they pick up the win in the last game to hit the road to go to Philadelphia to play in that band box filled with great fans, a great town, a great team, and they come up with

a win. It's like a shot of adrenaline with 58 games left in the season. The Red Sox return home to face the Los Angeles Dodgers and Mookie Betts this weekend, but they're in a good place right now. They've got a good little team there. Not a great team, but they're on there. They're in a good place right now and they've got a good little team. They're not a great team but they're on a roll. They needed they needed that

win guys and they were down. Let's remember this series in Philadelphia starts with a walk off catchers interference call against them on Monday. Something that had only happened like once before in the history of Major League Baseball

heartbreaking loss there. They lose again on Tuesday. Yesterday they're down five nothing staring at a sweep and then we get the Romy Gonzalez grand slam. They take a lead. They survive a rare blown save

by a Rondas Chapman who's been terrific this year. But they got him. He's been amazing. He's been great. But you know he gave me his mortal he gave up one last night.

And then in the tenth they they blow a lead. They win it in the 11th. And Joe here's the stat for you going into last night. The Red Sox were 0 and 7 in extra inning road games meaning they've been walked off an extra inning seven straight times.

That finally ended last night. They get that win much needed off day to day. Mookie and O'Tonnell come to town this weekend. And by the way for for for for Boston fans who are doing what Boston fans always do freaking

out the Cubs are a great team. Like we're not as good of a team for Boston fans who are doing what Boston fans always do, freaking out. The Cubs are a great team. We're not as good of a team as the Cubs. We can beat them. And as we go into the fall, if lightning strikes, yeah. We know how playoffs work. We can beat them. The Phillies, a great team, better than the Red Sox.

But there is no doubt, as Mike said, we're a good little team. said, we're a good little team. Well, we're we're we're we are a good team when you look at and again, everybody's been kicking the front office around. Can look at who the front office brought in over over the winter. They brought in crochet, one of the best pitchers in baseball. They brought in Chapman, despite last night, one of the best relievers in baseball. Every team would love to have Chapman right now. They brought in Bregman, speaks for himself.

And Mike, I want you to briefly talk about this before we start talking about baseball teams in the central time zone with Jim Vande Hei. We brought in, I think, somebody who may actually prove. Let me go. They play baseball in the central time zone? Brought in a catcher, Narvaez, who leads the league and throwing people out in second base

and hit the game winning home run last night. This is a generational talent at catcher and this is somebody else that again the front office got and best of all who did they get him from. They got him from the New York Yankees. Oh I hate to see that. Yeah. For some of the Yankees I think have just added to their 25 man roster or at least their 40 man roster the Yankees I forget the guy's name but young guy, but yeah Navarro's is noted for being one of the best defensive catchers in baseball and The pitchers on the Red Sox team love throwing to him because he is the best framer Of pitches in in Major League Baseball or one of them at least.

And that's noted nearly every time he's behind the plate. He is now the regular catcher for the Red Sox. He's a candidate for rookie of the year this year in the American League and he brings the added benefit of having some little pop in his bat

occasionally. And he had it last night obviously John. Yeah Joe and a huge huge spot last night. Yeah. The home run in the 11th. It's the game the game winner and it is credit.

We Red Sox fans rightly have complained the front office hasn't done much in recent years. They spent this offseason and they made some smart under the radar moves getting their vies on top of that.

And now let's see the deadline approaches add to this team. Get a starter get some relievers perhaps. Go for it. You might be upset with some of the deals they make. Now I now now we won't talk about it on the air. I may not be as upset if we get a strong second arm. I'll be fine. Jim Van De Hi. I'm I'm hearing right now from Alex that they play baseball in the central time zone and while everybody's talking about the Cubs there's this little team out of Milwaukee that is on

fire the Brewers have won nine out of ten and while everybody's been talking about the Cubs the Brew crew have been fire. Tell us about them. They've won 12 out of 13. For the viewers who aren't baseball fans, and you guys always have this elitist conversation about East Coast teams, Red Sox and the Yankees, the Brewers are not just a great baseball story, they're not just a great sports story, they're a great American story. They do it the right way, right? You can name two players on the Brewers They spend about a third of what the big about the big team spent somebody else. I don't know

They have this great farm team. They they don't hit a lot of home runs. They just work hard They get it done and that's just this year They've now done it, you know four or five years in a row And so it's good that you finally give them a little attention beyond your obsession with the Red Sox. Yeah, yeah. And tomorrow we're going to be talking about teams in the Mountain Time Zone. Jim Van Dyke, let's circle a date before we go to break.

Well, the second Thursday in September, which happens to be on September 11th, they're going to play a game at a little stadium in Wisconsin. Tell us about that game, and everybody should circle this one on their calendar. Well, again, it's part of my effort to bring Joe back to real America. We're going to take him to Lambo for the Thursday game against Thursday game against the commanders. Joe, hopefully some of his family members are going to come. It should be a great season for the Packers and I think it'll be good for you to see what real America looks like. Get out of you know your fancy house, your fancy studio and get down there

with the real people. Eat abroad, drink some beer. Maybe we'll shotgun a beer. Yeah. Will you shotgun a beer? Will you make a commitment on TV that you'll shotgun a beer? Of course I will. Of course. That's what people have always said about me. He's such an elitist going to the University of Alabama and Tuscaloosa and living in Meridian, Mississippi and Pensacola, Florida. Yeah. Southern State School Joe. But no, I'm looking forward to Lambeau. And again, because I am an SEC fan.

The NFL sometimes just leaves me a little cold. But Lambeau Field, I've heard there's nothing like it. Lambeau Field, we talked about RFK Stadium before, when that Washington team that Donald Trump's been truth socialing about played there. But Lambeau, man, I mean, I cannot wait. It's going to be so exciting. What atmosphere, right? It's amazing.

It's like going to Fenway. It's like going to Wrigley. There's not that many great historic stadiums in the country. It's one to be so exciting. What atmosphere, right? It's amazing. It's like going to Fenway. It's like going to Wrigley. There's not that many great historic stadiums in the country. It's one of them. You'll love it. It'll be fun. Yeah, I can't wait. And by the way, here's a Mountain Time zone highlight.

In Denver, the Colorado Rockies snapped a dubious shutout streak with yesterday's 6-0 win over the St. Louis Cardinals. It marks the Rockies' first shutout of the season and the first since May of last year to end a record streak of 220 games since they kept an opponent from scoring. And coming up, Edafema's urban search and rescue team has resigned following deadly flooding in Texas. We're going to explain why he was so frustrated that he quit. He voiced also

repeated frustrations over the Trump administration's response to that disaster and an added layer of bureaucracy in FEMA under Kristi Noem that really slows down the agency's efforts to save people. That's straight ahead on Morning Joe. Johnson, Texas, which was community led, state managed, or state managed and federal supported, brought the maximum amount of capability to bear in Texas at the right time and the right place. Through the secretary's leadership, to the president's leadership, to my own leadership,

to Nimkeed's leadership, to Region 6, we made that happen. And that is a model of how response should be done. That's acting director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, David Richardson, testifying before Congress yesterday, where he defended the Trump administration's response to the deadly July 4th flooding in central Texas. This comes amid reports that the head of FEMA's Urban Search and Rescue Unit has resigned, citing frustration with the agency's response to the flash floods. CNN was the first to report the departure of Ken Pogorek,

who spent more than a decade with the branch, which runs a network of teams across the country ready to swiftly respond to natural disasters. Now, according to CNN, Pogorek told colleagues that delayed disaster response in Texas was the tipping point that led to his resignation. CNN previously reported that it took more than 72 hours after the flooding for Homeland Security Secretary

Kristi Noem to authorize the deployment of FEMA's Search and Rescue Network. The Department of Homeland Security has defended its response to the fatal floods and responded to Pogorok's departure, saying in part, this, it is laughable that a career public employee who claims to serve the American people would choose to resign over our refusal

to hastily approve a six-figure deployment contract without basic financial oversight. Pogorek joins a growing group of FEMA officials to leave since President Trump took office as the agency faces sweeping changes. Joining us now, former FEMA press secretary and deputy director of public affairs, Jeremy Edwards. Jeremy, thank you for joining us this morning.

So we just heard the acting FEMA director defend the response to these floods in Texas, but it has been sharply criticized by others, led to that high- high profile resignation. Let's get your take. How would you assess FEMA handled in its response to these Texas floods? Thanks for having me this morning. And you know, I think that what I saw during yesterday's hearing is that Mr Richardson is very keen on trying to keep his job. The last person who went against the administration in that role was probably fired during Hurricane preparedness week no less. You know, I will say that I am in touch with a lot of people inside the agency still. They're doing everything they

can to help respond to these disasters. That being said, the permanent workforce is down about 2,000 people. That's a third of the overall permanent workforce. And as you mentioned over during the top, you have search and rescue operations being delayed due to bureaucratic hurdles that were placed by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Well, and Mr. Edwards, can you explain that, that when you're in the middle of a flood, we now have a requirement that Kristi Noem has to approve every expenditure over $100,000. That sounds like a lot of money, but that's not a lot of money when time is of the essence and you've got multimillion-dollar budgets and every second, literally, literally, and

I know this because of hurricanes and tornadoes sweeping through my old congressional district, literally every second counts. And in these Texas floods, I can't think of a natural disaster where delay caused more suffering and possible death. That's absolutely right. Every minute that they're delayed, every minute that they're delayed,

every hour that they're not on the ground, is a moment that they could have been throwing someone out of flood water, a moment they could have been removing wreckage from somebody's home or on top of another person. And, you know, the administration is trying to downplay this and say that while they arrive within 24 hours,

that's 24 hours too late. You know, when they have to go through these types of a bureaucratic red tape that they don't have to usually go through, it creates a lot of hurdles for the agency. It removes the flexibility and the autonomy and ultimately costs lives. You know, I had mentioned this earlier to Ali this morning.

When you call 911, you're not waiting for the fire department to send a memo up to the mayor to determine whether or not you're allowed to go rescue people from a burning building. FEMA needs to have the flexibility to go in and do the thing that they need to do to save lives. So Jeremy, let's talk about that timeline that you just referenced. You were at FEMA when FEMA was a larger enterprise. There are more people working there. A lot of people have left There have been a lot of resignations and there's a lot of contentiousness about the timing of what happened during those first few hours

of the flood whether warnings were issued or not issued in time things like that a Year ago or two years ago if this had occurred What would be the normal thing that would happen with FEMA being activated in terms of covering and anticipating and taking care of the dangers of such a flood that was ongoing? What would the timing have been? Well, typically, FEMA is going to be in close coordination with their state and local counterparts on the ground.

Obviously, a flood is closer to a no notice event as compared to a hurricane. But still, you do have some lead time when these warnings are coming in. You would have FEMA personnel being in constant contact with their counterparts. I think you'd also would have urban search and rescue, which is what now happened in this case,

have more flexibility to move in as soon as we started seeing those floodwaters rise, as soon as the state needed any request for assistance. And I think zooming out a little bit, you would definitely see the FEMA administrator on the ground within the next day. And instead, in this case, what you saw is that the FEMA administrator arrived more than a week later after the president had already been there. So I think you know the way that this agency is operating under this administration is completely

out of step with what the American people need and what they deserve after disasters. Really important conversation. Former FEMA Press Secretary Deputy Director of Public Affairs Jeremy Edwards. Jeremy, thank you for joining us. Thank you. Turning some other top headlines now, the Pentagon's watchdog has reportedly received

evidence that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's signal messages that previewed U.S. strikes in Yemen came from an email that was marked secret, no form. According to the Post, the secret designation means the information was classified at a level in which unauthorized disclosure could be expected to cause serious damage to national security. That no foreign label means it was not meant for anyone who is a foreign national. People familiar with the matter tell the paper the email was sent by the top commander overseeing U.S. military operations in the Middle East. That information was then shared in an unclassified group chats on the messaging app Signal. The post reporting contradicts the Trump administration claims that no classified intelligence was shared via Signal. And of course, Joe, that group chat,

Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, was inadvertently added to it, and then it came to light. And as we've discussed quite a bit, was sort of the first moment that really the Trump administration felt like was a real blow to them, stopped their early momentum. But this, of course, contradicts. This sort of suggests what we knew all along.

The White House could play semantics with labels But this information was secret and it was a real breach that Hegseth posted it in the chat Well, and and you're reporting my reporting other people's reporting is all the same inside the White House. They understood. This was a real problem they thought that because Pete Hegs it was so sloppy and did what he did, that it was the first real bump in the road for the administration coming out of the inauguration two months earlier. David French, this is one of these examples of where maybe going back and bringing up Hillary Clinton, talking about Hillary Clinton's emails. I mean, are you serious? Talking about Hillary Clinton's emails?

That might be a bad mistake, because Americans remember, like, throughout 2016, people say, well, let's look at that marking. Does that mean it's classified? I don't know if that's what that seemed. And there was this debate. We didn't know whether certain documents were classified or not. But we do know this, David. None of those emails had anything approaching what Hegseth was sending out, what the SecDef was sending out on his SignalChat talking about the specifics of a military attack against a foreign terror network. I mean, there's just not even a close call.

So I don't think they should be bringing up Hillary Clinton's emails if they're worried about classified status when they have this staring them right in their face. Well, and think about what what about ism is anyway. It is saying that, hey, look, it's comparing your conduct to past misconduct. When I thought you were running against all of that stuff, I thought you were supposed to be turning the page on all of that stuff, not engaging in conduct that's worse and more reckless. So every time you hear the what about-ism,

that's them telling on themselves. They're saying, no, in spite of running against all of these things, we're engaging in all the same behavior. We're just as swampy, if not swampier, than the people who came before us. I don't know why this talking point works so well, because in many ways it's an admission against interest.

It's an admission, a subtle admission of wrongdoing. And this investigation revealing that this information was classified, very valuable, but it's very similar to an investigation that finally determines that water is wet. Everybody knew this stuff was classified. You can't spend nine seconds exposed to the military without knowing that information

about an imminent military strike would be classified information. So this was a terrible scandal from the word go. And you feel like the only reason why they didn't take the kind of action that any normal administration would take is these people are so full of pride and so full of hatred for the media that they will not respond to anything that comes through the media, lest they give the media a win. But guess what? Fighting the media isn't their job description.

It's defending the Constitution. And look, when you have a secretary of defense who is reckless with national secrets in a time of actual combat, this is putting America at risk. And it doesn't matter that it came through the media. You respond to the facts, not the source of the reporting. I think, David, you bring up such a good point there that it's the knee jerk reaction and posture of this White House, a tone set from the top in the way that they respond to media

reporting and even just around Capitol Hill. When it came to Hegseth and Walz in the signal chat, it was being talked about as conventional knowledge, Jim Van De Hei, that this was classified in some form or fashion. So this reporting just sort of bears that out. I want to sum up what we've been talking about this hour, everything from Epstein to Gabbard to here at Hegseth with a new column that you and Mike Allen have out this morning talking about how Trump

is actually losing by winning. Unpack what you mean there for us. Yeah, it was interesting because we got a lot of blowback for the column because people thought it was very pro Trump and I'm like, the point we were making is that if you just look at the scoreboard in terms of things that he wanted to do, right? Getting that bill, that tax cut bill, that spending bill

done on a certain deadline, the Iranian strikes, what he's done on deportations, by his, by what he wanted to do, he had a hell of a six months. But then you look at the polls and people don't like what he's doing on almost any topic. Even immigration, which everyone thought was a sure bet political winner for Republicans, it's turning out that the American people were like, yes, we want the border lockdown. We don't want people who've committed crimes here. But I don't want my neighbor who's been here 20 years, who goes to my church, whose kids play with my kids, getting locked up or getting deported.

Or I don't want US citizens accidentally getting swept up in a raid and sitting in jail and having to defend themselves and fight for their own freedom. And you see that on topic after topic. And I think a lot of it comes down to, if you want to put a bow around everything this morning, it's about competence. If you think about Pete Hexeth, you might love him,

might not love him. He's lost six of his top officials in less than six months. That either means you're really bad at hiring or you're really bad at leading, right? Like one of those two things happened and I think the American people, whether it's FEMA, whether it's the Defense Department, they want competence. They want to know that government can do the things that government has to do. They know the bureaucracy is too big. They know it's too bloated. They know it

needs to be smaller, but that doesn't mean they want FEMA gutted to the point where maybe it can't respond the way that it needs to respond. And they don't want ICE so empowered that it's starting to trample on the liberties of Americans or people who haven't done anything wrong in 20 years. And I think that's, and I think that expresses or explains a lot of the president's frustration. It's not just Epstein. Anybody who's talked to him in private, he's in a very sour mood because he, in his own head, is having the conversation we are.

He's like, come on, I'm crushing it. I'm doing all the things that I said I was going to do, and yet no one seems to like it. And even my own base doesn't like it. And that might be the biggest surprise. And that's why I made that point earlier. I think that might be the thing that lasts. This is the moment where MAGA might be bigger than Trump, not yet, but it one

day soon will be. And it has a different set of values maybe than the president has. And that will be very interesting to watch because it is the dominant block inside the Republican Party for the foreseeable future. It is so fascinating. And David French, I want to pick up on Jim's point. And I think it's such an important point to make that in some ways the president loses by winning in that. And that I think a lot of Americans agree with him generally on whether it's sanity at the border. I mean, having a border that actually is a border, that's a bit of a change over the past couple of years.

It started going in that direction in the last year or so of the Biden administration, but it really now is a secure southern border. I think a lot of Americans support that. And I will say, a lot of Americans generally support many of the president's policies. It comes down to the execution of it. How is the administration executing these policies? And I will say that there are some members of the president's base that want to see those pictures,

want to hear people say hateful things about quote the others, want to hear insults all the time. And we've talked about this before, we talked about it going into 2020. That exhausts a lot of people that support the policies. And I think what's so important here, what Jim's saying is, yeah, many agree with the policies.

They really hate the way they're being implemented, especially when you have people with eyes that aren't wearing uniforms, that have no identification, that are wearing masks and pulling young women off the streets and throwing them into the back of cars. That scares the hell out of every parent. It just does. And so that's a big part of it.

We can also talk about foreign policy. Iran can't have a nuclear weapon. That's something Republicans and Democrats have agreed with for 25 years. That's something that this president agrees with. And yet some parts of his MAGA base don't agree with that and don't believe that Vladimir Putin is a malevolent force on the global stage. That's a real problem for the president because, of course, 80 percent of Americans know Putin is.

Well, it is. And you know, on the one hand, you would say, OK, if you're a long time Trump opponent and you begin to see these differences in these breaches between Trump and the base, there's an early temptation to sort of say, OK, at long last, some of the normal rules of politics are starting to apply to Trump, that it is not just whatever Trump says MAGA is gonna follow. And that at first glance looks like a promising potential, maybe return to some degree of normalcy in American politics.

And then you drill down on the issues, Joe, and you realize that what's happening is where he's breaking with MAGA is when MAGA is becoming often more conspiratorial and more isolationist than Trump. And so when you think about that, it's sobering to the long-term health of our body politic that this giant chunk of Americans, still a minority, definitely a minority, is like the core MAGA base. But this giant majority of Americans, a giant segment of the American electorate, wants more cruelty, wants more conspiratorial thinking, wants more isolationism than when Trump is

delivering. And so that to me, from a long-term perspective, is somewhat troubling. However, on the flip side, I do think the viciousness of his approach to immigrants is beginning to trigger a American backlash that is rooted in American decency. Had there been just border enforcement with normal immigration deportations, he would be sailing, he'd be flying high in the immigration category right now. But instead, he chose not just to seal off the border, which a lot of people really, really wanted,

but to engage in the blunt instrument cruelty, just blatant cruelty against immigrants, including people who have been stalwarts in their communities. And that is pushing people rightly away from him. So some are recoiling out of decency. Some are recoiling because they're more conspiratorial than the president. I'm hoping Americans ultimately double down on decency.

Well, and also right now, it is what's happening is they are clutching defeat from the jaws of victory. Americans want a secure southern border. This administration can rightfully brag that it's the most secure southern border at least in 60 years. And so this random cruelty that goes far beyond deporting people who are here illegally hurts the president's case. One final important note before we go to break. MAGA influencers, a MAGA base, online MAGA, they're outraged, they're enraged with the president.

There's a split on where they stand on the Epstein files as Jim Van Dyke said early in the segment It's about a 50-50 split that said we've seen no evidence yet of Donald Trump losing support among Republicans he's sitting at 88 to 90 percent support Among Republicans so until those numbers start moving, I suspect that we're just talking about MAGA influencers mainly. New York Times opinion columnist David French and co-founder and CEO of Axios Jim Vande Hei. I will see you at Lambeau Field. Thank you so much for being here.