Morning Joe - Tsunami waves reach Hawaii, California after huge quake off Russia

Episode Date: July 30, 2025

Tsunami warnings were issued and evacuations were ordered across the Pacific after the 8.8-magnitude earthquake struck off Russia’s remote Far East.

Even the bipartisan NOMs are being blocked and delayed, so much so that the Democrats have been forcing me, when I file cloture just to get a nominee considered on the floor, to go in and out of executive and legislative sessions. So these are just dilatory tactics designed to block and obstruct the president and his agenda. This has got to stop, and clearly the Democrats are starting something and creating a precedent that is gonna come back to haunt them.

This is really bad. This is a bad practice on their part. Senate Majority Leader John Thune calling out Democrats for stalling President Trump's nominees. Those comments coming hours before Senate Republicans pushed through the confirmation of one of the president's former personal lawyers despite serious allegations from three whistleblowers.

We'll go through the details there. Also ahead, we'll take a look at some heated moments between Democrats among themselves on the Senate floor yesterday over a bipartisan package of police funding bills. We'll tell you what they were fighting about. Plus, President Trump answered more questions about his falling out with Jeffrey Epstein, claiming the convicted sex offender stole workers from Mar-a-Lago's spa. And we'll get expert analysis on the Trump administration's new efforts to repeal landmark climate regulation.

Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, July 30th. Let's dive right in because moments ago the tsunami warning for Hawaii was downgraded to an advisory. Advisories in Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands also were canceled. Tsunami waves did hit Hawaii and parts of the West Coast overnight, putting residents on high alert. Warnings also were issued for several other nations. This after Russia was hit with a massive 8.8 magnitude earthquake that Quik expected to rank as one of the largest ever on record. In Japan, officials measured more than four foot tsunami wave off the East Coast as well

as smaller waves along the country's southern islands. This video shows people standing on the roof of a building in the country's northernmost island as video shows people standing on the roof of a building in the country's northernmost island as a cautionary measure in case of large waves. Let's bring in meteorologist Angie Lastman for the very latest. So Angie, it looks like the worst that was feared in Hawaii and other places may have been avoided,

but still a major earthquake causing problems here. Yeah, that's exactly right, Willie. It looks like we've avoided the worst of it. W out of the woods when it' those advisories that are see Honolulu after midnigh much quiet. But here's wh dealing with. We had that

earthquake just off the e that happened late last n into perspective of how s likely when we get that f will rank in the top 10 earthquakes ever recorded in modern history. So no surprise that we immediately had those advisories, watches, and warnings for tsunamis issued across parts of the Pacific.

There's the Hawaiian island chain. We have seen that reduce down to a tsunami advisory. Here are some of those observed wave heights so far. You can see, as we look to the island of Maui, into a tsunami advisory. observed wave heights so look to the island of Mau reports of 5.7 ft. Now th 3.5 ft negative 3.5 ft an within 15 minutes to nine

to be continuing to watch as mentioned, not expecti had feared as we went into continuing to watch that a not expecting what we ini we went into the overnigh the west coast of the Uni we still do have that su for parts of northern Ca advisory up and down the going to be watching for

here through the rest of it comes to northern Cal kind of really just sets like Crescent City to see the worst of it when we do see these tsunami issues so we're gonna continue to keep in a close eye on that but for now Willie it does look like we're gonna see improving conditions as the rest of the morning goes on. All right there's some good news there scary moments when these alerts went out last night. Angie Lastman thanks so much we appreciate it. We're learning more about the man who opened fire in a Manhattan office building on Monday night,

as well as the four victims killed in the attack. As investigators work to pin down a motive, they're focusing on a three-page note found in the suspect's wallet, where he asked if CTE from playing high school football was a possible cause of his mental illness and asked for his brain to be studied. The city's medical examiner now says a brain exam will be conducted as part of the autopsy. Yesterday, New York City Mayor Eric Adams said investigators believe the gunman was headed for the NFL offices located inside the building he targeted, but he took the wrong elevator to get there and never reach those offices. Meanwhile, the NYPD is sending detectives to Nevada, where the gunman lived,

to retrace his steps leading up to the shooting. Officials there say the suspect had two mental health incidents in recent years and was arrested in 2023 on a trespassing charge. Also this morning, a clearer picture of the four victims coming into focus. Officer Deedarul Islam was the father of two young boys with a third child on the way. NYPD leaders hailed him as a hero who made the ultimate sacrifice. Wesley LaPatner was a senior executive at Blackstone and a mother of two, a friend remembering her as the best of humankind.

Alland Etienne was a security guard in the building and a father of two. And Julia Hyman was a Rudin management employee, a Cornell graduate, and just 27 years old, Rudin's headquarters in that building as well. We'll have more on this story as we get it. To Politics Now, we're learning more detail about what was behind President Trump's falling out with Jeffrey Epstein. The president now saying the rift started after Epstein, quote,

stole Mar-a-Lago employees. NBC News Chief Justice in National Affairs correspondent Kelly O'Donnell has the latest. As President Trump headed home from Scotland, he identified a prominent sexual abuse accuser of Jeffrey Epstein, Virginia Jufri, as a former Mar-a-Lago employee who had been recruited by Epstein to work for him instead, causing a falling out with Mr. Trump. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know.

None whatsoever. Jufri, who died by suicide in April, had worked at the spa at Trump's Mar-a-Lago club as a teenager in the late 90s. Reporters asked the president whether any young women were among those hired away by Epstein. Yeah, people that work in the spa have a great spa, one of the best spas in the world at Mar-a-Lago. And people were taken out of the spa, hired by him.

This new disclosure surfaced as the president revealed more about why he abruptly cut off his friendship with Epstein 20 years ago. We took people that work for me and I told them don't do it anymore he did it. I said stay the hell out of here. In 2019 Epstein was charged with sex trafficking of underage girls. Jew free had pushed for Epstein's arrest.

How did this happen for so long how did he get away with that. And this is Kelly O'Donnell reporting there so Joe we've heard now for 2 days in a row president Trump's big beef with Jeffrey Epstein the convicted sex trafficker is that he poached employees from the spot Mar-a-Lago. Yeah, different than what we've been hearing in the past, which was that Jeffrey Epstein had made

an inappropriate move on one of his members' children earlier, but the last couple of days, it's now been that he's still the employee. So, let's bring in right now, ghost of our fourth hour contributing writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, US Special Correspondent for BBC News and host of The Rest is Politics podcast, Cady Kay, an NBC News and MSNBC political analyst, former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill.

Jonathan Lemire, we'll start with you. I've seen reports that the White House believes that the worst of this is over. Obviously, if we're talking about the differences in stories between whether they, Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, had a falling out because of a stolen spa employee versus an inappropriate remark or action towards a member's father, we're getting pretty deep in the weeds there. I'm curious, what's the White House thinking? Do they think the worst is over here? Yeah, the story has shifted a few times because there was also earlier an accounting that

President then not President Trump, but Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein have falling out over a real estate deal that they both were competing for the same bit of property there in Palm Beach. So that's shifted a few times and has raised some eyebrows. It remains to be seen whether they have cleared this or not. There hasn't been any immediate new developments or bombshells in recent days. The Wall Street Journal has had a couple of major pieces of reporting matched by other news outlets. That's been quieter. There is still the ongoing lawsuit, of course.

I think a lot of eyes right now are looking at Ghislaine Maxwell, who had two days with the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch in Florida last week, is expected to talk to congressional investigators later in August. And also, that's one front. And the other being, Republican lawmakers, as they do go home for the August recess, what are they going to hear from constituents? Yes, there has been. You're right, Joe.

I've talked to some White House aides who are slowly starting to relax, thinking that perhaps the end is in sight with this story, but they don't think they're quite through it yet. And it is going to be a test of these Republicans who have been, for some of them, for years, have touted this conspiracy theory, egged on by podcasters and the like, as we've been discussing for weeks now, that they're not going to be able to just put the toothpaste back in the tube, if you will, as one person put it to me the other day.

So I don't think the political firestorm is over just yet, and Democrats are certainly going to do their part to keep it going. Well, and Claire Macaskill is going to ask you what Democrats should do. They obviously denied immunity for Ghisl Max will become testify in the house. But what's the Democrats best move here? Do they move on and over the August recess talk about the bill and how that's going to hurt Americans at the kitchen table or do they keep

talking about or trying to figure out how to make hay over this story on the Epstein files and the conspiracy theory that's swirled around it for years now, mainly on the Republican side. Yeah, I think they can do two things at once. I think they can spend a great deal of time talking about how bad this bill was for most Americans, what it's going to do to their health care, what it's going to do to frankly batten the pockets of very rich people in this country at the expense of others.

I think they can also talk about increased costs and tariffs. But here's the thing, Joe, they need to get Republicans to vote on this stuff around Epstein. And the idea that there are Republicans right now trying to clean up Maxwell's image. I mean, let's be clear what Maxwell is Maxwell is a convicted lying sexual predator of children that's what she is and She not only were creashe's the one who recruited The young lady from the the teenager from Mar-a-Lago, it wasn't Jeffrey Epstein that recruited the woman who committed

suicide last year. It was Maxwell. She was the one who recruited him. And in some of these instances, I'm going to be not graphic, but kind of graphic. She's the one who removed these girls' panties for Jeffrey Epstein to have his way with them. So the idea that they're trying to somehow use her to clean up Trump's image around this, I believe is really gonna backfire on them.

So the Democrats need to force Republicans to vote on these issues, because I think these issues have really penetrated not just Democratic voters, but independent voters and frankly, even the MAGA base.. Politically it's smart for them to stay on it. Well you know I mean I think just my instinct if I were going home to the district for August recess, I'd be hammering night and day on the bill talking about how my constituents' health care is going to be gutted. Their children's ability to get the care they need, their

parents ability to get the care they need gutted by this bill and billionaires were the ones that were going to profit off of that extra money. You're also going to be having of course tech giants, tech moguls that run monopolies that were going to be able to benefit from this bill. The tax cuts for the richest... That all seems to me, if Democrats can figure out how to hammer that point home, they've been handed this political gift because Americans are going to be hurt in so many different ways by the passage of this bill. And on the issue that I campaigned on and stayed on in Congress,

they've just exploded the debt by another $4 trillion, $20 trillion over the next decade. That's a crisis for every single American. But in the background, yeah, just tweak on your Republican opponent who is talking about the Epstein files for years, for years. It's the Democrats covering it up for years. It's Biden covering up. It's Merrick Garland covering up. It's Hillary covering up. All these crazy conspiracy theories. That would be a lot of fun. And it would also be very revealing to constituents what a liar that Republican congressman or congresswoman was, and what a hypocrite, that they were willing to gin up false conspiracy

theories about Democrats, but the second a Republican's in the White House and tells them to stop, they suddenly go silent and say, nothing to see here. Move along. Move along. Yeah. And frankly, the reason he adjourned, Johnson adjourned when he did, is he didn't want to have votes on this subject. Right.

He's not going to be able to avoid it. There are going to be votes on this subject in both houses, both in the Senate and in the House. And the people who vote, those votes will be remembered by people who do digital ads and make TV ads and they will be blasted next year, the first part of November, especially if they play games and try to get Maxwell, let her out of prison if she says good things about Donald Trump and indicts others who were involved in this sorted affair. Right.

And I mean, and Katty, I guess that would be my lead. Hey, it's great to be here at the town hall meeting. It's wonderful seeing all of you. Of course, it's great being home to see my family. I wouldn't be here, but the fact that they shut down the people's house because Mike Johnson was afraid we were going to take a vote on letting you see what was inside the Epstein files. That's a pretty good lead, right? Yeah, and I think you're right. You tweak them, right? You use it as a way to tweak your opponent who has been talking about the Epstein

files, specifically if you have an opponent who's raised it in the past. That's a good one to lead with. But it's interesting to see, Joe, I mean, to your point earlier, you now have several Democrats coming out publicly, Senator Coons, Senator Kaine, Senator Fetterman, a handful of members of Congress saying, actually, you know what?

The Epstein issue is a distraction from what we should be talking about. And, of course, we can do two things at once, but the priority needs to be the impact of the big, beautiful bill and the tariffs. And, you you know with the reporting coming that Americans will start to feel the impacts of tariffs There's a report in Reuters saying that's going to hit pretty hard in the next week or two. I think running on the economy

When the polling suggests that is still what Americans care most about more than the Epstein issue is probably the safer bet for Democrats And I was going to ask in Britain, in Europe, what is the pick up on the Epstein file conspiracy theory? Or do they think Americans are crazy to talk about it with everything else that's happening across Washington and America and the world? Or is it something that Europeans are also focused on? Europeans think Americans are crazy Joe. No. Yes. No. That never happens. Look it did break through. I mean it was interesting. I'm heading back this week but for the last when it was at its peak a couple of weeks ago it definitely broke through. It was on it. It led the news bulletins a few times here. It was on

the front pages of the papers. Now I have to say it's much more talk about Gaza and the situation in Gaza, which we've spoken about a lot the last few days. And that seems to have knocked the Epstein story off the front pages here. And I guess something similar may happen in America, not necessarily with Gaza, but with another big story when it comes along. Yeah. And Willie, of course, Caddy gave a little foreshadowing to my bumper sticker if I've run for office again, which will be, you may be right, he may be crazy, but it

just may be a lunatic you're looking for. Boom. Shout out Billy. That's a good bumper sticker. Shout out Billy Joel. Yeah. Very nice. That's how we're doing these days. That's still ahead on Morning Joe.

We'll show you the moment when Democrats clashed on the Senate floor amongst themselves after Cory Booker accused his colleagues of being complicit in the Donald Trump agenda. Plus Senate Republicans vote to confirm Emil Bovi as a federal appeals court judge, despite several whistleblower complaints about his conduct at the Justice Department.

We'll dig into those allegations. And a reminder, the Morning Joe podcast is available every weekday, featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you get your podcasts. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. So Live picture of the United States Capitol as the sun comes up over Washington. Democrats there sparred with each other on the Senate floor over a bipartisan package

of police funding bills. It happened yesterday afternoon when Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey objected to unanimously passing the legislation, prompting Senators Katherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota to fight back. Senator Booker claims the bills do not provide grants to police departments and Democrat-led states because President Trump has frozen their funding. Rather than supporting law enforcement agencies and officers equally across the nation, they are weaponizing public safety grants to punish state and local jurisdictions that resist

the Trump policy agenda, including my home state of New Jersey. I agree withholding funding for law enforcement anywhere in the country, across the country, is just not acceptable and it should not be done. My bill doesn't even talk about grant funding. There's no funding associated with it. But yet he wants to put it on my piece of legislation. This is why this is ridiculous. This is an attempt to kill

all of these bills. I don't know why. One of the things I don't understand here is that we have committees for a reason and we have hearings for a reason and you can't do one thing on police week and not show up and not object and let these bills go through and then say another a few weeks later in a big speech on the floor. There were bills we would have liked to include that we did not. And if the objection is based on some of this horror show that's going on out of the White House,

I agree with that piece of Senator Booker's points. And I have been equally vociferous in taking on this administration. But all of these bills came out of the committee unanimously, and I think they deserve that support on the floor. What I am tired of is when the president of the United States of America violates the constitution, trashes our norms and traditions. And what does the Democratic Party do?

Comply? Allow him? Beg for scraps? No, I demand justice. It's time for Democrats to have a backbone. It's time for us to fight. It's time for us to draw lines. And when it comes to the safety of my state,

being denied these grants That's why I'm standing here. Don't question my integrity. Don't question my motives. I'm standing for Jersey I am standing for my police officers. I'm standing for the Constitution and I'm standing for what's right Let's bring in MSNBC contributor Mike Barnacle Mike. What say you? in MSNBC interviewer Mike Barnicle. Mike, what say you? Well, it's great theater that we just saw. Cory Booker, a good guy, standing up and yelling in the floor of the United States Senate. What I don't understand is he's yelling at two other Democrats. The Democrats have enough problems. They have enough problems

in this country defining themselves to people, making sure that people know, no, they are alive. They are interested in your life. They are interested in you solving your problems. But Claire McCaskill, what say you? Yeah. Well, here's what's going on. The Democratic base is starving for a fighter.

They're starving for a fight. They want people to fight Donald Trump because everyone is so frustrated and angry and depressed at everything he's doing and how he's doing it. And the cowardice of the Republicans across the aisle in the Senate who are knowingly doing terrible things, and mcgassing votes that I would never dreamt they would have cast when I was serving with them in the Senate. So you got that on one side. On the other side, you have Cory Booker unfairly criticizing two strong Democrats that are

doing everything they can in their power to fight Donald Trump. And you know, Amy's right. There's a way to change a bill. And then there's a way to get in the opening segment of Morning Joe and on the front page of the New York Times. And Cory chose the latter rather than the former. He knew if he did this it would be a viral moment and he would be associated with Democrats who are willing to fight. Meanwhile this bill didn't impact funding.

And there probably was not the leverage to do what Corey would like to do, which is defy Donald Trump, because we don't have the votes in the Senate. I mean, they just approved a judge that's totally unqualified. And you had a couple of guys who aren't even running for reelection who folded on Emile Bowe. So Corey knows we don't have the votes in the Senate to do what the base wants us to do. So, the way he criticized his colleagues is really unusual, kind of unheard of, and frankly,

to me, a little worrisome with what we have in front of us and the fights we have to—the Democratic Party needs to wage next year in the midterms. Yeah, and Willie, of course, Democrats for a good reason want a fighter. They want somebody that goes out there and really takes it to the Republicans. It may be one reason why AOC and Bernie Sanders on their tours got so many people out there because they were willing to go out and lead the charge and do it very vocally. I'm not so sure though attacking two members of the Democratic Senate who were doing their best to keep their state safe and doing it by trying to derail a police, something that's labeled a police funding bill is the best way to do it.

Yeah, you can see almost a surprise on the two senators facing Klobuchar and Masto at the level of emotion and aggressiveness put forward by Senator Booker. Passionate, perhaps a little theatrical, as Mike Barnicle mentioned. We'll see where that lands. Also, on Capitol Hill, the Republican-led Senate... He is actually Spartacus, after all, but go ahead. That's right. That's right. I am Spartacus. Claire mentioned the Republican-led Senate last night narrowly confirmed President Trump's former personal attorney, Emil Bovi, as a

judge on the third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, granting him a lifetime appointment. Senators voted 50 to 49 to confirm Boevey, with Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, as usual, the only Republicans to join all 47 Democrats in voting no. Boevey faced allegations from three different whistleblowers in recent days about his alleged conduct at the Department of Justice during the first six months

of the Trump administration. That includes allegations about his role in the dismissal of New York City Mayor Eric Adams' corruption case. Boevi was also accused of telling subordinates in a meeting in March they may need to ignore court orders that would hamper Trump's mass deportation efforts. Let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, who's been following the story closely, and national investigative reporter at the Washington Post, Carol Lettig. She has new reporting in a piece titled, Boevi Misled Lawmakers About His Actions in NYC

Mayor Case, Evidence Suggest. Good morning to you both. Lisa, let me start with you. You've been following this so closely. Can you just remind some of our viewers what the concerns were that were raised by whistleblowers about Bovi as he now ascends to this lifetime appointment? I will, or Willie, at least I will try.

There were three whistleblowers, as you mentioned. The first of which, Erez Rouvaini, was a Department of Justice lawyer who was fired allegedly for insubordination for having the temerity to suggest to a federal judge that Kilmar Abrego-Garcia was accidentally sent to see caught. But in reality, Erez Ruvani had experienced a lot more behind the scenes. And in a 26-page whistleblowing complaint, he said that not only did he attend a meeting

at which Emil Bovi suggested that the department would have to consider defying court orders that precluded them or hampered them from deporting people under the alien enemies act. But the evidence that Arizona put forward also showed that a mobile be was the person who told the Department of Homeland Security despite a court order that it was safe to land those planes that landed in El Salvador on the weekend of March 15th of 2025. The second whistleblower is a person whose concerns I reported on last Friday. That person is also a former Department of Justice attorney who provided to DOJ's inspector general documents that he or she s story about noncompliance

the third whistleblower i her colleagues at the Was reveal that person's stor initially to Senator Cory a story about Emil Bovi i case in particular. And we that whistleblower not on only had a story, tha of a zoom meeting between

corruption prosecutors a of Justice in the wake of papers about the Eric Ad he essentially presented Somebody here is going to this application and sign Anybody who doesn't will be promoted. Anybody who doesn't will find their job in jeopardy. The fact that

this person had tapes and had shared them with Congress and yet even that wasn't enough to dissuade folks from voting for Emil Bovi is one of those moments where you have to ask yourself what would be enough for Senate Republicans not to support one of Donald Trump's judicial nominees? Yeah, we certainly haven't reached that threshold yet, it would appear. So Carol, Alisa teed us up there. Walk us through your new reporting in the Washington Post about this third whistleblower. You know, what's so stunning to me, Jonathan, is we've got a third whistleblower against a federal appellate court judge nominee. This is just not normal.

And in this case, this whistleblower presented evidence, transcribed notes from this meeting, and other people's accounts that Boves had described this February 14th meeting to the Senate quite differently than it actually happened. And the most important thing just for you and for all of the viewers is Boves told senators on the Judiciary Committee that he didn't threaten anybody with firing in this meeting and urging them to join him in dismissing huge public corruption charges against the New York mayor, and that he didn't offer any inducements. He didn't offer any special treatment to those who agreed to actually sign the motion.

Keep in mind, when Bove meets with these people on February 14, all line attorneys, all public corruption attorneys, they have all lost their supervisors the day before. Five supervisors resigned in protest rather than comply with Boves' request slash demand that they sign this controversial motion. So, again, the difference is this whistleblower is saying and coming forward with notes, and now we now know a recording

that indicate he perjured himself before the Senate. And I take Lisa's point very much to heart. Noah recording that indicate he perjured himself before the Senate. And I take Lisa's point very much to heart. How serious is it when there are claims, not totally confirmed at this moment, but claims and notes and recordings that indicate perjury that the Senate Republicans basically blow right past it? Claire McAskill, let me ask you that question. Instead of just talking generally about Republicans who may be afraid of Donald Trump and Donald Trump supporters,

let's talk about Tom Tillis, who's retiring. Tom Tillis, who said, oh, he doesn't want to be part of the partisanship and the theater in Washington, D.C. Why would Tom Tillis support for some... If, in fact, there were recordings showing him making these threats and then lying, perjuring himself to Congress, if that is the case, why would somebody like Tom Tillis support him? Why does it always come down to Susan Collins

and Lisa Murkowski to do what every one of these Republicans would do if they had the freedom to do it. Yeah, it's really unbelievable that Tillis wasn't a no on this. And maybe even more unbelievable, Joe, is Chuck Grassley's role in this. Chuck Grassley has been known on Capitol Hill as the whistleblower's best friend. The IG community, the inspector general community, and whistleblowers all knew that Grassley's office would always have their back. Hundreds and hundreds of whistleblowers have gone through Grassley's office to call out wrongdoing in the government.

And the quote that killed me from Grassley that I read this morning, he said, even if what all these whistleblowers said were true, it's not a scandal. Are you kidding me? The guy came in front of your committee as you're the chairman of Judiciary Committee in the U.S. Senate and lies to you, and that's not a big deal? And you know, Lisa, I have to think that the goal here, the Trump administration, is to have somebody on the bench ready to step into Clarence Thomas's seat before Trump leaves office. Don't you think that's the game plan here? I think it could be. And there was some reporting yesterday, Claire, that the

administration has sort of narrowed its views on two appeals court judges as potential replacements for a Justice Thomas or a Justice Alito, one being DC Circuit Judge Noemi Rao, the other being Fifth Circuit Judge Andrew Oldham. That may have been just a red herring to distract from exactly the thesis that you've just advanced, that Emil Bovi is really there preparing to take his seat on the Supreme Court. And I'll remind people, some federal appeals court judges don't sit on their seats very long before they're nominated to the court. they're nominated court right now where eight have been federal appeals

But one in particular, Ka in her seat despite havin judge for some number of DC circuit for about two nominated to the court. S objective of both parties put Identify your talent, put them on an appeals court bench, and then have them ready for that moment, if and when that moment arises.

It probably is the case that Amal Bovi is one of those people that they are having lying in wait. Yeah, and the midterms become a big deal now because of that. Carol, it's not totally unheard of for people who are seeking nomination to something to go before the Senate and not necessarily say exactly what it is that they're going to do. We've seen that with cabinet confirmation hearings recently.

This is different for those of us who are not lawyers, but explain it. This is different because Bovi is a lawyer and goes to potentially a very high position as Lisa was just describing there. What does it do then to public trust in the American judicial system and potentially in the Supreme Court if he were ever to get to that position? Such a great question because, you know, I think if you were to look at some of the polling that's been done, the trust in the Supreme Court is at epic lows. It's something that Justice Roberts has been really concerned about because the public,

and this is not unique to Democrats or Republicans, the public has come to a conclusion that the Supreme Court acts with political motive and its super majority will sometimes act with political motive. And that's not what you want the American people thinking about the final arbiter of the rule of law. You want them, obviously, and not only do you want them to believe it, you want it to be true that the Supreme Court is making its decisions based on precedent and readings of the law. But with regard to the nominee, I

have not seen an appellate court situation where a nominee for this sort of resting spot for the Supremes has been so contentious and also has involved so many allegations of perjury and ignoring the court. I don't want to use the expletives that are reported this morning, this early, on MSNBC. But you know, Bove is accused of basically saying,

screw the court, in relationship to removing immigrants from this country, sending them to foreign lands and prisons without due process. And Judge Boesberg, the chief judge of the US District Court has been trying to find out who gave this order to basically be contemptuous of my instruction to turn those planes around.

And the evidence thus far, which Republicans in the Senate have refused to look at, the evidence so far is that it's this now confirmed very, very prestigious senior federal judge. And this now judge, soon to be Judge Boevey, in the questionnaire given to him by the Senate Judiciary Committee, declined to rule out a third term for President Trump and refused to condemn the events of January 6th. The Washington Post, Carol Lenig and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, thank you both, we always appreciate it. We'll explain the Trump administration's efforts to dispute the science behind climate change and the impact it could have on future environmental policy. Details straight ahead on Morning Joe. EPA plans to repeal a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health. It marks one of the Trump administration's most pointed efforts yet to reverse policy on climate change. The 2009 declaration, known as the endangerment finding, has served as the basis for climate

regulations like limiting emissions from cars and power plants. Now the White House is rolling it back in what EPA administration, or Lee Zeldin is calling the largest deregulatory action in the history of the United States. Join us now, NBC News medical contributor Dr. Vin Gupta. He's a member of the board of directors of the American Lung Association, which advocates for climate action to protect health. Dr. Gupta, great to see you as always.

So can you explain a little bit more about what this declaration from 2009 is exactly and what it means for policy, and then because of that, what it means to roll it back? Absolutely, Willie. Good morning. So the endangerment finding was, to your your point in the late 2000s was established and was codified because the Supreme Court basically told the EPA to do this. And that was towards the pale end Willie of the George W. Bush administration to say, can you figure out if

greenhouse gases, if does the science say that greenhouse gases are they harmful to human health? The endangerment finding ultimately was the result of that body of work saying unequivocally that yes indeed, greenhouse gases through the production of ozone, methane, carbon dioxide, all the things that we're all very familiar with are not good for us for a variety of reasons. And so that was codified into law. And basically, the Supreme Court said, if that is the case for the EPA, you

need to regulate the emission of greenhouse gases. So again, this actually started in a Republican administration. It was codified under President Obama. And here we are. And so every policy ever since regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars, Willie, from other sources has been based on this endangerment finding. So Dr. Gupta, let's talk asthma with regard to this issue.

Is this like foreboding a country pretty soon with cars without mufflers? I mean, or is that going too far? What's going to be in the air for people with asthma, young children with asthma? Now Mike, you and I have talked about this, but there is now more than any ever before, there's more than the 20 years I've been in medicine, have I seen, have my peers seen, that more people are coming into the ER to urgent care because they've been coughing due to wildfire smoke exposure, because they've been sitting in traffic for too long.

And we know that the air in traffic is not good for you. Same thing with heat exhaustion. We're seeing rates of these things and people showing up with low blood pressure to the emergency room because they've been exposed to unending, unrelenting heat. The macro numbers are just as worse. Debts, there's a lot of naysayers out there.

It's hard to look at the data and say we're faking it. Deaths from extreme heat never been higher. The toll of air pollution for the independent leading cause of death worldwide. I can go on and on and on the macro numbers. But yes, the concern here is the EPA under the Trump administration is now saying, we do not need to regulate

the emission of greenhouse gases unprecedented. So what does that mean for your tailpipe? There's no regulations. So vehicles gas emitting or combustion engine vehicles no longer will be held if this goes through. There's, if, there will no longer be actual regulations here, which means nothing but badness for human health or lungs for our heart. So, Dr. Dupree, let's dive in a little deeper on that, on this legislation.

Give us some more of the specific impacts were it to happen. And the big picture, I mean, if greenhouse gases, the underpinning of all of this is that greenhouse gases are going to warm the planet, we see on a daily basis the impact of climate change. It feels like this will only accelerate. It's broad-based, Jonathan. To take the vehicle issue here, number one, opponents of greenhouse gas regulation will say, well, that's an ED mandate. That's nonsense. That's not the case here.

Basically, newer generations of combustion engine vehicles are susceptible and liable to the health of these new standards because, again, greenhouse gases have been viewed by both our political parties historically as not good for health. What does that mean for the newer generation of vehicles? There will be no limits here. It's more expensive for car makers to some degree to adhere to these new emissions. Yes, there's an increased cost,

but there's a reason why we do that because there's downstream benefit for the planet, for our health. Ultimately, these vehicles actually are pretty good to drive as well. So there's a lot of broad-based benefits. More broadly, for power plant emissions, there will be no, now we're removing the underlying reason

why we say let's regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. So Jonathan, this is broad based. This is gonna impact every element of society. And really it's a paradox to the make America healthy again agenda. We have talked about this on the, Trump's HHS secretary likes to talk about the impact of the

environment on human health. I wonder what he's thinking when he's seeing his own peers at the EPA do something like this, because this is exactly counter to everything he's putting out there from the Maha agenda. And a rejection of decades of climate science as well. Dr. Gupta, we appreciate you staying on this story. Bring it to our attention this morning. NBC News medical contributor Dr.. Gupta, we appreciate you staying on this story. Bring it to our attention this morning.

NBC News medical contributor, Dr. Vin Gupta, thank you. Still ahead, a jury now is deliberating the fate of a dentist accused of killing his wife with poison. We'll bring you the latest on that trial ahead on Morning Joe. Jury deliberations are underway in Colorado for the murder trial of a former dentist accused of killing his wife by

poisoning her protein shakes NBC News correspondent Camila Bernal has the latest. Members of the jury, a Colorado jury now deliberating in the murder trial of former dentist James Craig who is accused of killing his wife Angela by poisoning her protein shakes this is a murder weapon in closing arguments prosecutor said in 2023 he researched poisons before lacing her shakes and poisoning her with cyanide arsenic and eye drops.

He suddenly realizes he needs to go back 12 bottles of eyeglasses adding the father of 6 had been cheating for most of their 23 year marriage and killed his wife because he wanted out of the marriage, wanted the money and did not want to ruin his image. According to prosecutors, he cheated on his wife constantly. But this idea that somehow this was some sort of motive of motive.

It's nothing new. Craig, emotional as his defense attorney made the case that the cheating was not a motive for murder, but it was a motive for suicide. She wanted to kill herself. Saying this home video shows Craig warned doctors of his wife's possible suicidal thoughts. It's your fault. It treated look, I did it to myself. could be believed. Doctors

what was wrong with Angela presented in court. She sa Craig replying just for th