alayna treene, we appreciate it. we're out of time. we will talk to you soon. thanks to all of you for getting up "way too early" on this wednesday. "morning joe" starts right now. >> you said you're moving quickly at this. there's been a lot of criticism and a lot of pressure that the doj is behind the power curve here, behind the committee, not moving quickly enough in what appears to be solid evidence in some cases. >> as i said, we've been moving urgently since the very beginning. we have a huge number of prosecutors working on this. it's inevitable with the speculation what we're doing and what our theories are, the reason there is this speculation and uncertainty is something in the tenet of what we do as prosecutors and investigators is to do it outside of the public eye. >> attorney general merrick garland in an exclusive new interview with nbc's lester holt

comes amid new reporting that federal prosecutors have zeroed in now on donald trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, focusing on the man himself. the attorney general saying anyone who tried to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power will be held accountable, that includes, he said, a former president or a candidate. trump meanwhile returned to washington for the first time since leaving office. and dropped several more hints about whether he may run in 2024. as he and mike pence held dueling speeches in washington about the future of the republican party. good morning, welcome to "morning joe." it's wednesday, july 27th. i'm willie geist, we the host of "way too early" and host of the politico, jonathan lemire and the author of the book "the big lie" and mike barnicle and katty kay. morning, i want to begin with the investigation to overturn

the 2020 election. four people familiar with the matter telling "the washington post" federal prosecutors have now turned their attention to former president donald trump. two sources telling "the washington post" in recent days asked about the conversation with trump, his lawyers and others in his inner circle who took part in the scheme to replace certified biden electors with a slate of atrump allies. according to prosecutors, they asked hours of meetings that trump led in december 2020 and 2021. his pressure campaign on pence to overturn the election. and what instructions trump gave his lawyers and advisers about fake electors and sending the electors back to the states. two sources telling the paper that the justice department has had in its possession since

april. and the post reports on two tracks one centered on the charges already filed against those who stormed the capitol like seditious conspiracy. and the other track, potential fraud, connected to the elector scheme and the pressure that trump put on doj officials and others to go along with the big lie. i spoke to the former president that immediately to respond for the request for comment. and mark meadows both declined to comment. nbc news has not been able to independently confirm the details in the "post" reporting but attorney general merrick garland did sit down for that interview with lester holt and had an exchange whether the justice department would indict the former president with the evidence. >> you said in no uncertain terms the other day that no one is above the law. >> yeah. >> that said, the indictment of a former president, perhaps candidate for president, would arguably tear the country apart.

is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here? do you have to think about things like that? >> look, we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold everyone, anyone who was criminally responsible for the events surrounding january 6 or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable. that's what we do. we don't pay any attention to other issues with respect to that. >> so, donald trump, if he were to become a candidate for president again that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don't move forward? >> i'll say again, that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer, legitimate, lawful transfer from one administration to the next. >> to include a former president, he said. let's bring in congressional investigations reporter for "the

washington post" jackie alemany. she contributed to that new report on the justice department probing donald trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. jackie, good morning. good to see you. so, this is what many people suspected that the justice department looking at former president trump. and you also have confirmed that with a bunch of sources. based, it sounds like, on the kind of questions that are being asked of people like marc short and other witnesses who have come in to talk about the events around january 6th, focused on donald trump? >> that's right, willie, we've reported that prosecutors who have recently brought in people like jacobs and marc short, potentially more people that we might not be aware of just yet but people who very close to mike pence who had firsthand accounts and were witness to the pressure campaign being applied on him to overturn the results of the election. and were also in the room for

other meetings involving some of the constitutional schemes put forth by trump allies. before the president, they were asked about the meetings in december 2020 and january of 2021. we also know that they were asked specifically about the pressure being put on mike pence, according to sources. and we also know that these phone records have been newly reported and obtained by the justice department, included the records from top trump aides and mark meadows as well. someone else who was also in the room for a lot of these really explosive and meetings that have recently garnered a lot of scrutiny by the january 6th committee, particularly that december 19th committee that preceded the things will be wild tweet. along with the meetings that

occurred in the leadup to january 6, that week of january 6, with john eastman who was specifically advocating and pressuring mike pence to go along with his constitutional planning. >> jackky, your reporting at the post dovetails on the interview that lester did with merrick garland. because merrick garland just say that we will without fear go after anyone who overturned the election. and saying anyone who pardon meed in this without fear or favor. so, does that confirm, essentially, for you what you are reporting that, yes, the justice department is looking at donald trump? >> yes, exactly. that does help provide some additional corroboration on top of the sources that we've already spoken with. but we know that the justice department is now squarely focused on trump, along with his top allies who were involved with some of these plans including as i did not mention

previously, but this fake late slate of elects planned. we also know that these people have been asked by the grand jury about those conversations as well in those conversations with the campaign officials but there has been increasing on merrick garland, especially after the eighth hearing held by the january 6th committee that really laid out how responsible and directly involved the former president was in most of these conversations. and the decisionmaking with regards to the insurrection to go harder on the former president. and now, we're seeing merrick garland who has taken this bottom of up approach for the past year and a half now finally move his way up towards the top fish here. >> jackie, doesn't it seem that in the lester holt interview with merrick garland where the attorney general says it's inevitable that the committee would have found things before we found them.

and it's inevitable that there will be things that we find that they haven't found. do you think there's some reference there to what the doj may have found that perhaps the committee hasn't? >> yeah. that is a really good question, katty, i was actually wondering and i think an important question, potentially, why the grand jury brought forth marc short and greg jacobs after they appeared for multiple depositions and appeared publicly. why they would want to add more transcripts for this grand jury to review. and it might be the case there's a new line of inquiry potentially that thele january 6th wanted to get on the record from marc short and greg jacobs. there's also this idea that there is a higher bar for the department of justice. they are held to the law. they are potentially pursuing -- they are pursuing criminal charges here. that is a bar that the january 6th committee is not held to.

they are working in the court of public opinion. and so, that question as well, they have -- you know, the department of justice has some other powers, potentially and potentially has had more cooperation from witnesses under more criminal -- potential criminal prosecution. and had -- might have provided more information. they also have been able to provide and obtained more documents under secrecy, through subpoenas, getting things like these phone records. things that the committee could obtain. but are more politically problematic for them. >> jon, these incidents are either incidental coming out the day your book comes out with the breaking news and "the washington post," which is the next page in your book, which is

yes, justice is going at the man in the center, the maestro, the guy who orchestrated the big lie. >> yeah, i wish i could say that the pr team was responsible for this. certainly, it's viral marketing if nothing else. it proves the book's thesis here. obviously, trump's lies didn't end on january 6. it's shaping our politics of today and how he had so many people willing to do his bidding and preserve his power. the book details all of that. mike barnicle, shifting to present day, we've known for quite a time. we've talked about about it, there's been frustration how slow the department of justice was going even impatience from certain quarters in the white house about it. the attorney general has become much more visible about this in recent days made clear that the prosecution would happen if warranted. lester holt's question what would that look like? would it tear the country apart? let's be clear. if the facts say there should be an investigation, there should

be an investigation. the attorney general dodged lester's question. if the attorney general charges donald trump how does that play out in our politics? >> we have no idea. i have no idea. i mean, given what happened yesterday, we saw the former president speaking to a group of people in washington, d.c. rabid, rabid fans. their intensity for donald trump isn't going to fade if he's indicted. the instinct is that it would grow. it would be more intense. and the protection of defense, their favor of donald trump. but what he has -- what he would have been charged with, if he is charged, is such a violation of norms in terms of our government, he basically tried to destroy our government. to take an election, a legal election, a legal winner, joseph r. biden, and basically trample on 230 years of history. that's what he tried to do, and he failed.

>> and we've got more evidence of that, mike, yesterday from the house select committee releasing never before seen quotes of testimony from chris miller. in the video clip, miller tells the committee there was no direct order from president trump to deploy 10,000 troops to protect the capitol on january 6th. just last month, trump declared in a statement that he requested 20,000 national guard because he had a fear, quote, the crowd was going to be very large. miller's testimony contradicts that claim. >> let me be clear here, since january 2021, mark meadows said on fox news, fox news, quote, even in january, that was a given that as many as 10,000 national guard were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense. is there any accuracy to that statement? >> not from my perspective. i was never given any directional order of any plans

of that nature. so, i was surprised by seeing that publicly. but i don't know the context or aware ever what was said. yeah, there was no -- obviously, for activating more folks, but that was not anything more than contingency plan. and there was no official message or anything of that nature. >> just so we're clear, you did not have 10,000 troops, quote, to be on the ready for january 6th prior to january 6th? >> a nonmilitary person probably could have some sort of weird interpretation, but no, to answer your question, no. that was not part of my plan or the department of defense's plan. >> and just the rest of his statement was, quote, that was a direct order from president trump, and yet, here's what we see, all kinds of blame going

around, but not a whole lot of accountability. and to be quick, there was no direct order from president trump to put 10,000 troops on the ready for january 6th, correct? >> no -- yes, that's correct. there was no order from the president. >> jackie, this is a case that the house select committee has made over the last several weeks that not only did donald trump send that crowd to the capitol. they effectively cleared a path for the crowd then to go up into the building. we've heard it from the committee. now, it's something entirely different to take an order from the man himself the former acting secretary of defense. >> yeah, this, i think, directly bolsters what adam kinzinger said, that one-liner that really resonates that the president -- this was the president's choice not to do anything. he actively chose not to do anything. and i think it's a very interesting choice as well by the select committee.

and i think we're going to see a lot of this going forward, for the next few months, to selectively leak out in dribs and drabs of their vast archival footage that they've obtained of former the trump officials, essentially fact checking false claims by the former president. we've seen that previously, we had ivanka -- there was one hearing where they played a clip of ivanka, trump or someone contradicting her, the chief of staff what she had said. i think we'll see a lot of that fact-checking to poke holes in his credibility and trump allies who tried to do the same of some of the people who have publicly testified. and i think we'll also see them get a little more creative about all of the information they've obtained to keep the public's attention on this topic while they're sort of recalibrating this month of august. and setting the stage for the fall, where we're going to come back with some additional public hearings. >> former acting defense secretary very clear there,

president trump did not call for the national guard to come in and protect the capitol. "the washington post's" jackie alemany, thank you for reporting it. we'll be reading it. for the first time since leaving the white house in january 2021 former president donald trump returned to washington yesterday, speaking at a summit at the nation's capitol, trump was expected to discuss law and order. but instead, as you might expect, much of the speech spewing lies and lamenting the way he was treated since leaving office to focus on that january 6th committee. >> they say stuff and they think you're going to believe it. it's a serious -- it is a horrible, horrible thing. say friend of mine recently said i was the most persecuted person in the history of our country. who has been through anything like, seriously. certainly, no politics and definitely no president. this is just -- this is just a crazy time. never forget everything this corrupt establishment is doing

to me is all about preserving their power and control over the american people. they want to damage you in any form. but they really want to damage me so i can no longer go back to work for you. >> joining us now senior political correspondent for the "washington examiner" david drucker. dave, good morning. you had this pretty extraordinary split screen less than a mile away. former vice president mike pence broken over donald trump on that january 6th committee that happened that day and the day after speaking at events. what did you make of the reception they both received? >> well, look, they both received a very good reception. pence was speaking before a crowd of conservative college students at a young americans foundation conference. and he delivered what you would expect from a pre-trump republican in terms of a full

spectrum speech about conservative policy how republicans think democratic leadership in washington is driving the country in a ditch. and we need big victories in the fall to right the ship. and pence, interesting to me, because we've never seen, i think until our lifetime, a split between two former running mates. a very acrimonious divorce. pence discussed the accomplishments of president trump and himself as the trump/pence administration. that's the only way he would address trump by name, when asked in the question and answer session after the speech to discuss this relationship broken with trump and how it was in party. he noted, they tend to agree on most conservative policies they did during their term, but maybe they differ in focus which in pence-speak is a right hook about the president's insistence

in clinging to his stolen election claims and looking backward. and where pence over and over again talked about looking forward in his speech. and as you played the former president's clip there, the equally adoing audience and political supporters of his spent much of his speech looking backward and complaining. now, if you took the initial few minutes of the speech, the first ten minutes, it was actually a rather effective political treatise on rising crime and how americans feel about it, the fact that many of them, particularly in the swing states if you look at the 2024 context, you want somebody to talk about it, offer solutions and say they're going to do something about it as usual, we ended up with our own trump rally where he talked about all of the things that have nothing to do with 2022 or 2024. but what we can see that the former president remains very popular with many republicans.

and vice president pence, regardless of whatever his 2024 prospects are is not shying away from some confrontation with his former boss. and he is moving ahead with this idea that he will run for president, regardless of what trump does. >> so, david, as you say, the first ten minutes from trump was somewhat focused on policy. the issue is he then spoke for an hour after that which is all about him. and that's the concern for so many republicans, it's all about him. and that duck tails with your new reporting about fundraising, about online grassroots donations going to donald trump. he's blocking out the sun and leaving vast republicans without any. isn't it a reported issue that trump is taking the money but not spending it? >> yeah, he's hoarding it. jonathan, congratulations on your book. >> sure. >> enjoy the moment.

talking about republican strategists, fundraising strategists, republicans focused on digital fundraising, there's a lot of frustration because while there's a lot of voter enthusiasm is for republicans in 2022, for their voters while the numbers they have from independents look very good, they've seen a drop in online fundraising for grassroots conservatives and they've relied on small dollar donations to fuel their campaigns. it's a move by them that came later than the democratic party's, but it was a necessary move. they continue to see growth. and yet in 2022, while democrats are looking at having impending disaster, their fundraising is off the charts. and republicans have seen in the first and second quarters their numbers drop. and one of the things they blame for that is inflation. they say their particular class of donor has really been hurt by the rising cost of groceries and gas and all of the other things.

but the other thing they point to, jonathan, is trump, and the more than $100 million he's stockpiled presumably for the 2024 presidential bid. so what republicans at the congressional level are doing are competing against potentially a presidential fundraising operation something you don't normally do in a midterm cycle with donors who having giving to smaller campaigns and sharing the wealth, that's what the committee does, he's hoarding it. and it's very frustrating. and one thing that some republicans are worried about if trump were to launch the presidential campaign before the elections which is something that people tried to talk him out about it could further crimp their online fundraising. why? because trump is the best pitch they have. so many candidates use this image and likeness in the major

feature in the fund raising appeal, and digital fundraising appeal. he is not a candidate and 31 become legal prohibitions against promoting a presidential campaign and that could leave him out in the cold. >> yeah, you're seeing pretty apeople be fundraising. like the senate race for republicans in the senate of ohio but donald trump doesn't seem like he wants to share any of that cash. the washington examiner's david drucker, thank you. still ahead, the desperate evidence by former president trump's allies to reverse the election by promoting fake electors. previously undisclosed emails shedding new light on that. plus, the latest example of democrats pushing a far right candidate, supporting them, in order to help the party's chances in november. we'll dig into that effort and whether it's worth the risk. also ahead, market futures in the green right now, but will it stay that way after the fed's interest rate decision later today.

cnbc's brian sullivan will join us to break down how high that hike might go. and on capitol hill, lawmakers have a lot, ahead of the recess, senators gary peters and chris coons, both will be our guests this morning. a busy one. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. you're watchin hmm... back to the miro board. dave says “feed it?” and dave feeds it. just then our hero has a breakthrough. we'll be right back. on miro.

my little family is me, aria, and jade. just the three of us girls. i never thought twice about feeding her kibble. but about two years ago, i realized she was overweight. she was always out of breath. that's when i decided to introduce the farmer's dog to her diet. it's just so fresh that she literally gets bubbles in her mouth. now she's a lot more active she's able to join us on our adventures. and we're all able to do things as a family. ♪♪ get started at longlivedogs.com with xfinity internet, you get advanced security that helps protect you at home and on the go. ♪♪ you feel so safe, it's as if... i don't know... evander holyfield has your back. i wouldn't click on that. hey, thanks! we got a muffin for ed! all right! you don't need those calories.

can we at least split it? nope. advanced security that helps protect your devices in and out of the home. i mean, can i have a bite? only from xfinity. nah. unbeatable internet. made to do anything so you can do anything.

♪♪ man, that's a beautiful live picture of new york city at 6:29 in the morning. the federal reserve is expected to raise interest rates again today. fed chair jerome powell set to speak at 2:30 p.m. eastern time, as second quarter earnings reflect an economic slowdown. joining us now, senior national correspondent for cnbc, brian sullivan. sully, it's good to see you. so, how high is the hike going to go today? >> well that is the question, we'll see if the federal reserve can remain steely, man. >> oh, that was real good.

>> i apologize, i've been up for a couple hours. >> great callback. >> anyway, here's what we're thinking, the expectation is what we'll call on cnbc a 75 basis point hike. on normal tv, three fourths of 1%. in other words raising that baseline cost of three-fourths of 1%. we don't know, there are talks that could go bigger all the way to 1%. either way, willie, whatever they do, 75 basis points or 1% going to be one of the biggest rate hikes in recent american history. why are they doing it? because, i don't need to tell the audience, you go to the store every day, they see inflation for themselves. the federal reserve is trying to pump the brakes on the economy. the idea is this, the fed raises rates. banks raise rates. i hate to say it, credit card

companies raise rates they try to dissuade consumers from spending money. that sounds weird. with too many people with used cars and commodities, prices go out of control. the fed is trying to slow down the american economy, the problem, willie, is will they do it so much that you slow the economy too much. you actually put the economy in a major downturn or recession. good news, we've gotten good news. gasoline prices are down about 40 cents in a month's time. we've seen commodity costs coming down. rents, still too darn high, but there are some signs that inflation is moderating. >> so, brian, if it's a balance, right, you don't want to pump the brakes so far that you make the car stall and get the country into a recession. and there are some suggesting that the last rate hike is having an impact. we're seeing some prices come down. why not, with all the speculation that we may -- you know, the white house suggesting we are, but there's some debate

why we may be headed into recession, why not wait until longer. the previous rate hikes encouraging people from spending a little bit, could they just carry on with that? >> yeah, their fear is that inflation is so rampant and so hot, 40-year highs, it's really all-time highs by some measures. because the government is always changing how they moderate it that they're really aggressive about this inflation idea. listen, inflation, you guys talk about politics all the time, i don't, but i've got to imagine as we approach the midterms and you're seeing the president out there on twitter and social media saying gas prices are coming down, we're pumping more oil. why is he talking about these things because, listen, ultimately, all of the stuff we talk about, so many elections as you would know better than i do come down to the economy and higher prices. the federal reserve -- the question is this, can the federal reserve do this without damaging the economy? and how much will rate hikes

matter, considering if your rent has gone up, is your landlord going to cut your rent because of higher rates? no. here's the biggest thing that i'm watching. what will they call revolving credit, the amount of money on credit card debt is at a record high. i guarantee you your audience knows they're getting notices that their balances or future spending, those rates are going to go up. not only do you have a balance going up, your monthly payment is going to go up. and let's hope that incomes are going up at the same or higher rate that will balance out that difference. otherwise, even with rising wage, you actually have less buying power. >> and you can't keep up with it. that's right. and tomorrow, sully, we're going to get that gdp number. there's been a sort of semantic debate for the last couple weeks. is it anegative gdp numbers, two consecutive quarters means we're in a recession. the white house, janet yellen

among others have said, well, we've got as many jobs as we can want. low unemployment. inflation too high. that's right, prices are unavd unaffordable for many people. what is that number, sully, going to tell us whether we're in a recession or not? >> it's going to -- you nailed it, there's going to be a semantic argument. i'm sure republicans, we're in a recession. janet yellen is on the talk show circuit. we had jared bernstein on, an adviser on cnbc saying with washington, that doesn't really matter, we know the economy is strong. forget about the technical definition of a recession. right? and so there will be this fight. it's such a weird time, coming out of the pandemic, because, for example, yes, the unemployment rate is way down. but at the same time, the unemployment rate only measures people looking for a job.

and more than 1 million people have left the workforce that are of working age. so, the unemployment rate is down in part because people have just said, you know what, for lifestyle reasons, risk reasons, other reasons, i'm out. i'm not going to work anymore. at least not now. and so there's all these semantic debates. we do know this there's 11 million open jobs in the united states. walk around new york, walk around the suburbs, anywhere you want, there's a help wanted sign. i don't think the semantic debate is as important as what happened in the fall. has this sort of boom -- this pandemic excess, right. you come out of the pandemic, i've got to go somewhere, i've got to go to vegas and spend money. people are spending money on airfare and hotels, will that continue? if you know, willie, let me know, because i don't know. this is a one time sort of

roaring '20s mentality, ahh, let's go! then it wipes out. >> you just heard in sully's voice what he wants to do to get back to vegas. very telling. cnbc's brian sullivan, thanks, sully. good to see you, man. coming up next, we'll have more on president biden's upcoming call with china. and how a trip of a high profile lawmaker is adding to tensions. and extremes in midterms, one of our guests say qanon requests are losing but their lies are winning. more on "morning joe" when we come right back. more on "morning joe" when we come right back.

my active psoriatic arthritis can slow me down. now, skyrizi helps me get going by treating my skin and joints. along with significantly clearer skin, skyrizi helps me move with less joint pain, stiffness, swelling, and fatigue. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year after two starter doses. skyrizi attaches to and reduces a source of excess inflammation that can lead to skin and joint symptoms. with skyrizi, 90% clearer skin and less joint pain is possible. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms,

had a vaccine, or plan to. with skyrizi, there's nothing like the feeling of improving my skin and joints... ...and that means everything. now's the time to talk to your doctor about how skyrizi can help treat your psoriatic arthritis- so you can get going. learn how abbvie can help you save. men put their skin through a lot. day-in, day-out that's why dove men body wash has skin-strengthening nutrients and moisturizers

that help rebuild your skin. dove men+care. smoother, healthier skin with every shower.

president biden is expected to speak with chinese president xi jinping over the phone tomorrow. the call comes as tensions escalate between the two countries over house speaker nancy pelosi proposed trip to taiwan. according to white house officials, the leaders will discuss a range of topics from taiwan. to the war in ukraine.

joining us now u.s. national editor at the financial "times," ed l louis. ed, it's good to see you. just in the last hours, they've responded to speaker pelosi's trip, quote, the white house will bear the consequences if speaker pelosi does in fact visit taiwan. is this a good idea to send speaker pelosi there? some republicans say no, she couldn't, some democrats say yes, what's your view? >> my view, it's definitely a risky move if indeed she does go, you see mike pompeo who was probably the most hawkish in the trump administration offering to go with her. i think that tells you something, up against the fact that biden clearly doesn't want her to go. the pentagon clearly doesn't want her to go.

the context therein is that xi jinping is building up to his party congress in october where he's going to get a third unprecedented term as china's president. and one of his great promises is that he will be the president who brings taiwan back into the fold. so, anything that makes him lose face is a buildup to that. it's quite high risk. it's a very tense situation right now for pelosi to be going into. if indeed that is still her plan. we don't know that. >> ed, one of the things that i've also been hearing is that there is a startling lack of communication at any level at the moment. i mean, striking low levels of communication, either on a political level, frankly, i've been hearing from business leaders as well. they've never seen this. there are no channels of communication and that really worries them. why is that? why is nobody talking to each

other on each side? why do things look this silent? >> it's are interesting, katy, if we're talking a new cold war with u.s. and china, here is the contrast with the old cold car at least since the 1962 cuban missile crisis in which the soviets and americans had very routine, regularized exchanges, including on the military front, exchange of military information so as to minimize the possibility of miscalculation. the tensions between the u.s. and china, particularly since xi jinping has become president, are so acute, if you add in covid and the fact that xi jinping doesn't travel and most of his officials don't travel, if an american official goes to the u.s., they have to quarantine like any visiting business person. then you've got this really dangerous situation where there's no communication. and biden still hasn't met xi

jinping as president. still hasn't met -- there will be another video call tomorrow. and but as you and i know, video calls are not the same thing in in-person meetings. so the context for the second in secession to the u.s. presidency, nancy pelosi who is also the same party as president biden, the context of that and the potential for really quite lethal misunderstanding is higher than i think a lot of people -- maybe not mike pompeo but a lot of people are not yet taking on board. >> so, ed, given the isolation of the two countries and the nonverbal communications, no communications at all, really, and gimp given what's on the plate of the president of the united states, globally on the war on ukraine, holding it through winter and fall if necessary. and given the fact that

president xi is going to be running china for the rest of his life, clearly. what is the level of danger involved, in even the prospect of nancy pelosi continuing to talk about going to taiwan, seemingly at odds with her own government. her own president of the united states. and just right in the face of president xi? >> well, a great question, i mean, xi jinping is different from his predecessors. in that he is the sole guy. what you had before, a system of two-term limits, collectively autocracy, autocratic for sure. but fairly predictable. you knew who was in charge, you knew that decisions were made more by committee than by the whims of one guy. xi jinping is a sole autocrat. no real constraints on him. he's got ever possible title and

military position, as well as political position going. which some might think is a sign of his power. but others might think it's a sign of brittleness of his power. he's a hypersensitive individual in the buildup of this very critical party in october. whose actions are not entirely predictable. there's been a big rise in military, close military scrapes across the taiwan straits. one with a canadian plane and another with an australian spy plane. the chinese appetite to set military aircraft is getting higher. and, of course, pelosi would be going into taipei in the military aircraft. so if you couple with the rhetoric from beijing, her response would be very strong,

you've got the makings here of something that might -- might spiral beyond what any of us would hope to see. >> and certainly, on the agenda for that conversation, china's continued soft support for russia and their war in ukraine. certainly not cut them off as president biden would like. and eyeing potentially and to your point, there's no substitute for a face-to-face meeting, maybe the meeting in indonesia where the two maybe meet. u.s. financial editor for "financial times" ed luce. still ahead, the bolstering of competition with china is set up for a key vote in chamber. we'll discuss known as chips plus, senator gary peters. plus, a trump supporter who assaulted police at the capitol is sentenced to five years in prison. we'll have those details, as well as the very latest on the

january 6 investigations by the house select committee and the justice department. "morning joe" will be right back. and the justice department "morning joe" will be right back

new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today.

in two seconds, a vacationer will say... yeah, i'm going to live here. only to realize... what if i can't sell my place? ♪♪ don't worry. sell it directly to opendoor and we'll help you buy your next one. aah. when life's doors open, we'll handle the house. welcome to allstate, where you can bundle and save. isn't that right phil? i'm in the metaverse, bundling my home and auto insurance.

bundle home and auto and save. call a local agent or 1-888-allstate for a quote today.

for just the third time ever, the mega millions jackpot has crossed the $1 billion threshold. the grand prize in friday night's drawing will be an estimated $1.2 billion. $1.02 billion. after no one won last night's drawing. that number is certain to grow as more pictures are bought leading up to friday's drawing. mike barnicle, i know you like to scratch off tickets from time to time, maybe a lottery ticket as well with your dunkin' when you go out in the car. we're rushing for this one. it's 1.2 now, higher than that when we cash in on saturday. >> you got one? >> here's the winner. >> you got it? >> yeah, right here. so, i just won, it's nice to

know you guys, see you later. >> finally, you can overcome your hardship, mike. that's great to hear. >> yeah, over a billion dollars. >> that's it you're walking around here, you're not fulfilling -- >> if i won, if i won, you may never see me again. >> you have an obligation tonight at the 92nd street -- don't skip town until after that. mike and i will be talking about my new book. i would say, willie, if i won a billion dollars, that's plenty of copies to put on top of the charts. frankly, at this moment, my concern is pay rafael devers to chip in for the red sox. pay devers, the sox are falling apart, let's build for the future at least. >> jon, that was expert work you turned the mega millions into book promotion into red sox promotion. stunning work. by the way, yes, mike barnicle

and jonathan lemire tonight at the 92nd y. barnicle has stepped in. subway series started well for the yanks, aaron judge and banks. back to back. judge, major league earning 38th home run. one pitch before rizzo hit an opposite field home run as well. but the mets, big answer on the bottom of the frame. jordan montgomery just didn't have it. and marte, escobar capping the inning with a tie-breaking two-run home run. the mets beat the yankees, 6-3, a couple of contenders perhaps will return to the field for a second time tonight. katty kay, your thoughts for the potential, potential, we got the

dodgers and yankees out of the way, we understand that, the potential for a subway series? >> seriously, you're going to come to me on that? >> yes, i will. >> the poor audience, willie, mercy for them. possibly, the prem, i could say something. baseball, especially after a couple week's holiday. jonathan will massacre me for any sports i do for him. guys, i know you've got all the wisdom, i'll leave it up to you. >> you can do jonathan book or the series? >> oh, jonathan's book every time. absolutely every time. >> thank you, katy. we appreciate you gamely trying to do the sports section on "way too early," filling in there. >> yeah, the audience doesn't. >> i mean, we do get tweets from time to time, i'll say. but the book promotion much appreciated.

i thank you very much. >> yeah, it's katy and k-par, on sports. we're going to talk about the sports and the big lie coming up in just a bit. the january 6th hearings have not swayed senator graham's reports on trump. we'll play that praising the former president. plus, this is spreading across social media, dozens of future doctors walking out of a ceremony in michigan. we'll tell you what led to that protest and what the university had to say about it. that's next on "morning joe." a. a. that's next on "morning joe. only two things are forever: love and liberty mutual customizing your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. if anyone objects to this marriage...

(emu squawks) kevin, no! not today. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

9 out of 10 couples prefer a different mattress firmness. othe sleep number 360 smart bed senses your movements and automatically adjusts to keep you both comfortable. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. save $500 on the sleep number 360 c4 smart bed, queen now only $1299. lowest price ever! your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

in three seconds, janice will win a speedboat. bingo! i'm moving to the lake... gotta sell the house... ooh! that's a lot of work. ooh! don't worry. skip the hassels and sell directly to opendoor. bingo! when life's doors open, we'll handle the house. ♪ it wasn't me by shaggy ♪

you're never responsible for unauthorized when life's doors open, purchases on your discover card. look, we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold everyone, anyone, who is criminally responsible for events surrounding january 6, or any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from

one administration to another accountable. that's what we do. >> to include former president trump, attorney general merrick garland in an exclusive new interview with nbc's lester holt, amid new reporting the justice department now is turning its attention to donald trump's direct role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. welcome back to "morning joe." it is wednesday, july 27th. jonathan lemire, mike barnicle, katy kay still with us. we begin this hour with the new reporting on the 2020 election. four people familiar with the matter tell "the washington post" justice department prosecutors now have turned their attention to former president donald trump. two sources telling post in recent days, two top aides to former vice president mike pence were asked before a grand jury about their conversations with trump, his lawyers and others in his inner circle who took part in a scheme to replace certified biden electors with a slate of the former president's allies.

according to the "post," vote, prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings trump led in december 2020 and january 2021. his pressure campaign on pence to overturn the election. and what instructions truv gave his lawyers and advisers about fake elects and sending electors back to the states. justice department investigators in april received phone records of key officials and aides in trump administration including former chief of staff, mark meadows according to two people familiar with the matter. and those who stormed the capitol like seditious conspiracy and the other fraud connected to the scheme, with the electors to go along with the big lie. the justice department spokesman and a lawyer for mark meadows

both declined to comment. as you saw, attorney general garland sat down for a rare and exclusive interview with lester holt. here's their exchange on whether the justice department would indict the former president specifically, if the evidence supported it. >> trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move forward or don't move forward? >> i'll say again, that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer of legitimate, lawful transfer of power. >> let's bring in long-term journalist, executive editor for news david long. david, you've been talking with sources from the department of justice for a long time over the course of this investigation now. i suspect what we've heard from "the washington post" parts of which now have been confirmed by

pete williams at nbc news, doesn't surprise you that they are in fact looking at the man at the center of all of this? >> no i'm not surprised. garland has been outspoken here that he will purview donald trump if necessary. i think the january 6th committee has put pressure on garland to make that statement publicly. and when they look first at the violence, the rioters themselves and made their way to the top of the chain. what's interesting is that mark meadows appears to have legal jeopardy. and there's a reporting by "the new york times" that mark meadows is aware of this to create this fake electors. in the emails working to help president trump at the time admitting they're fake electors. in this email they say it's illegal. the electors, they're not real. and the governors haven't assigned these electors and

great jeopardy for meadows as well. >> and those who authenticated in "the new york times" by people who worked with trump at the time are shedding new light on the trump team's plan to send fake elects to capitol on january 6th. previously disclosed information detail in realtime the plan to seam l assemble a list of people who could claim to be elects in battleground states and falsely say that trump won their state. but even the people working on the plan knew their claims didn't hold water. jack wilenchek, a phoenix based lawyer wrote this, we would just be sending in fake electoral votes to pence so that someone in congress can make an objection when they start counting votes. and start arguing that the fake votes should be counted. flat out saying in that email that the electors would not be legal. in a follow-up email by the

"times," he wrote that alternative votes is better than fake votes, adding a smiley face. and they also highlight their efforts to keep the plan secret with epstein celebrating in and then meeting with pennsylvania legislators at the white house didn't alec. and. wilenchik writing they keep it under wraps so we could try to surprise the dems with it. nbc news has not reviewed the emails in question. david, you violate the fact you don't write down criminal conspiracy. talk to us about just this, i think fake elects is one of

those terms a lot of people hear it and don't understand what that means. just explain a little more what this meant and why it's so much trouble and why charges of fraud could be in the offing? >> well, basically, these are fake documents. and to just step back, these are the formal documents that choose who becomes the next president of the united states. so i'm astonished by that kind of language. they're using the emails to say we're going to steal the presidency. and they put in smiley emojis. and the scheme was to create chaos january 6th. there is under the very loosely written electoral count act, a chance for congress, if they could disagree on who won that there would be a vote where each state delegation, congress would vote for the president. and trump would win in that sense. it wouldn't follow the electoral college results. it wouldn't follow the popular vote. it would be a massive legal -- first of all, most importantly, nothing like this has ever

happened in american history. nothing even close. so, i'm stunned and amazed and thank the reporters at the "washington post" and "the new york times" for the information. >> i think we all share that same sense of gratitude for the reporting that's been done. following that, i harken back to mob trials where we have perhaps covered where they go up the chain until they get what they're looking for. in this case, the issue would seem to be, correct me if i'm wrong, would be the intent of principal "a," the former president of the united states. that they could already indict probably multiple numbers of people that they have taken in and talked to. the intent aspect of it, though, what's your sense of where they're going with intent? >> that's the key thing. and that's what -- it would be an enormous step for merrick garland to indict the president. and if they were to put donald

trump on trial, i should say, the former president, if they lose, if he's acquitted, that's a huge boost for trump. but what's amazing about the work of the january 6th committee you see this corrupt intent. he was told over and over again by the white house counsel, by the attorney general he had lost the election. he knew, he should have known, he had not won. then you have him coordinating, face-to-face pressuring mike pence. and again, the magnetometers, the morning of the rally, and demanding the secret service -- think about this, sitting president of the united states wanting to lead an armed mob to take over the u.s. capitol to prevent himself from being removed from power. so, legally, though, that shows he knew he was acting with corrupt intent. that's a key part of any successful prosecution. >> so, there's no communication to say what they need is a corroborating witness to say,

yes, he told me, yes, he told me, quote-unquote, i know i lost, but i can bag this way? >> i don't know if they need him to say i know he lost, but people to sign the fake documents and submit them. they him pressuring mike pence. maybe you call mike pence as a witness. key figure is mark meadows. if you remember cassidy hutchinson, mark meadows was trying to talk to the war room january 6th and what message was he trying to convey with roger stone, a member of the proud boys. to get donald trump indicted -- donald trump has been very particular particularly in the white house years to not make that statement. he would signal what he wanted people to do and protect himself. so, will people flip? that hasn't happened yet, and maybe they won't.

there isn't a whole history around people flipping but it's an amazing development this morning. >> in that interview with lester holt yesterday, attorney general garland acknowledged that the committee, the select committee's work has inspired at the top end in the justice department around whamd january 6th. here's what some of it at least, former justice department officials told the 1y67 committee about the pressure from donald trump himself to go along with the big lie. >> the president said, just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the republican congressmen. mr. donoghue, that's an exact quote from president trump, correct? >> that's an exact quote from the president, yes. >> the next note shows that even the president kept pressing, even though he'd been told there was no evidence of fraud, the president keeps saying that the department was, quote, obligated to tell people that this was an illegal corrupt election?

>> that's also an exact quote from the president. >> so, between december 23rd and january 3rd, the president either called me or met with me virtually every day with one or two exceptions, like christmas day. so the common element of all of this was the president expressing his dissatisfaction that the justice department in his view, had not done enough to investigate election fraud. but at different junctures, other topics came up at different intervals. so, at one point, he what raised the question of having a special counsel for election fraud. a number of points he raised requests that i meet with his campaign counsel, mr. giuliani.

at one point, he raised whether the justice department would file a lawsuit in the supreme court. at a couple of junctures, there were questions about making public staples, or holding a press conference. at one of the later junctures was this issue of sending a letter to state legislatures in georgia or other states. i will say that the justice department declined all of those requests that i was just referencing because we did not think that they were appropriate, based on the facts and the law as we see understood them. >> so, david rohde, as we talk about people, perhaps, flipping on donald trump we should remind our viewers that almost everyone we've seen sit before that panel, the january 6 house select committee worked in the administration of donald trump, worked in the justice department

around donald trump or people around donald trump on january 6th who have come out and told the truth about what happened leading up and during january 6. mark meadows, though, as you point out, is one person who refused to testify. that committee does have pages and volumes of his texts and phone records and everything else. he could be under much more pressure, could he not, from the justice department? he's tried to hide out. we've heard from cassidy hutchinson, his aide of meadows, extreme cowardice refusing to stand up to trump. saying well, he doesn't want to do anything, what do you want me to do? but what kind of trouble could he can be in with the justice department if not the committee? >> well, the state department, the fact that he's part of this scheme putting up electors -- sorry, putting forward votes that don't deserve to be counted as part of the electoral college. again, it's astonishing that he's done this in emails, there

could be text messages also. if a lower level person who is communicating with meadows cooperates that could put more pressure on him. so, he's a key player here. i hope he does cooperate. i want to salute jeff rosen who you just showed, a longtime republican, bill barr, who i criticized in the past, they all in the end said these were lies. said that donald trump lost the election. it's been an amazing, you know, showing i think consistently, by republicans standing up to trump on the january 6th committee. and so, hopefully, mark meadows will turn and cooperate as well. >> we will see "the new yorker's" david rohde, we appreciate it as always. meanwhile, the democratic campaign committee is launching a campaign ad to help a primary there but it's not in support of a democrats.

they're backing john gibbs in the third district. gibbs faces moderate peter meijer. the ad is like it's attacking gibbs that calls him hand-picked by trump. >> john gibbs is too conservative for west michigan. hand-picked by trump to run for congress gibbs called trump the greatest president. and worked in trump's administration with ben carson. gibbs has promised to push that same conservative agenda in congress. a hardline against immigrants at the border and so-called patriotic education in our schools. the gibbs trump agenda is too conservative for west michigan. >> congressman peter meijer was one of ten republicans who voted to impeach president trump after the january 6th insurrection. we've seen self-high profile races, democrats say it will allow more candidates to face the extreme and arguably easier

to beat opponents. but critics say that plan is misguided. democratic congressman dean phillips slammed the ddd. saying i'm disgusteded that hard-earned money intended to support democrats is being used to boost trump-endorsed candidates. and in republican primaries, axios reached out to every member of the committee to get reaction. congresswoman stephanie murphy said she's opposed. saying no one should be promoting election deniers and peddlers of the big lie. and elaine lurial of virginia meanwhile appeared to support democrats aggressively spotlighting which gop

candidates are election deniers. jamie raskin said he could see both sides of that argument. the three remaining did not comment or respond. let's bring in matt lewis into the conversation. matt, it does call to mind 2016 where a lot of democrats sort of said, let's boost donald trump, he's crazy, he'll never win and then he became president of the united states. >> that's right. be careful what you wish for. and i think if you care about liberal democracy, if you care about america, the goal should be to keep bad, evil, crazy people as far away from office as possible. but democrats are doing the opposite. so, i think it sort of pokes a lie in the idea, and really, undermines the premise of the january 6 committee. if you believe, if you truly believe that the ill-liberal right maga, the nationals,

whatever you want to call them, if you truly believe they're an existential threat you would not be spending in some cases millions of dollars to boost those candidates. look, democrats will say, these candidates have no chance to win, they're going to be easy. well, you'd say, i mean, that's what they thought -- that's what most people thought about donald trump. and i'm not sure that we should be willing to bet the future on the brainiacs of the democratic party or the pollsters who just sometimes get things wrong. but the other point is it's not just maijer, one of the ones that stood up to voted to impeach and now happening other states, maryland, pennsylvania, illinois, this is very damaging.

>> yeah, democrats in pennsylvania seem this is a good strategy, but be careful what you wish for because this could come back to bite them come midterm elections or beyond. i want to talk to you about your new piece, super interesting, qanon are losing but their lies are winning. we have a series of qanon candidates not doing particularly well, but somehow the language they've been using has now become, what, almost mainstream other republican candidates are picking it up terms like groomer, terms like deep state, and now part of the republican party? is that how you see the qanon winning? >> i think that's exactly right. and it's not a new thing. i mean, quite often there are martyrs so to speak. in this case, they're political martyrs. these are candidates who are losing. but it's like if you strike me down i will come back stronger than you could of imagine. i think that's happening with q.

a lot of the candidates running who are qanon fans or q-adjacent are actually losing their primaries and i think that obviously should be celebrated. unfortunately, they may be losing that battle, but their winning the larger war. their ideas are spreading and catching. on and co-opted by mainstream republicans. in some cases mainstream republicans are collective in supporting the line. there's that vonnegut quote be careful who will you pretend to be because you will become who you pretend to be. this is actually very dangerous and, look, there's a long history of losing candidates winning. pat buchanan, i don't want to compare pat to qanon, say what you will about pat, but i don't know if you know anything as close to pizzagate.

look at the primary, did george w. bush really win or did pat buchanan win? you could say the same for barry goldwater, he got 62% of the vote, he got crushed. but i think it's something to be careful and keep an eye on, yes, it's important that mainstream, normal republican, win these primaries, but even if they win, the fight continues. you must continue to endure and be resilient, because these q ideas are kind of sneaking in and becoming mainstream. >> and as you write, once norm is establishment republicans a lot pretending to be crazy to win the primary and get into the general election, those ideas take hold. senior columnist for the daily beast, matt lewis, appreciate it. former president trump returned to washington and

senator lindsey graham, again, was praising trump's influence on the party. >> if you think that trump is bad for the party, i disagree with you. i think president trump is good for the party. let me tell you why. president trump has gotten people who wouldn't give me or romney or anybody else the time of day. they believe that he is on their side. you know, what happened with me and trump, larry? well, we found common ground. i was one of the 16 guys that ran against him. if you don't remember, it's really not your fault. it doesn't last that long on my book. >> i remember it. i interviewed you on another network. >> yeah. >> but you're moving towards redemption. >> i am, i tried. i tried, i tried to move towards a stronger america and he's the vehicle to get us there. here's what i'm trying to do. after i lost, i took my loss, he beat my brains out.

who am i to give him advice. we went over to the white house, we had dinner and started playing golf. here's what happened, we found common. >> january 6th on the floor of the senate, lindsey graham said count me out, enough is enough. jennifer rubin is here, liz cheney and larry hogan stand against the republican lies. in it, republicans have made the right choice in denouncing former president donald trump for his attempted coup. they should take a lesson from representative liz cheney and maryland larry hogan whom showed up over the weekend what it means to stand up for truth. senator hogan made a statement do not vote for election

deniers, period. where are the others, where are presidents george w. bush and john kasay of ohio. when are the current republican officials who claim to reject maga delusions such as asia huppenson. every one of them should follow cheney and hogan's lead in urging republicans not to vote for the slew of election deniers running for critical offices that affect elections. so, jen, governor hogan said over the weekend, couldn't bring himself to support the nominee now in maryland who the republican seeking to take his seat, running against the democrat wes moore in maryland. but as you say, hogan, cheney, that small group, they're the outliers. they're the ones who have been effectively ostracized and ran out of the party because they are standing up and telling the truth about what happened in the 2020 election? >> that's right.

they are lonely figures. and far more of the republicans are taking the lindsey graham track which is slavish, particularly of this, of the former president. and it's very interesting in your last segment with matt talking about how democrats are trying to boost these extreme candidates. it's ironic that both hogan and cheney are saying these guys in our own party don't support them. and they actually named some names. liz cheney was asked about people like carrie lake in arizona and doug mastriano in pennsylvania. saying we shouldn't be supporting these people. so that's a pretty bold move, but, frankly, this is, really, to quote another president, a time for choosing. and the republicans have to decide, are they on the side of america? or are they on the side of trump? and as the progression of the committee's fact-finding and of

the justice department's investigation picks up, there's not going to be any question that donald trump and his close cronies are going to be understand the microscope for having to try to overthrow the election. and republicans really have to decide, do they want to set themselves up by putting in power in governorships, in secretary of state spots in attorneys generals' spots people who tried again in 2024. that's what they're facing. unfortunately, i think cheney and hogan are going to be out there pretty much on their tone. the piece is kind of a plea to join them. >> jen, the remnants of the republican party. yesterday was further indication i have no life i happened to watch donald trump's performance in washington, d.c. not for the first time i came to the conclusion it's not

necessarily ideology that has people in wraps with donald trump, my question to you, from the former republican party, if it's not ideology what enthralls them to the extent they lack the courage to stand up against someone who is literally trying to overthrow the existing american government? >> well, there are two ways to look at this, one is the lindsey graham way, i got what i wanted. i used this guy as a vehicle to get conservative court justices to get tax cuts. and the other is applicable to the party at large, that is he gives people resentful angry about america people to hate. those include immigrants. people who are trying to advance civil rights. those include people who are trying to teach an accurate view of history, the so-called elites, the mainstream media.

and by giving people the hate, they pumps them up and telling them i'm on your side, keeping them in a constant state of fury and anger. that is how he bonds with people. you're exactly right, if he had an ideology, it's completely all over the map. he's certainly not a conservative in message. what was billed as a policy speech yesterday, i don't know, did you hear any policy in there, michael? yes, so, i think we know where he's at, and it's also a lesson for the republicans, if he does run, he's going to spend the entire time talking about 2020. so if that's what they're looking for, they're going to get it. and they have, again, i think, committed a cardinal error and saying we'll just humor him a little bit more. by humoring him, they kept him in the picture and they will wind up with him as their nominee. >> policy won for donald trump, did not show up at that peach

yesterday. and jennifer rubin, thanks so much, we'll be reading your new column at "washington post."com. we'll have more on breaks news, the justice department is investigating former president trump's actions on january 6th. one of the reporters who broke that story for "the washington post" carol leonnig will be our guest. plus, some elected officials are calling for investigation into the secret service's deleted texts around the january 6th attack. homeland security's gary peters will be joining us. we'll be right back. >> i hope he runs again. if you think trump is bad for the party, i disagree with you. i think president trump is good for the party. >> all i can say is count me out. enough is enough. it is over. i traveled the world with joe. i hoped he lost. i prayed he would lose. he won. he's a legitimate president of the united states. he's

from buying to refinancing, the loan professionals at newday usa have given enlisted veterans the united states. like newday usa.

- as someone with hearing loss, i know what a confusing and frustrating experience getting hearing aids can be. that's why i founded lively. high-quality hearing aids with all of the features you need, and none of the hassle. lively offers bluetooth, fda regulated hearing aids delivered to your door for thousands less than you'd expect and remote access to an audiology team seven days a week. better hearing has never been this easy. try lively risk free for 100 days. visit listenlively.com. ♪

i don't really buy that for one minute. for one thing, isn't it a little odd that all of the texts would vanish for january 6 and january 5th? of all the days what an odd coincidence that is. and, you know there was a preplanned migration of the phones that just happened to be on the same day as the first violent insurrection in american history? so, i'm a little dubious of that so count me as skeptic. >> congressman jamie raskin, a member of the house committee investigating the capitol text, saying that he doesn't believe the secret service story about the deleted text message. joining us chairman of the democratic committee, democrat gary peters. senator, great to have you with

us. your committee is looking into that, it is oddly suspicious, even to the layman, that the text messages january 5th and 6th have disappeared from the phones of the members of secret service. as far as you understand it, is there a way to get those back and will they be in your hands at some point? >> well, we're certainly looking into that, i can't say that yet. we will want to see those for obvious reasons it is strange that that happened. and they've become even more important after what we heard last week from the commission where secret service members were reaching out to their families to say good-bye. they were really concerned about the situation they found themselves in. and believed things could get very ugly very quickly. those texts are just critical to the investigation. we're going to do everything we can to try to get to the bottom of that and get that information. but, agree, the average person when you have an insurrection where secret service members were fearing for their lives. and yet those texts are erased.

and they're erased after there was a request to preserve records, it makes no sense. and certain, we've got to get to the bottom of them. >> senator, is the secret service cooperating with you and just saying look we were in the middle of a systems upgrade that day and we just don't have them anymore, what are they telling you? >> yeah, they certainly saying it's difficult to get them because they went through this preplanned process which again even makes no sense, even if you had a preplanned process to eliminate those texts, after you have an insurrection, united states probably put that on hold, especially since you had a request to preserve documents. so there's something here that is certainly not right. and we've got to find out. >> senator, katy kay here, can i ask you about the bill, $52 billion being advanced as a fund to help develop the u.s. semi conductor. we've seen in michigan the cost

of not having a semiconductor in the u.s. 52 million sounds good. but china has spent $150 billion. is the us even with this bill doing enough to put itself in position that we're not going to face the kind of shortages that we have faced of chips in the last year or two which really cripples the american economy? >> yeah, well, certainly, this is an important investment that we're making, we have to remember that this 52 billion is really an investment that's going to be leveraged by billions and billions of dollars in private industry money. we know there are a number of projects that are ready to go forward if this assistance was available. we know many of these chip companies were waiting, they were potentially going to europe, for example, if this investment wasn't being made. but this isn't a substantial investment, not only in future chips, high-tech chips that will

power future applications but so-called legacy chips, the mature chips in our automobiles. as you mentioned we have parking lots full of automobiles now in michigan that are ready to go to the showroom floor, but they lack chips. they need to have chips. it's had a significant impact on revenues of automakers we simply can't be depend on foreign service for something as critical as computer chips. >> senator, it's jonathan lemire, certainly the push to get chip act through, before the senate come foss a close before the august recess, senator minority leader schumer pushing to get stuff done. . i know you sponsored the illegal weapons trafficking act that would eliminate gun conversions as the house intended to a broader assault ban. also give us the update on the legislative push to codify the

same-sex marriage in wake of supreme court ruling to overturn roe v. wade. >> i think we got to have the 16-vote threshold. we're aggressively looking for republicans that will support that legislation. the last i heard, we're not quite there. but the rest is certainly focused. but i'll say our number one goal here before we leave is to make sure we push through reconciliation that will allow us to negotiate for drug prices. bring down drug prices for americans stabilize health care under the affordable health care act. that is something we have fought for, for years and years, decades, to bring down prescription drug costs. that will be a huge bill when we pass it and that is going to be a focus of ours in the days ahead. make sure we get that done. make sure we're providing relief for families. high inflation. and lower drug costs to be

tremendous for families across the country. >> a lot of work to do before you head to recess. chair of the homeland security commission, senator gary peters, appreciate your time. up next, over 170 university of michigan medical students walk out of their induction ceremony, protesting the keynote speaker's views on abortion. in a few hours indiana will resume its special session. they've reconvened to consider new abortion restrictions. election officials from both states join us for a final count in the local battle over a post-roe america. battle over a post-roe america

blendjet's summer sale is on now! cool off with this hot deal on blendjet 2. it packs the power of a big blender on the go, and it crushes right through ice. just drop in your favorite ingredients, even frozen fruit, and make a smoothie any time, anywhere. blendjet cleans itself. just add a drop of soap, water, and blend. recharge quickly with any usb port.

order now on blendjet.com and kick off the new year right!

in three seconds, pam will decide... i'm moving closer to the grandkids! wait. i got to sell the house! don't wait, just sell directly to opendoor. easy as pie. piece of cake. whichever. when life's doors open, we'll handle the house.

in the wake of the supreme court's decision to overturn roe versus wade a number of republican republican-controlled state legislatures have moved to restrict or ban access to abortion. according to the "the new york times" at least eight states have effectively banned abortions. another four have restricted abortions after six weeks of

pregnancy. abortion advocates are still fighting in michigan. future doctors walked out of their white coat ceremony to protest an anti-abortion keynote speaker. and in indiana, vice president harris joined a majority to move ahead with the new law. joining us mallory mcmorrow and indiana state senator greg taylor. senator mcmorrow, let me start with you, a doctor was speaking, dr. collier, a member of the staff had been there a long time who recently became anti-abortion. she's long been pro-choice. and as we saw some of the doctors, future doctors at the ceremony walked out. what did you make of the university defending their decision to are that speaker there? >> i think that these students are incredibly brave. we have to remember, this is a day that medical students have

worked their entire lives for. there's a long dormant 1930 law currently on the books in michigan that makes providing an abortion a felony with no exception of rape or incest. and it may dare to provide mess medical care that they're going to be criminal. so good on them for using their voice for standing up and walking out. especially at this moment, we need them now. >> senator, to what extent do you think that the students who walked out, it seems like i'm not sure, but seems like a few dozen from the image. to what extent does a broader mobilization of protests against the overturning of roe v. wade that may have an impact in the midterm elections? >> i think they are very representative of an overwhelming majority here in michigan. we been circulating a ballot initiative citizen-led to codify

an amendment to the state constitution. that just turned in almost 800,000 real signatures collected by real people. that is the most signatures in any ballot history in state history. students looked at the law on the books in michigan realized how archaic it is as do most michiganders and know they have to push back. >> senator taylor, the state legislature is about to take up a session that could ban abortion in the state. give us an update where that stands and what democrats are trying to do to push back. >> thank you for having me this morning. the state of indiana has a senate bill 1 is a ban on abortion in the state of indiana. yesterday in committee, there

was a change to the actual bill language to add provisions that would allow for women who are under the age of 16 to have up to 12 weeks to claim rape or incest, and then for children over 18 -- over 16, you would have to claim that you're a victim of rape or incest by eight weeks. after fertilization. and there's an additional defense for the life of the mother. but other than that it's a -- it's a total ban on abortion. >> senator mcmorrow, the very word "abortion" sort of an awkward thing to talk about, especially i think for men. and it's quite notable that from state to state to state, the most ardent opponents of really

restrictive abortion procedures, abortion laws happen to be men. legislators, state senators, state representatives. what are your thoughts on that? >> i think that that is indicative of we have been told as women not to talk about our sex lives. it's not polite to talk about sex lives and it is not polite conversations and we've been told not to talk about abortion when one in four women have likely had an abortion at some point in their lifetime and it's very hard to get pregnant, to stay pregnant and to do so in a healthy way. i myself gave birth to my daughter about a year and a half ago and shortly after that iud placed and that iud punctured through my uterus and it required a dnc which is the most common abortion procedure and thinking again about the university of michigan doctor students and if they are no longer to be taught these procedures then i might not even be here today, and that is a

very common experience and we're in this place and a lot of male legislators have never had to deal with this, and as women we have to. >> to senator mcmorrow's point, we've heard horror stories since the supreme court ruling of women who were having a miscarriage and needed a dnc in their state and they couldn't have one and they were forcing them to carry dead fetuses for two weeks and girls having to cross state lines. do you think when we hear those stories and the stories particularly surrounding miscarriage and perhaps the unintended consequences and it is not clear that the supreme court thought through what the impact of that impact would be on overturning roe v. wade on women who were in the middle of a miscarriage and needed a dnc, for example, are those stories having an impact on the red state of indiana on people's

minds. are people starting to question in are consequences from the supreme court ruling that they haven't participated and they don't particularly want? >> yes. absolutely. we just had a ten-year-old who was the victim of rape in ohio have to come to the state of indiana to receive an abortion, and our attorney general here in the state of indiana actually is looking into the doctor who provided the abortion for this 10-year-old who was a victim of rape and those examples are going to pop up all over the country because of this ruling that took away a constitutional right for women to control their own healthcare. so, yes, we've seen it. we've actually experienced it here specifically in the state of indiana, and i expect to see it happen across the country as we continue down this path. >> indiana state senator greg

taylor, michigan state senator mallory mcmorrow. we thank you for your time this morning. we appreciate it. coming up on "morning joe," colin allred joins us to talka about a new bill and we'll ask him if the legislation will do fluff to protect the 2024 election. we're keeping an eye on wall street. a big decision from the fed this afternoon could have a major impact on the markets and the price of things you go to buy every day. we'll get some analysis from cnbc when we come back. get somei carl, say hi to nina, our schwab financial consultant. hm... i know how difficult these calls can be. not with schwab. nina made it easier to set up our financial plan. cnbc when we come back actually, it can be, carl. look forward to planning with schwab.

schwab! ♪♪

>> the justice department lz from the beginning been moving urgently to move as we can about this period and to bring everyone responsible who interfered from the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another which is the fundamental value of our

democracy. >> attorney merrick garland addressing criticism that the justice department is not moving fast enough in its investigation of january 6th. this comes amid new reporting from "the washington post "qwest that former prosecutors have turned their attention on president trump. plus, member of the senate judiciary committee chris coons will here to tell us what he wants to see about that investigation. plus, preventing another january 6th, the congressmen leading the push to push the electoral count in the house will join us. we'll ask him about that effort to make it explicitly clear how the votes are counted and by whom. we're back in just two minutes. y y whom - common percy! - yeah let's go! we're back in just two minutes

wooooo!!!!! woohooooo!!!! w-o-o-o-o-o... yeah, feel the savings. priceline. every trip is a big deal.

look, the justice department has been doing the most wide-ranging investigation in its history, and the committee is doing an enormously wide-ranging investigation, as

well. it is inevitable that there will be things that they find before we have found them and it is inevitable that there will be things we find that they haven't found. that's what happens when you have two wide-ranging investigations at the same time. the justice department has from the beginning been moving urgently to learn everything we can about this period and to bring to justice everyone who is criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power. >> attorney general merrick garland in an exclusive interview with lester holt defending the handling of the investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. welcome back to "morning joe." it is wednesday, july 27th, jonathan lemire, mike barnicle and katty kay. we'll talk to -- who broke the

story on donald trump. more from the attorney general as lester pressed him on whether trump as a future president or future candidate could be prosecuted. >> you said in no incertain terms that no one is above the law. >> yeah. >> that said the indictment of a perhaps candidate for president would arguably tear the country apart. is that your concern as you make your decision down the road here, do you have to think about things like that? >> we pursue justice without fear or favor. we intend to hold anyone -- anyone who is criminally responsible for the then-surrounding january 6th, for any attempt to interfere with the lawful transfer of power from one administration to another accountable. that's what we do. we don't pay any attention to other issues with respect to that. >> so donald trump were to become a candidate for president again, that would not change your schedule or how you move

forward or don't move forward? >> i'll say it again that we will hold accountable anyone who is criminally responsible for attempting to interfere with the transfer, legitimate, lawful, transfer of power from one administration to the next. >> pretty clear there. >> joining us now there, pulitzer prize-winning investigative reporter from "the washington post," carol leonnig. the investigation into president trump has become much more focused now on the man himself. carol, fascinating piece. you broke it last night. explain what led you to this point, what your sources are telling you, perhaps some of the questions other witnesses are being asked, but how could you be so clear that the focus now is on donald trump and what he did that day? >> well, it's a great question, and i can't let you too close behind the curtain of how we do our reporting, right? sources and methods.

>> fair enough. >> it became clear to us over several weeks and ultimately culminating in the last couple of days that the justice department wasn't looking at whether or not if john eastman had engaged in possible criminal conduct and fraudulent conspiracy, but actually that the department of justice was more keenly looking and asking about donald trump. that came it a head with the appearances of mark short and greg jacob, and i suspect there are other grand jury appearances that we are not aware of, so stay tuned on that, but those -- the grand jury phase appears to have started in earnest this month, and the investigation of team trump really began in the early spring of this year or i

should say it swung into the more forceful posture in early spring of this year. the questions that individuals are receiving are overwhelmingly again and again about what did donald trump say, what did donald trump do? then what did donald trump say to the vice president then? what did donald trump ask his lawyers to do for him? those kinds of questions, if they were asked in an fbi investigation could be a phishing expedition and could be a search for basic information, but when asked in a grand jury they indicate the prosecutors are asking for the potentiality of bringing charges and going to trial and they are more serious. it's not fishing, it's trying to get people on the record in a formal way that can be usable at trial. >> hey, carol, it's jonathan. congrats on the story.

it's attracted a lot of attention with top pence aides including mark short that were pulled before a grand jury in d.c. in recent days. tell us what you do know about that, and also the two possible tracks here for criminal charges against the former president. seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding which we know others have been charged with, but also potential fraud due to the fake elector scheme. >> it's a great question, jonathan. these two tracks have possible criminal charges with them. what my colleagues and i haven't been learning as a result of my work is that the justice department has been looking at what's available in the evidence we've already obtained and within open source publicly known and available what are the potential crimes. so the first track, seditious conspiracy to obstruct a government proceeding. you know from your own reporting

that there are a number of steps that donald trump took using the levers in the oval office at his disposal to try to block the peaceful transfer of power, to try to block the certification of the election, and the conspiracy charge that the department of justice is reviewing is what kind of fraud and conspiratorial agreement may donald trump and other allies or just donald trump's allies alone, what conspiratorial agreement did they hatch in order to defraud people to obstruct that government proceeding? for example, the fake elector scheme to try to stop the certification of the vote, the effort at the department of justice by donald trump and jeffrey clark to try to get the department of justice to say the election was rigged in certain states so that certain swing states' votes would be in chaos

or in question and therefore a justification for not certifying the election on january 6th. all of these things together -- let me back up a second and say the department of justice has a lot of potential crimes they could charge when you think about all of the ways that people used fraud, used misleading, inaccurate information together to block that peaceful transfer of power and there could be all manner of things charged, but seditious conspiracy is the most serious to obstruct a government proceeding, it's what stewart rhodes has been charged with. that effort was violent. the part that involves donald trump and his allies doesn't appear to have violence at its base and so what's critical in that investigations is figuring out the intent. what was the intent of a group of people who were pushing, essentially, a lie to stop vice president pence and congress

from affirming that joe biden was the next president. >> carol, from your reporting, is there a sense in the justice department to that point that they want -- if they are going to charge donald trump, they not only have to have the higher bar obviously than the committee has and they have to be able to prove intent and action, but it needs to be a charge of something big enough that it makes it worth it for the justice department to drag the country through what will inevitably be a very explosive and a very divisive and painful process. there's no point charging him with something small and finding guilt with something small that leaves half the country or half the country shrugging at the effort of it. is that something also being debated or are they thinking as merrick garland is saying, no one is above the law and if there's any illegality then

we'll have to charge anyone and everyone in illegality, however big or small? >> i think this question is really smart because i'm not going to pretend to be in merrick garland's head or that he's disclosing anything special to me or any reporter, but what i think is very important about the question is this, what i picked up from sources or what my colleagues, devlin barrett, what we picked up from internal sources is that that debate is real. that concern about the high bar of prosecuting a former president, not a sitting president, even a former president is huge. it weighs heavily on the department of justice. it weighs heavily on merrick garland and the sense that i'm getting is there's a lot of discussion about how overwhelming is the evidence and how overwhelming does it have to

be for us to go down the road of even conceptually considering, charging and prosecuting a former president. that's never happened before in our history. so as for your point about small charge or large charge, you know, i'd like to stay away from that because, you know, you may remember bill clinton struck a deal with the independent council to avoid being charged with something relatively small in the big scheme of things, lying to investigators. i don't know whether small charge or large charge is the issue here. i think the issue is deafening, overwhelming evidence that is so striking and so compelling that it can't be ignored and that a charge is more than a slam dunk, but a necessity. >> so, carol, is it your sense that despite your skilled,

extensive reporting that we don't know a lot still about this investigator and no matter the course of the investigation there are probably indictable elements right now in the investigation, but overlapping that, is the idea that they don't want to bring any charge that they don't think in justice that won't survive an appeal? >> that's a great two-part question. so, one, mike, i think there's lots we don't know about this iceberg, you know. we've covered the tip of it. donald trump appears to be a subject for all practical purposes of this investigation, and keenly his actions are under probe and under a microscope by federal prosecutors. as for the second part of of

this appellate vulnerable sit something i've heard from several sources that at the department of justice there's been a running dialogue about will we have to re-litigate an election in order to bring charges against any of the individuals? not just the former president, but against any of the individuals? you might remember that stewart rhodes who is charged with seditious conspiracy, a crime under some team trump and trump allies, stewart rhodes has alleged that he thought the election was rigged. one of the appellate concerns is are we going to have to convince people that stewart rhodes knew that it was a lie? are we going to have to convince jurors that he had to know this was bogus? the same question applies for donald trump and trump's allies? were they pushing a lie they

knew was a lie because that's critical. that's state of mind. >> the washington post carol leonnig reporting a big story for the post along with her colleagues. you can read it at washingtonpost.com this morning. carol, thank you very much for being here. good to see you. joining us now democratic senator chris coons of delaware and he's a member of the foreign relations and judiciary committees. good to have you on. you've been listening to the interview and lester holt and merrick garland. the excerpts we've been playing this morning and what's your impression from justice. we haven't heard a lot and there's been frustration that justice may not be moving as forcefully as some people think it should be. garland essentially telling lester, don't worry, america. we're on this. >> i know very little about the justice field and that's appropriate. i'm a member of the judiciary committee of the senate and a close friend and supporter of

the president's. i will say about the january 6th committee and their eight hearings that when i first tuned in to the first hearing, i honestly did not expect to hear that much new. i sat through the entire second impeachment trial of former president trump. i was in the building for january 6th, and i did not expect to hear a lot of new information, but hearing after hearing i was struck at how much detail they had uncovered and how many former inner circle trump administration and trump campaign members came forward and testified and how clearly, in particular, the former attorney general bill barr said that he knew the election was won by our president joe biden and conveyed that he thought it was all bs, the attempts at trying to invalidate the election so i do think the reporting that carol from "the washington post" was detailing breaks new ground and is

striking, and i do think this will end up being a critical turning point for our country this year. i have confidence in attorney general garland. >> we will see. i want to move you since you are on the foreign relations committee to ukraine. ape war that continues unabated now for now into its fifth and sixth month. what is your sense of the state of play right now in ukraine? the united states pledging support consistently packages of nearly a billion dollars going out the door every couple of weeks. how is ukraine holding up and what more do you think the united states has to do to keep that effort moving? >> in the first couple of weeks the ukrainians fought fiercely and pushed back the russian offensive trying to take their capital kyiv and their second largest city kharkiv and the russians reformed and settled into a brutal artillery barrage in the east in the donbas. in recent weeks, series after series from the ukrainians have

given them the ability to target russian ammunition depots and command and control centers far behind the front lines. that has given the ukrainians critical relief. they've been able using our himar system which are targeted, long-range artillery systems the most cutting edge weapons available that can fire quickly and that can be used in the battlefield and reporting suggests it's been making a real difference and it's given ukrainians relief from what is a horrifying experience being pounded day after day of dozens of rounds of ammunition that just rains down on them. that has slowed significantly, and it is not clear to me where this goes in the next couple of months, but it is my hope that in a bipartisan way, we here in congress will continue to support a united effort by nato

and our european partners to impose sanctions and real costs and to make sure that ukraine has a strong and fighting chance. one more thing, willie, we are working to ratify the a session of finland were to nato. that is a defeat for putin's russia. these are capable, advanced countries that will expand the border with russia and will secure the baltic states and the sea around them and will frankly, will give us more confidence that american men and women do not have to go fight and defend the northern flank of nato in the future. this is a very positive development. >> senator coons, good morning. jonathan lemire. staying overseas, china. the president is going to have a call with xi jinping later this week and president biden has already voiced the opinion shared to him by the pentagon that he does not think it is

wise for house speaker nancy pelosi to travel to taiwan later this year. what is your opinion? should the speaker do that? >> i think the president will reach out to xi, and i think both intelligence and military leadership of the administration will consult closely with both the president and the speaker. as we were just talking, we are actively and closely engaged in this ongoing war of russian aggression against ukraine. i have great respect for the speaker and her long record of leadership and foreign affairs, and i trust that she'll consult closely with the administration and make the right choice. at this moment it could be a significant distraction if we ended up in knowes clat or situation around taiwan and its status, but i have confidence that the speaker will do the right thing in this moment. >> but in your judgment, senator, better for the speak speaker to hold off on the visit to taiwan.

>> think she needs to weigh what she gets from the administration, from the president and the intelligence community. i think it does risk escalating tensions with china and the speaker over and over has highlighted human rights abuses in china and has stood up for the rights of people in the indo-pacific region broadly. >> senator chris coons of delaware, thank you very much for your time. as always, we appreciate it. >> thank you. >> as part of the pressure campaign against his former vice president, donald trump claimed mike pence had the power to reject key electoral votes on january 6, 2021 when pence presided over a joint session of congress to affirm president joe biden's victory. at the center of the former president's effort was an obscure 19th century law called the electoral count act of 1887. well, last week a bipartisan group of senators reached an agreement on a long-awaited proposal to address the apparent loopholes and vagueness in that bill in an attempt to head off

any future abuse. there has been a similar push under way in the house led in part by our next guest. joining us now, democratic congressman colin allred of texas. thank you very much for being with us. we appreciate it. let's start with a step back ever what the electoral count act of 1887 is and what it does and it's fair to say most americans haven't heard of it on january 6th and the days that followed. what are the problems with it and how are you looking to reform it? >> it's a fairly vague statute that the language in it, i think, allowed for the memo that we saw come out. i think the eastman memo. >> yeah. >> to find some ways around to maybe try and claim that the vice president was united states is the determinant as to whether or not we will remain a democracy. obviously, that was not the intention of that piece of legislation. it also, of course, kind of handles how we're going to deal with any issue that comes to the congress of false electors

coming from the states, and it does need clarifying. it's a bill that i think has gone too far without clarification and like so many things from the trump administration, things that were normed and things that were action now have to become laws and we have to put it in black and white lettering. >> you want to secure the 2024 election. >> yeah. >> you look at the country at the moment and there are people running in positions of power like states like pennsylvania and arizona, secretaries of state who could potentially have an enormous influence over the way that the vote is counted and there are people who believe the last election was stolen and in many cases saying a democrat can't win our state which is sinister which indicates they could be in charge of the vote for the 2024 election. do you think that the work that you can do now has a chance of shoring up elections and

election vote counting processes in the face of the people who might be elected in the midterm elections and what might happen in congress in the midterm elections? >> yeah. let's be very clear. the next attempt to overturn a presidential election won't look like the last one because, of course, it won't be mike pence in the vice presidency. it will be kamala harris. we have to make sure we're not fighting the last war. we have to reform the eca. we have to understand the next attempt to overturn our elections is going to come from the states. we have folks who are openly running on not accepting the results if it doesn't come back the way they want which is basically for donald trump to have won their state and so the question is then how we handle if we do receive a false slate of electors. the tension that we have is anything that you do to make it harder to challenge the legitimate slate of electors. so that's the balancing act that we have to go through.

it is also just true that at some point someone is going to certify the vote out of this state and if we have a governor, for example, who has dedicated themselves to not accepting the results that could solve a problem. we're trying to address all of that. we have to go further. >> congressmen, good morning. the electoral count reform act obviously tries to safeguard the counting and certification of the battle and voters need ton they can simply vote at all. today, 16 years ago today, is the anniversary of the votesing rights act by george w. bush and we know the supreme court has rather gutted the act since. what, right now, can be done in congress or the courts to protect americans' ability to cast their ballots? >> yeah. well i was a voting rights lawyer before i came to congress. i've been concerned with voter suppression in my state of texas for some time, and of course, it

was my constituent george w. bush who signed into law that extension that was passed unanimously in the senate and overwhelmingly in the house and it was a bipartisan issue that we would help and allow americans to vote. right now we are still dealing with the fact that we have 50 democratic senators in the senate who are willing to move forward on a voting rights reform and we don't have enough votes to overcome the filibuster and we have to look for other ways to fund the actual administrators and the counting of the ballots and make sure they're properly funded and do everything we can on the activist side and on the campaign side and the c3 side to help voters deal with these new things that are going to be coming their way. we had a 13% rejection rate in dallas and the primary election versus the 1% in the general election and that was because of the law that was passed, the

claim that they were in the election and i'm extremely concerned about it because subverting the election before the election is just as bad as subverting it afterward. congressman allred of texas, we appreciate you being here today. thank you. still ahead on "morning joe," he requested thousands of national guard troops on january 6th, his former acting defense secretary said that never happened. we'll dig into the house select committee. >> one of the friends takes a plan to replace government professionals with puppet loyalists who would place donald trump himself before country. we're back in a moment. lists whd trump himself before country

we're back in a moment

the house select committee releasing never-before-seen testimony from former acting defense secretary chris miller.

in the video clip miller tells the committee there was no direct order from president trump to deploy 10,000 troops to protect the capitol on january 6th. just last month trump claimed in a statement he requested up to 20,000 national guard troops because he had a feeling, quote, the crowd was going to be very large. miller's testimony contradicts that claim. >> to be clear, since then in february 2021 mark meadows said on fox news that, quote, even in january that was a given as many as 10,000 national guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense. is there any accuracy to that statement? >> i've got -- not from my perspective, i was never given any directional order to do any plans of that nature. i was surprised by seeing that publicly, but i don't know the context or where it was. no there was no -- we obviously

had plans for activating more folks, but that was not anything more than contingency planning. there was no official message traffic or anything of that nature. >> just so we are clear, you did not have 10,000 troops to be on the ready for january 6th? prior to january 6th? >> a non-military person could have some sort of weird interpretation, but no, to answer your question, that was not part of my plan or the department of defense's plan. >> just the rest of his statement was, quote, that was a direct order from president trump and yet here is what we see all kinds of blame going around, but not a whole lot of accountability. to be crystal clear there was no direct order from president trump to put 10,000 troops to be

on the ready for january 6th, correct? >> no. yes, that is correct. there was no order from the president. >> jackie, this is a case that the house select committee has made over the last several weeks that not only did donald trump send that crowd to the capitol that he effectively cleared a path for the crowd to go up into the building. so we've heard it from the committee now something entirely different from the man who would have taken the order himself, the former acting secretary of defense. >> yes, this, i think, directly bolsters what adam kinzinger said that one-liner that resonated which was the president didn't do -- didn't -- this was the president's choice not to do anything. he actively chose not to do anything, and i think it's a very interesting choice, as well, by the select committee, and i think we'll see a lot of this going forward for the next few months to selectively leak out and dribs and drabs of their

vast, archival footage that they've obtained of former trump officials essentially fact checking false claims by the former president. we've seen that previously. we had ivanka and there was one hearing of ivanka then trump contradicting her and her chief of staff. i think we'll poke holes in the credibility of trump and his allies who have tried to do the same of some of the people that have publicly testified, and i think we'll also start to see them get more creative about all of the information they've obtained to keep the public's attention on this topic while they're sort of recalibrating this month of august and setting the stage for the fall when they're going to come back from some additional public hearings. >> and the former acting defense secretary very clear there. president did not call for the national guard to come in and protect the capitol. jackie alemany and we'll be

reading it the washington post.com. the fed to post another rate hike to curb inflation. we'll hear from brian sullivan just ahead on "morning joe." m bn join the fight at alz.org/walk just ahead on "morning joe."

♪♪ ♪♪ the federal reserve is expected to raise interest rates again today. fed chair jerome powell set to speak at 2:30 p.m. eastern time as second-quarter earnings reflect an economic slowdown. joining us now senior national correspondent for cnbc, brian sullivan. sully, it's good to see you. how high is this hike going to go today? >> well, that is the question. we'll see if the federal reserve can remain stealing, man. >> oh! that was real good. >> i apologize. i've already been up for a couple of hours. weekend planned. >> great call back.

>> here's what we're thinking, the expectation is for what we'll call on cnbc we'll call it a 75 basis point hike. on normal tv we'll call it a three-fourths of 1% hike in other words, raising the baseline borrowing costs by .75%. there's talk by 1%. whatever they do, 75 basis points or 1% it will be one of the biggest and most aggressive interest rate hikes in recent american history. why are they doing it? because, i don't need to tell your audience who go to the store every day, they see inflation for itself. the federal reserve is trying to pump the brakes on the economy. the idea is this, the fed raises rates, banks raise rates. i hate to say it. credit card companies raise rates and they try to dissuade people from borrowing money opinion when you have too many

people chasing cars, commodities, the fed is out of control and they're trying to slow down the american economy and the problem, willie, is will they do it so much that you slow the economy too much that you put the economy into a major downturn or recession. the good news, gasoline prices, they're down 40 cents or whatever in about a months' time. rents, still too darn high, but inflation is moderating. >> you don't want to pump the brakes so far that you get the economy into a recession and there's a suggestion that wooe seeing prices starting to come down, why not, with all of the speculation that we may, you know, and the white house suggesting we aren't, but there's debate about whether we may be heading into recession anyway, why not wait just a little bit longer and if the

rate hikes are discouraging people from moving on a bit, couldn't they just carry on with that in. >> yeah. their fear is that inflation is so rampant and so hot at 40-year highs, it's at all-time highs by some measures because the government is changing how they moderated that they're aggressive about this inflation idea. inflation, you guys talk about politics all of the time, i don't. but i have to imagine as we approach the midterms and you see the president out there on twitter and social media saying gas prices are coming down and we're pumping more oil. why is he talking about these things? listen, ultimately, so many elections as you know better than i do come down to the economy and higher prices. the federal reserve, the question is this, can the federal reserve do this without damaging the economy and how much will rate hikes matter considering if your rent has gone up, is your landlord going to cut your rent because of

higher rates? no. here's the biggest thing that i'm watching, what they call revolving credit, the amount of money of credit card debt is at a record high. i guarantee you, your audience knows and they're getting notices that their balances or future spending, those rates are going to go up. so not only do you have a balance going up. your monthly payment's going to go up, and let's hope that incomes are going up at the same or higher rate that will balance out otherwise with higher wages you'll have less buying power. >> and you can't keep up with it. tomorrow, silly, we'll get that gdp number. there's been this semantic gdp number and if there are two consecutive quarters of negative gdp numbers means we're in a recession and janet yellen says we have as many jobs as we can want, low unemployment and inflation is too high and prices

are unaffordable for many people and what will that number tell you about whether we're in a recession or we're not? >> it's going to -- you nailed it. it will be a semantic argument and there will be, i'm sure the republicans are, like, we're in a recession if we get a contraction in gdp, janet yellen is on the sunday talk show circuit and we have the definition of recession set by the wonky group and we know the economy is strong and forget about the technical definition of of a recession, right? and so there will be this fight. it's such a weird time coming out of the pandemic because, for example, yes, the unemployment rate is way down, but at the same time the unemployment rate only measures people looking for a job and more than a million people have left the workforce that are of working age. so the unemployment rate is down

in part because people have just said, you know what? for lifestyle reasons, risk reasons, other reasons, i'm out. i'm not going to work anymore, at least not now. and so there are all these semantic debates. we know this. there are 11 million open jobs in the united states. walk around new york and walk around the suburbs and walk around anywhere you want, there's a help wanted sign. i don't think the semantic debate is as important as what happens in the fall. has this boom in -- this pandemic excess, you come outside of the pandemic and you say i have to go to vegas! i have to spend money! people spend money on hotels, will that continue? if you know, willy, let me know because i don't know. you wonder if it's a one-time sort of roaring '20s-type mentality, ahh! >> you heard sully's voice how

desperate he is to get back to vegas. >> brian sullivan with the expert analysis. good to see you, man. coming up next, donald trump and mike pence clash in washington just a mile away from even other with competing speeches on the same day. david drucker has new reporting on what it may mean for 2024. that's next on "morning joe." r 4 ♪♪ ♪♪ "shake your thang" by salt n pepa that's next on "morning joe.

80% of couples sleep too hot or too cold. because quality sleep is vital, the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing, so you both stay cool. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. save $500 on the sleep number 360 c4 smart bed queen now only $1,299. lowest price ever.

at xfinity, we're constantly innovating. and we're working 24/7 to connect you to more of what you love. we're bringing you the nation's largest gig speed network. available to more homes than anyone else. and with xfi complete, get 10x faster upload speeds. tech upgrades for your changing wifi needs. and advanced security at home and on the go to block millions of threats. only from us... xfinity.

for the first time since leaving the white house in january of 2021, former president trump returned to washington yesterday, speaking at a summit in the nation's capital. trump was expected to discuss law and order, but instead spent much of the speech spouting lies about the 2020 election and lamenting the way he's been treated since leaving office, with the focus on that january 6th committee. >> they say stuff and they think you're going to believe it. it is a serious -- it is a

horrible, horrible thing. a friend of mine recently said i was the most persecuted person in the history of our country. who has been through anything like this, seriously? certainly no politician and definitely no president. this is just a crazy time. never forget everything this corrupt establishment is doing to me is all about preserving their power and control over the american people. they want to damage you in any form, but they really want to damage me so i can no longer go back to work for you. >> joining us david drug -- drucker. former vice president pence who has broken with president trump, speaking at events just up the street from each other. what did you make of the

reception they both received? >> they both received a very good reception from the crowds they spoke for. pence was speaking before a crowd of conservative college students at an american foundation conference. he delivered what you would from a pre-trump republican about conservative policy, about how republicans think democratic leadership in washington is driving the country into a ditch and we need big victories in the fall to right the ship. we have never seen in a lot of our lifetimes a split between two former running mates like this, a very acrimonious divorce. pence discussed the accomplishments of president trump and himself as the trump/pence administration only. it's the only way he would discuss trump by name. when asked in the question and

answer session after his speech to discuss his broken relationship with trump more directly, he noted they tend to agree on most conservative policies or at least did during their term, but maybe they did in focus, which is pence speak about the president's insistence to sticking to stolen election claims and looking backwards, while pence talked about looking forward. before an equally adoring audience of political supporters of his, spent much of his speech looking backward and complaining. if you took the first ten minutes of the speech, it was a rather effective political treatise on rising crime and how swing states are going to want somebody to talk about it, offer

solutions and say they're going to help do something about it. as usual, we ended up with our own trump rally where he talked about all the other things that have nothing to do with 2022 or 2024. we can see the former president remains very popular with many republicans. and vice president pence, regardless of his 2024 prospects, is not shying away from confrontation from his former boss and he is moving ahead with this idea he will run for president regardless of what trump does. >> david, thanks so much as always. coming up, according to one of our next guests, you're going to miss the deep state when it's gone. to miss the deep state when it's

gone

. welcome back to "morning joe." a beautiful live picture just before 9:00 a.m. on the east coast. a busy hour ahead. nbc news has confirmed the reporting from the "washington post" that the justice department is investigating former president trump's actions as part of its criminal probe into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. meanwhile, attorney general merrick garland going about the record about the doj's investigation into january 6th. plus, dueling visits in the nation's capital showcase competing divisions from the republican party. plus, the historic rainfall in missouri that is not over yet. we will bring you the latest from st. louis, parts of which remain underwater this morning.

we begin with new details about the justice department's probe into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. nbc news has confirmed the "washington post" reporting which cites four people familiar with the matter that federal prosecutors have turned their attention to donald trump himself. the post reported two top aides to former vice president mike pence were asked before the grand jury about their conversations with trump, his lawyers and others in his circle, joining the scheme to replace certified biden electors with the former president's allies. according to the post, prosecutors have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings trump led in december of 2020 and january of 2021 about his pressure campaign on pence to overturn the election and about the instructions trump gave his lawyers and advisors about fake electors and sending electors back to the states. two sources tell the post the department of justice has phone