Morning Joe - California voters will decide whether to adopt a new Democratic-drawn congressional map

Episode Date: August 22, 2025

California voters will decide whether to adopt a new Democratic-drawn congressional map

One of the things we're going to be redoing is your parks. I'm very good at grass because I have a lot of golf courses all over the place. I know more about grass than any human being, I think, anywhere in the world. And we're going to be regrassing all of your parks, all brand new sprinkler systems, the best that you can buy, just like Augusta. It'll look like Augusta. It'll look like, more importantly, Trump National Golf Club. That's even better.

But we're going to have all brand new, beautiful grass. You know, like everything else, grass has a life. know that grass as a life. You know, we have a life and grass as a life. And the grass here died about 40 years ago. That's President Donald Trump boasting about his knowledge of, yes, grass yesterday during a visit with federal law enforcement and the National Guard in Washington. We'll dig into more of the substance of that appearance and not just the landscaping. Meanwhile, his administration also continues its pressure campaign on the Smithsonian, him, now asking the institution to take a different point of view on slavery.

Also ahead, we'll go through a flurry of legal decisions connected to President Trump and his administration with rulings yesterday on his massive civil fraud penalty, as well as the so-called Alligator Alcatraz Detention Center in Florida. Plus, we'll dive into the big story here in New York City and its politics. several people connected to Mayor Adams accused of handing out envelopes full of cash. Good morning, and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, August 22nd. I'm Jonathan Lemire, in for Joe Mika and Willie. But fear not, we've got a great group for the next few hours. With us, we have U.S. Special Correspondent for BBC News and the host of The Rest Is Politics Podcast,

Caddy Kay, NBC News and MSNBC political analyst, former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill is here. Prize-winning columnist and MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson, as well as former Republican Congressman Carlos Kerbello of Florida. He is also an MSNBC analyst. We have a lot to get to this morning. We will begin in Texas. The longest-serving congressman in that state's history says he will retire if the new Republican-drawn redistricting map goes into effect.

Democrat Lloyd Doggett made the announcement yesterday. The 78-year-old has represented. the Austin area since 1995. The new map merges Doggett's district with another represented by Democrat Greg Kaysar. So instead of a potentially generational primary against the 36-year-old Kaysar, Doggett says he will step aside unless the courts block the new map. Speaking of that new map, it is likely to be passed today by the Texas Senate after advancing out of a special committee there yesterday.

as the GOP drawn map in Texas nears its final passage, California Democrats are pushing forward with a sweeping plan of their own. The state's Democratic-controlled legislature yesterday passed a series of redistricting bills aiming to flip five GOP-held House seats, which would neutralize the potential Republican gains in Texas. The plan in California, however, still requires voter approval, with a special election now set for November 4th. That state's governor, Democrat Gavin Newsom, signed the legislation shortly after it passed yesterday, giving this message to President Trump and those Texas Republicans. We're responding what occurred in Texas.

We're neutralizing what occurred and we're giving the American people a fair chance. because when all things are equal and we're all playing by the same set rules, there's no question that the Republican Party will be the minority party in the House of Representatives next year. We got here because the President of the United States is struggling.

We got here because the President of the States is one of the most unpopular presidents in U.S. history. We got here because he recognizes that he will lose the election. Congress will go back into the hands the Democratic Party next November. Can't win by playing by traditional sets of rules. He plays by no rules. I remind you all the time, it's not the rule of laws, it's the rule of dawn. And we're standing up to that. Claire, Gavin Newsom there, the governor is certainly right. This is being done

because President Trump asked the Texas Republicans to do so, afraid of losing the House, afraid of what could follow investigations, perhaps impeachment. This is at his behest. There are a lot of Democrats, I think, had some misgivings about this when the, a few weeks ago when the Texas story started, but more and more that I talked to, I assume you talked to, say, look, it's time to fight fire with fire. We might not like it, but we don't have a choice. Oh, yeah. There's no question that the party has definitely moved on this. We have been the party, the Democrats have been the party of trying to clean up gerrymandering. We have been at the cutting edge, and that's why California has to reverse the good stuff they did to get rid of gerrymandering.

in a state where if they had Donald Trump's attitude, there would be right today, far fewer Republicans. So I think it's great that he's doing this. I think, frankly, you can tell how much he's leading with Donald Trump, because that's the way he gets this past. He doesn't get it passed in California without Donald Trump. But Donald Trump being behind it makes it popular because in every way the Trump administration has screwed California, you know, whether it's disaster relief, whether it's the way they have handled immigration reform, all kinds of things that has really impacted California. And keep in mind, California is a state that helps fund red states around the country. They are what's called a donor state. They pay more in federal

taxes and they get back from the federal government. So they already have an attitude that, you know, the federal government is really given the short shrift. Now with Donald Trump doing this, I think it's the key for him getting it passed. I think he will pass it. Yeah, the rivalry between Trump and California. Very real. And catty, it's an arms race now. Texas is gone. California heading that way. There are other states considering it. Now, some of them, like New York, there are more obstacles in place. It won't be quite as easy to pull off. It would be hard to argue this is good, big picture for this nation's democracy. But this is where we are now. The latest political norm and custom just thrown away in the Trump era.

Yeah, and it's not what the majority of Americans want, right? And poll after poll, voters are telling us they would run much rather this was done in a non-political way, non-partisan way. But it looks like it's going to go ahead, even in New York that you mentioned there, Jonathan, by 2028, we could see that redistricting happening as well. So this morning, the Wall Street Journal editorial board has a piece titled, The Jerrymander Race to the Bottom, and reads in part, quote, Say this for the gerrymander wars. Both parties are honest about their raw partisan motives.

Texas's gambit to redistrict mid-decade is dubious, but Democrats have long done the same. The difference is Democrats have been more aggressive in using courts rather than their legislatures to redraw maps, all while pretending to defend democracy or fight racism. But gerrymandered gains are sometimes swept away with big election tides, as in 2006 and 2018. A large share of voters aren't fiercely partisan. Texas Republicans also risk inviting a voter backlash that could flip a Senate seat if state attorney general Ken Paxton defeat Senator John Cornyn in the GOP primary. Gerrymanders reduce political competition and they're getting worse over time.

Congress could set limits on the practice, but incumbents want safer seats. Unless voters rebel, it will continue. At least the political cynicism is no longer high. hiding behind false flags. I mean, it's true. Both sides are saying, this is an arms race. We have to do this to protect our majority. They're not pretending that this is anything other than it is.

But the reality is that in this arms race, the Republicans have more ammunition. They do. They do, yes. They have more ammunition, or at least it's easier for them to use their ammunition, simply because in a lot of Democratic states, like California, measures are already in place, that send redistricting to a nonpartisan commission, for example, that was the state, the state of affairs in California, that under, with this voter initiative, is going to change, I think it'll probably pass, to use these new pro-democratic maps in the elections in 2028, 2026, 2028, and 2030.

It kind of sunsets then, and so we'll take another look at it and see where we are. But the backdrop is the Supreme Court has basically said this is fine, right? The Supreme Court has said you can't violate the Voting Rights Act by racially discriminating against voters in the drawing of your maps. But it's unclear exactly what they mean by that, but they have set a limit. Beyond that, they've said partisan gerrymandering is fine. So the Wall Street Journal's complaint really is with the Supreme Court on its face, the whole thing is unfair. On its face, all congressional districts ought to be drawn in the fairest possible way.

That's not going to happen. And it would be political malpractice, I think, for Democrats, not to play the game at this point. I mean, around the world, most other democracies have their districts drawn up by independent commissions. This is not a political issue. It's not even an issue. Back in the UK, this is not an issue. No one really talks about it. It's just a population issue. Carlos, the impact of this will be to weed out any of the remaining moderate members of the House. I had a conversation with Mike Lawler last week, the Republican who was elected in New York State. He's one of those who, ironically, it is those moderate members, both on the Democratic side and the Republic

side, who win the House for their side. So what are the implications? For somebody like Mike Lawler, a Republican elected in New York State, if New York State gets redistricted, they try to squeeze him out, you have no more moderates in the House of Representatives? Is that what happens? Well, that's right, Cathy. Think about how dysfunctional, particularly the House has been over the last decade and a half, right? And it's these swing district members typically that are able to find compromises, make sure, spending bills get passed, reach across the aisle to get things done.

And think about how important it is for big states in particular to have members from both parties, right, if there's a major crisis, if there's a major bill like the tax bill was for New York, how important was it for New York to have a handful of Republicans who would say we do need a greater salt deduction? All of that goes away under this new paradigm that, you know, in this case has been initiated by Trump and Republicans. Of course, gerrymandering has been a sin committed by all actors for a very long time, and there have been mid-decade redistricting in states like Florida, not as transparently about taking political power as this. I think that's what's different

this time, right? That this is all about gaining a political advantage, not about some technical issue, which is typically what triggers some of these mid-decade redistricting wars. But I think it's also important to see not only what effect will this have in Texas and California, but outside of those states. How does the rest of the country perceives this? And that's the battle that you're seeing right now. I think that's why Governor Newsom adopted such a sober tone yesterday. He didn't want to appear to be the aggressor.

He didn't want to appear to be celebrating this. It's just something he had to do because he had no choice. So speaking of voting, President Trump continued his crusade against mail-in ballots yesterday, claiming in an interview that the Republican Party would make major gains if he were simply able to do away with that process. Biggest thing we can do, it's bigger even than the reapportionment. It's bigger than anything we can do as a party. our elections are extremely corrupt. The mail-in ballots, the system is so corrupt.

The Democrats, the only way they're going to win is mail-in ballots. That's the only way. I say we'd pick up 100 seats if you had real elections, meaning you go to the voters. I think I would have won California. I think I'd win California right now over that terrible governor. Two fact checks here. First, he wasn't going to win a California. or 100 seats. And second, the U.S. Constitution does not give the president power over federal

elections. Elections done here on the state level, Claire McCaskill. And third, there's never been fraud-proofed. Right. And by the way, they've been trying now for years and years and years. They've spent a gazillion dollars trying to find evidence of fraud. And they have been rebuffed by the courts every time. So, yeah, frankly, his effort against mail and ballot, just helps Democrats. And it's driving the political class, as you well know, Jonathan, in his sphere crazy because they finally convinced him to tell people at his rallies last year that they should use mail-in ballots and vote early. He is training the Republican Party to not do mail-in ballots, and that gives a distinct advantage to the Democrats.

And I want to push back a little bit on the idea that this redistricting thing is really going to create more partisan. members. Because if you think about it logically, let's take Missouri, for example, what they want to do is carve up a very safe Democratic district into three or four Republican districts. So what would happen is these Republican districts that were made safe by their members back when the census was done were like plus 20 for Republicans. Well, they're going to go down because they have to absorb these Democrats. So rather than being plus 20 Republican advantage, they're going to be maybe plus 10, five to 10. And I can assure you as someone who has won statewide in Missouri,

when a Republican has won the presidency in Missouri, that's a lot. And that helps somebody who is capable of beating a Republican, beat a Republican. So it's really rolling the dice here. Same thing in California. They're going from plus 15, 17 Democratic seats to plus five to 12 Democratic seats. So I do think you're going to have a little bit of movement to the middle because people aren't going to be able to just throw red meat at their base and win these primaries.

They're going to have, of course, in California, you have a weird primary system. But it is, I think it's careful, I think we need to be careful to not just say these seats that are being created are just going to be given to the other party. I think there's going to be some fights. And I think the Republicans could be surprised in Texas. and they maybe even can be surprised in places like Missouri and Indiana if they go through with it. I mean, the ramifications are yet to be seen, obviously. You're right. In some districts, maybe they'll become more competitive.

Others, they become safer for the party in power. More on that later in the show. But we turn now to the Trump administration continuing its content review at Washington's Smithsonian Museums. The White House official leading the charge, Lindsay Halligan, is now speaking out about the plans. In an interview yesterday, Halligan shared. that she thinks the museums over-emphasize slavery when they should be focusing on, quote, how far we've come.

The classroom shouldn't be stages upon which teachers can preach their various indoctrination masquerading as eternal truths. And similarly, museums that are over 70% funded by the federal government shouldn't be laboratories for political experiments. And so what we're doing is we just sent a letter to the Smithsonian asking for all information regarding their exhibits and their placards to try to get to the bottom of what happened and where the Smithsonian went wrong and try to make the Smithsonian amazing and great and live up to what the president wants the Smithsonian and D.C. to be.

It's not about whitewashing. It's all about full context. So while slavery is obviously a horrible aspect of our nation's history, you can't really talk about slavery honestly unless you also talk about hope and progress. And I think we need to be focusing on the progress that we've made since then. And we need to stop focusing so much on the lack of progress. So in that letter sent earlier this month, Halligan requested details on exhibits and placards at a number of Smithsonian museums and said the goal of the review is to make D.C. place all Americans want to visit. Eugene Robinson, she also said, as we just played, she wants to bring the Smithsonian in line with how President Trump views Washington, the museums, the nation's history. and certainly, as we've talked on the show the last couple of days, charting the progress of the nation, yeah, that should be part of this, but ignoring by whitewashing, by downplaying our history, our greatest sin as a nation, that's not good for our democracy, that's not good for our health of our nation,

and certainly that's not the role of this museum. It certainly is not to align the Smithsonian museums with Donald Trump's view of his view, history would be a historical, and frankly, it would be obscene. It would be an obscenity. It would be a denial of our history. I don't know if these people have ever been to the American History Museum, to the African American Museum on the mall. If they do go there, they might learn something about our history, they might learn that, yeah, there was slavery for 250 years in this country and in this land. And then after the Civil War, which outlawed slavery in South, there was

reconstruction for a few years. And then there was Jim Crow. There was Jim Crow discrimination and repression. There was, you can only ride in the back of the bus. There was, you cannot vote which was the message to black people in Orangeburg, South Carolina, in my youth. So this is not that long ago. So the idea that there was slavery and then all of a sudden the Civil War expiated all sins and everything became, you know, roses and it's just ridiculous. It's simply not true. And the African American Museum is a great museum, one of the Smithsonian's most popular museums.

It's always like number three on the list. And people are moved by it and inspired by it because it moves as you ascend through the museum. It moves from slavery and honest and frank accounting of slavery. and what it meant and what it felt like, upward through Jim Crow, upward through the myriad contributions that African Americans have made to this country, not only fighting in every war we ever fought, but in culture, in literature, in every sphere of life. And in the end, it is a joyful journey. It is an inspiring journey as you make your way through that museum, which I have done many times.

And they either don't feel that or they just haven't bothered to look and to go there and look. But it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen that we're going to forget our history. It's not going to happen. I thought it was fascinating, Carlos, listening to that, Ms. Halligan from the White House there, and the care with which she chose her words. Basically, she didn't even really want to say the word slavery. She called it lack of progress and the comparison between progress and lack of progress. What's the political aim here?

Who is the White House talking to when it talks about this? And what are they really trying to do? Well, look, I think, as it's typical for this White House, they're talking to their base. And they're trying to make the point to their base that the left has been lazy about celebrating the country. I think that's been true in some cases. But how can we correctly and fully celebrate the country without acknowledging where we started? I mean, it is a remarkable journey, right? The journey of African Americans and other minorities in this country.

A lot of ground has been gained. But how can we fully appreciate that without recognizing where we started. There's nothing mutually exclusive here. We can celebrate the country we should. This is the greatest country in the world. I think, you know, the past, maybe some in the left have struggled to say that they should. But that doesn't mean that the right should now try to erase where we started, where we came from, how difficult it has been for a lot of people in this country, right? So, and look, as we zoom out and think about the politics of this, you know, Here's the President of the United States controlling, trying to control culture, the arts, obviously politics.

There's a question, and Claire remembers this, in every poll that your pollster will do, there's a question that people get asked. Do you support a candidate that will help the president advance his policies, or do you support a candidate that will serve as a check on the president and his power? I think the more Donald Trump tries to grow this power footprint, right? The more you're going to get people answering that they want a check on this president. And that is going to put a lot of congressional Republicans on defense heading into next November. Trump trying to expand and expand his power throughout American society, not just in politics. MSNBC analyst and former Congressman Carlos Carbella, Congressman, Thank you for joining us this morning.

We now turn to Hurricane Aaron, which is churning off the coast of New England as we speak, bringing strong winds and flooding as it moves north along the east coast. Let's bring in meteorologist Angie Laspin for the hurricane forecast. Angie, what's the latest? I guess it's good morning, Jonathan. We've got, you know, still a hurricane to talk about. Category 1, it is going to continue weakening here as the days go on. But right now, 90 miles per hour.

Notice it's moving northeast now at 22 miles per hour. So a pretty good clip and moving more important. importantly away from the United States. Now, that means we're going to see some of those improved impacts. Yesterday, we did see some significant inundation forecast verified anywhere from two to four feet of inundation from that storm surge up and down parts of the East Coast, specifically the Mid-Atlantic. But that's going to improve just dealing with some minor flooding right now across that same region, but still some coastal flood warnings in effect at this time. And I wouldn't be surprised that there's still some lingering water on the roadways in those

areas. As we move into the weekend today, tomorrow, even Sunday, we're still going to feel the effects of those rip currents. This is going to be a high risk kind of situation that we'll see lasting with those red flag warnings up, up and down the beaches. I know it's a late summer weekend and a lot of folks are heading to the coast. Please be careful. Head those warnings of the lifeguards. This is going to be something that we see last through at least tomorrow. Beyond that, you'll notice the breezy conditions. Not quite as impressive wind gusts as we saw yesterday when it was 30, 40, even close to 50 plus miles per hour. But instead, places like Montauk, Nantucket, it'll be 20, 30, even close to 40 mile per hour

winds and those gusty conditions will remain. Otherwise, we're watching a couple of other spots in the Atlantic. The good news is maybe we see this become a tropical depression, but it doesn't look like it's going to affect any land. And then we'll be keeping a close eye on the rest of the Atlantic as we get closer to the peak of hurricane season, Jonathan, in the next couple of weeks. All right, meteorologist Angie Lasman, thank you very much. Still ahead here on Morning Joe, we'll take a look at some of the other stories

being headlines this morning, including a staggering decline among Americans for one hobby. I'll tell you what that is. Plus, we'll bring you expert legal analysis on an appeals court dismissing the massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump and his company. And as we had to break, we want to announce an exciting event coming up in a few weeks here in New York City. On Wednesday, September 10th, we'll get a little evening Joe. That's right, Evening Joe, when Joe and Mika appear at the 92nd Street Y, along with Ed Luce of the Financial Times, for a discussion on Ed's critically acclaimed and very timely biography of Mika's father. Former National Security Advisor is the big new Brzeinski. For tickets, visit 92Y.org

slash events. You won't want to miss that. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Welcome back. Time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Beginning with the number of Americans who read for fun, that's a number that has fallen by 40% over the past. past two decades. A new study found that the number of people who pick up a book, magazine, or e-reader each day has dropped about 3% per year since 2003. Reading with children also rare, with only 2% of adults reporting doing so on average every day. One positive takeaway, those who do read daily spend more time doing so, averaging more than 90 minutes a day, but declining reading rates, not good for our country.

Elsewhere, the New York Times profiles one library's effort to make expensive items more accessible and encourage people to buy less stuff. The Library of Things at the Curtis Memorial Library in Brunswick, Maine has a wide collection of physical items beyond traditional books and media that are available to its members to borrow for free. The collection includes everything

from a dumpling steamer to a ukulean, to children's snow shoes. Founded in 2018, the library now includes more than 1,500 items. Seems like a good idea to me. And some logo rebranding is garnering a lot of attention this week. Cracker barrel shares plummeted yesterday after the restaurant chain unveiled its new logo. The image no longer shows a man leaning against a barrel and gets rid of the phrase old country store. Conservatives criticized the move. The president's son even slammed it as a DEI effort. Not quite your why. Meanwhile, the University of Notre Dame is switching up its Fighting Irish logo. Since 1964, the team's logo featured a hostile-looking leprechaun with both fists up. You can see it there on the left.

Now his fists are down as he runs with a football. The university says the original logo is not being replaced. This is just a secondary option for the football team to use. It's part of a larger rollout, Notre Dame says, in which other teams will debut their own specific logos, leprecha con with a baseball bat, perhaps. But Caddy, it's the Cracker Barrel one that got a lot of attention yesterday, even impacting its stock price. Not quite sure the DEI part of it in terms of its attack, but let's be clear. It's now Cracker Barrel with no sign of a barrel. Just a Cracker, maybe. And would a Cracker be a DAI? There's the whole back story is that Cracker Barrel was associated with southern cooking and was a place that was, you know, associated with the South.

And now they're trying to modernize and de-eye themselves, I guess, in the parlance of Maga. And I guess the consumers didn't like that. They still want the barrel. They still want the good old South-looking image of Cracker Barrel. That's what I read. That's what I read. It looks fine to me. Although, I don't know.

I think the barrel looks kind of nice, too. Well, as we've talked about, the new logo looks kind of boring, actually. I'm going to be honest. It looks kind of boring. Loses the phrase, loses the character, loses the barrel. And we've spent a lot of time this week talking about how Governor Gavin Newsom of California has been at the vanguard on social media right now attacking to Trump. He was, I'll note, the one Democrat, the first Democrat anyway, who weighed in on this,

saying he didn't like the rebranding either. Of course, doing so in a Trumpian tone. All right. coming up, we'll dig into the other controversial measure that Texas Republicans are working on this special session. It's not just redistricting, it's also a bathroom bill and its impact on transgender youth. Morning, Joe, we'll be right back with that. New York City. Not such a nice story, though, in the New York Times this morning, which has new reporting on the close ties that New York City politicians appear to have with Chinese government officials. Seems like it's out of a spy movie. This week, a close ally to Mayor Eric Adams was suspended from Adams's re-election campaign after she tried to hand a journalist money that was inside a bag of potato chips.

Winnie Greco is the mayor's former director of Asian affairs and a top. top Adams fundraiser. The news outlet, the city, says Greco, put more than $100 in a red envelope, stashed inside a bag of chips. I'm not making this up, and handed it to one of its reporters. Greco later said she made a mistake, and her attorney said it was purely innocent and intended as a gesture of friendship and gratitude to maybe not such a mistake. Now, the New York Times is revealing this was not an isolated incident.

In July, New York Times reporters witnessed other Adams supporters handing out red, envelopes with cash at three separate campaign events. At those events, Mr. Adams picked up support from leaders of influential Chinese community groups, including several with close ties to the Chinese government. The Times reports that one of those events, an organizer was seen holding $50 bills and handing out red envelopes to reporters from Chinese language news organizations. At the event, the organizer said that it is common practice in Chinese culture to give cash to reporters, YouTubers, photographers

as a thank you for coming gift, except this is in America and not in China. The Times also noted that Greco was at each of those events. Her homes were raided last year by federal investigators who were looking for evidence of Chinese interference in the 2021 mayor's race. A spokesperson for Adams tells the Times the mayor has no knowledge of payments being made to reporters.

John, what is going on? come on, resuscitate that Jonathan Lemire beat New York City politics reporter. Well, I would say when I covered City Hall, I'd be interested if someone just handed me a bag of chips if I was hungry. The cash inside is a new twist. But, of course, we can't even accept those snacks. This is, yeah, this is a new one. Katie Honan from the city, a reporter we know, you know, received this gift the other day. And that is, though, hilarious, not the most serious corruption allegation in the Adams world.

In fact, the front page of both papers here, New York Daily News, out for business, and then the New York Post, this is about another top aide who was indicted on the series of corruption charges yesterday, which included pay for play and the like. It is a moment here where this is still a mayor running for re-election, and this is dogged Adams his entire morality. There have been whispers even before he took office, but now we have seen a number of his closest associates be charged with corruption allegations. He himself did was as well until President Trump intervened. He's still running as an independent, but he is polling in about the single digits, a distant third to Zoran Mamdani and Andrew Cuomo. One wonders the Cuomo campaign certainly would love it if this was the moment that would force Adams to drop out, consolidating the Mandami opposition to one place,

just the former governor. But Adams, to this point, saying he won't do that. We will stay on it and perhaps have some sour cream and onion chips. along the way. Staying in New York, an appeals court here has thrown up the half-billion-dollar penalty against President Trump and his companies for routinely overvaluing their properties in financial statements. Some of the judges on the panel agreed that Trump and his companies did engage in fraud, but all five stated that $515 million penalty was excessive, their word. Their ruling still bans Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for at least a few more

years. New York Attorney General, Letitia James, said she would appeal this ruling. The case stems from last year's decision by Judge Arthur Angoran. He ordered Trump to pay the massive penalty after finding that the president had engaged in fraud by intentionally padding financial statements that went out to lenders and insurers. President Trump, as you might expect, celebrated the appeals court's findings with a lengthy post on social media, slamming both the judge and, of course, Attorney General James. Joining us now to talk about it, MSNBC legal correspondent and former litigator, Lisa Rubin,

as well as former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Aaronberg. Thank you guys for being here. Lisa, we'll start with you. Give us your assessment on what the panel said yesterday. Like, they're not suggesting that President Trump didn't do these things. They just think the penalty was too harsh. What's your take?

Well, I think my take is very similar. This, first of all, there are 300 plus people, of opinions here, three opinions over five judges, and it's difficult, if not impossible, to find a majority opinion here. Indeed, there isn't one. There's a controlling decision that two of the judges rendered, two others sort of joined in it, mostly for purposes of achieving some finality and allowing this to go to the New York Court of Appeals. So this is what we would call a legal mess. It is really difficult to parse out who is thinking what and where the alliances are. But I will tell you, there are four judges here who,

thought the theory of the case that New York Attorney General Letitia James brought was not only a valid theory, but as you just noted, four of them also thought that there was at least some proof of fraud demonstrated at the trial. Two of those four felt that there were evidentiary errors made at trial. There were also issues with respect to statutes of limitation, and therefore those two also thought a new trial should have been had. But all four of them thought a theory of the case was sound. That's something that Trump railed against repeatedly, both at trial and on appeals, saying that this particular provision of New York law was not designed to penalize the conduct that Letitia James was going after for judges of the five on the panel disagreeing with

that, saying Tish James had every right to bring this case, that her theory of the case was right, and that she had ample proof of at least some of it for some periods of time. So let's gain this out. I think what everyone is, first of all, not surprising that Trump pretends like this was a complete win. It was anything but that, messy. But basically, the majority of the court, said this was a case that should have been brought, that there was ample evidence, really what they all agreed on the fine was just excessive. And frankly, I think people need to keep that front of mind. But what's going to happen here? I mean, what do you think the likelihood is there's a new trial or damages are just set lower or, you know, what, I know it's a messy

opinion trying to figure out what's going to happen. But if you had to, as we used to say in the Ozark, guess or die, what would you guess? That's a fun choice, Claire. I think it's anyone's guess what's going to happen next, in part because there's so much here up for grabs. What I will say with certainty is this won't be fast. It took the New York Court of Appeals more than a year, roughly a year, between hearing this at oral argument and rendering this 300-page mess of a constellation of opinions. I think on review the New York Court of Appeals, first of all, it has to hear this case. It's not like the U.S. Supreme Court that can pick and choose its cases. This here is an appeal as of right.

I think it's possible that both things could happen, either that they send this back for a new trial, in which case the trial could be suspended indefinitely because one of the key witnesses, or at least he will say he's one of the key witnesses, is President Trump himself. He'll say he's too busy being the president to be able to attend to a trial. The other thing, though, that this court could do is, as you said, they could reinstate the penalties that five of these judges on the intermediate appellate court decided yesterday should be vitiated outright. So I think both things are entirely plausible here. I will tell you that this was a trial that was riddled with courtroom behavior and sort of erratic judgments all the way through.

And that makes it harder to predict what's ultimately going to happen here in New York's highest court. Dave Aramberg, let's get your take on what we heard from the appeals court yesterday. Guess or die? Jonathan, good to be with you. Look, I'm not surprised that the court overturned the massive force. fine. I was surprised that they vacated it all together rather than just reducing it. And Lisa's right. This was a divided court. It's a bit of a mess, this opinion. And they were as slow as molasses. I mean, get it together, judges. But all five of the judges said that

the Eighth Amendment meant that the fines had to go. Excessive fines are barred by the Eighth Amendment. This was a half a billion dollar fine. So it was a big victory for Trump. Not total victory, though, because, as Lisa said, the court kept the trial courts finding a fraud and allowed the non-monetary sanctions to continue. So now it's up to the highest court in New York to sort it all out. Now, I've always thought that this case was legally sound, though. I want to defend Tish James on that because, after all, Trump falsely claimed that his New York City penthouse was 33,000 square feet when it was really 11,000. That's not benign puffery. The problem, though, was that the verdict was way too large.

The defense had a case that you had sophisticated lenders. No one complained. No one lost money. And Tish James said, well, the victim is the marketplace for loans. It's sort of an amorphous concept. And so the entire court, all five judges said that let the punishment fit the crime. And this civil case apparently didn't justify a half a billion dollars. All right, Dave and Lisa, stay with us. We're going to have more legal stories on the other side of the break,

including one on Alligator Alcatraz, another on Alina Haba in her apparently unlawful role in New Jersey. We're right back. A federal judge has ruled that President Trump's former personal lawyer Alina Haba has been unlawfully serving as New Jersey's top federal prosecutor. In his decision, U.S. District Judge Matthew Brand cited numerous issues with how Haber was appointed, writing she is, quote, not currently qualified to exercise the functions and duties of the office and must be disqualified from participating in any ongoing cases. The Trump administration sought to keep Huber in the position after her 120-day interim appointment expired. She criticized the judgment last night.

I am the pick of the president. I am the pick of Pam Bondi, our attorney general, and I will serve this country like I have for the last several years in any. You might try and change my title. You might try and fight me. But just like today with New York, we will win. We always do. It just takes time. But it's disturbing what we're seeing. It's not surprising, but it's disturbing. They think they have a voice for five minutes. They try and be activists. And Pam Bondi called it like it is. The Attorney General said it today. We will not fall to rogue judges. We will not fall to people trying to be political when they should just be doing their job, respecting the president. And you can't get rid of the president. And the AG Bondi has vowed to fight the ruling, writing on social media, quote, We will protect her position from activist judicial attacks. As of now, the ruling's on hold to give the Justice Department a chance to appeal. But if it goes into effect, Haber's actions for the past seven weeks in New Jersey may be declared void. Lisa, I know that you have been looking into this story and reporting on it.

Where does it go from now? I mean, we're in the slightly weird position where it could be that everything she's done since she was appointed, she has to be undone, and we don't even know if she can carry on in the job. Not everything, but everything, according to this judge from July 1st on Forward, Caddy. And that's because the judge reasons that a president can appoint someone on an interim basis for 120 days. But here, there was somebody in that role prior to Alina Habas being appointed, a gentleman named John Giordano, who was then appointed as an ambassador somewhere in Europe so that Alina Haba could step in and fill the role.

The judge has reasoned that that 120 days applies to both of them, meaning the clock doesn't start again when Alina Haba was appointed on March 28th. And as a result, he concludes she hasn't been validly serving since July 1st. In terms of where it goes from here, he wisely stayed his decision so that the Department of Justice can immediately seek an appeal. But Alina Haba is also in a bad place because the president had nominated her to serve as the U.S. attorney. that nomination was later withdrawn in a portion of the clip from her interview last night on Fox News that you didn't show. She blamed that on Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim with whom she says she has never met for exercising their home state prerogative of a blue slip in opposition to her nomination. But it's because she was nominated in the first place that the judge says she is now ineligible to serve as an acting U.S. attorney because there is language in one of the statutes at issue that says somebody who is nominated and not confirmed by the Senate. can't fill that role on an acting basis.

It doesn't matter, according to this judge, whether or not the nomination is withdrawn. Simply the act of being nominated as a U.S. attorney means you can't step in under that second statute that would have afforded someone else an additional 210 days. So Lena Haba and the assistant U.S. attorneys under her supervision will continue today

as if all is normal. But if this is upheld, this means that she and everyone acting under her supervision have no authority to do going forward what she purports to do on a daily basis as the acting U.S. attorney. In other legal news, a federal judge in Miami has ruled that the controversial migrant detention facility in Florida, the one of the Everglades, dubbed Alligator Alcatraz, can stay open for now, but it can't be expanded, and no additional detainees can be brought in.

The ruling, which challenged the facility's operation on environmental grounds, also requires the detention center to remove all generators, gas, sewage systems, and waste receptacles within 60 days, making it unclear how it will even be able to remain operational. The state of Florida immediately filed a notice saying that it intends to appeal. And Dave Arrenberg, this is happening in your neck of the woods, or swamp, I guess. What's the latest here in terms of the ruling, but what might be the future for this facility, which, let's be clear, you know, alliterative name aside, has really drawn a lot of anger around the country for what is believed to be inhumane conditions.

Yeah, Jonathan, this is going to get tied up in the courts, but I think ultimately this facility will have to be taken down. Its days are numbered. This was an easy decision by the court because federal law requires an environmental review before any major federal construction project. Those are environmentally sensitive lands out there in the Everglades. And that environmental review did not happen here. And the Fed said, well, this is a state project, not a federal one, so it's exempt from

federal review and federal law. But the detention center was for federal immigration enforcement. It was subject of federal funding, standards and direction, and also subject of federal environmental laws. But this facility was always meant to be political clickbait. they wanted the show. That's why the Florida Attorney General, who's running for election next November,

is selling Alligator Alcatraz swag on his campaign website. So DeSantis and his team they got the political points they wanted from the MAGA base. Win or lose, the cruelty was always the point. Dave Aramberg, stay with us. We want to get your thoughts

on the Epstein matter in just a moment. But MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, Lisa, thank you so much for joining us. And of course, you can check out her show. Can they do that on MSNBC's YouTube channel?