Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/10/24

Episode Date: January 10, 2024

Trump spreads false 'birther' claim about Nikki Haley

To authorize the prosecution of a president for his official acts would open a Pandora's box from which this nation may never recover. I understand your position to be that a president is immune from criminal prosecution for any official act that he takes as president, even if that action is taken for an unlawful or unconstitutional purpose. If a president has to look over his shoulder or her shoulder every time he or she has to make a controversial decision and worry after I leave office, am I going to jail for this? When my political opponents take power, that inevitably dampens the ability of the president. I think it's paradoxical to say that his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed allows him to violate criminal laws. The federal appeals judges seemed very skeptical of Donald Trump's immunity claims during yesterday's

hearing. We're going to have expert legal analysis for you straight ahead on all of that. Meanwhile, the former president is floating another birther conspiracy. We'll tell you who he is targeting this time. And on Capitol Hill, House Republicans will hold two hearings today focused on Hunter Biden and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. We'll have reporting on that, plus the new developments out of the Middle East. Following Secretary of State Antony Blinken's meeting yesterday in Israel, the two sides appear to be at odds over plans for a post-war Gaza. And days after a mid-air explosion on a Boeing Max 9 jet, the CEO is acknowledging the company's mistakes. We'll have the latest on that investigation and also the very latest on Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and what is going on with his health

and the questions surrounding his departure for a few days. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is a very busy Wednesday, January 10th. Joe. Yeah, it is. It is very busy. And as far as Boeing goes, not a great stretch that if your plane blows apart in midair that you take responsibility. I will say, Willie, very interesting. If you look at the the lead editorial in The Wall Street Journal today, the question is, who's afraid of Nikki Haley? The answer is Donald Trump. Trump going after her. And we're going to be talking about a new birther conspiracy that he seems to be floating again against Nikki Haley. And why would Donald Trump be concerned? Well, there are a lot of New Hampshire insiders who are now starting to say the polls seem to be getting tight. Latest CNN poll has within single digits.

And they say they're just there is a feeling on the ground that this may be a significant win for Nikki Haley. Even if that's one or two points, that'll be quite a shock. We remember back in 2016 in New Hampshire, you know, over 4000 people showed up in a snowstorm. And it was I've never seen any primary rally like that primary rally. Donald Trump goes from having that dominance in command over the New Hampshire voters to losing to Nikki Haley. He understands he then has a month. He then has a month between New Hampshire and South Carolina, and he will be melting down. And that melting down, as he always does, especially after he's a loser. We remember what how he acted after he was a loser to Ted Cruz, after he was a loser to Joe Biden.

That entire month will be Donald Trump melting down, saying horrible things about Nikki Haley. And I think will not cause a massive threat to Nikki Haley. I think it'll make Republicans go, wait a second. Is this really the guy we want representing us in the general election? Well, he clearly hears the footsteps. That's why you saw him amplifying. We'll get into it in a few minutes. A birther conspiracy. Does that sound familiar? A birther conspiracy about Nikki Haley. And you're right. There is polling that shows Nikki Haley well within striking distance of Donald Trump

in the state of New Hampshire right now. And if she were to win the state of New Hampshire, as you said, with all that time rolling down to South Carolina, her home state, of course, where she served as governor, all of a sudden, Donald Trump has a big problem. Not going to say all of that is going to play out, but it's clear he's a very transparent person, as we know, that he's worried about it. And that's why he is now talking about this wild conspiracy that Nikki Haley somehow is not qualified under the Constitution to be president of the United States. Well, it will be interesting to see how she responds to that if she's going for second place and is too afraid to take him on. A decision could come as early today as today from the three-judge federal appeals court panel that heard former President Trump's presidential immunity claim. Federal prosecutors and lawyers for the

former president made their oral arguments yesterday in Washington, D.C. Trump's legal team appealed an earlier ruling by federal judge Tanya Chutkan that election interference charges could not be dismissed on the basis of presidential immunity. The appeals court panel seemed skeptical of the Trump team's reasoning, peppering them with hypotheticals on how far immunity would go under Trump's theory. Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? That's an official act in order to SEAL Team 6? He would have to be and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution. But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that.

Chief Justice's opinion and my word against Madison and our Constitution and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not- I asked you a yes or no question. Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution? If he were impeached and convicted first.

So your answer is no. Enough stuff to buy time. President Trump voluntarily attended yesterday's hearing. According to those in the courtroom, he walked in just before they got started. His seat was just a few feet away from Jack Smith. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Mika. What? And Willie. What? Donald Trump's attorney said yesterday, if people were, you know, chewing the grape nuts and, you know, and they're like, you hear that more than you hear anything else. You can't. Hard to hear conversation next to you. But go on. Let alone let alone our Captain Crunch with Crunch Berries and they're chewing it and they think that they misheard. I just want to slow everything down. Finished chewing the Crunch Berries. They're really good.

I love them. All right. So now that we've got your attention, Willie, Donald Trump's attorney said that Donald Trump, and Donald Trump believes this, actually, that he could get SEAL Team six to assassinate somebody for him and he would be immune from criminal prosecution. That's what he said. That's where we are.

And actually, the chilling thing is that's not just a bumbling attorney. That's what Donald Trump believes. It's what he believes. It's what he said for how many years about shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue and getting away with it. That was a political argument. Now they're making the legal case that under the right circumstances, they said it out loud. You all just heard it, that he could order a political opponent to be assassinated by SEAL Team 6 and be immune from prosecution. I mean,

what do you even say to that? Let's ask former U.S. attorney, MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg, conservative attorney George Conway, and U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye. Chuck, you've heard a lot in your days inside courtrooms across this country. What did you think when you heard that yesterday? Yeah, I think they painted themselves into a corner by taking this absolutist position, Willie, that was simple and silly and wrong. The notion that the only way you could prosecute a president, the former president in this case, if he is impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate, then you can proceed is utter nonsense. They lacked any subtlety. They lacked any tact in their argument. If you read their briefs, and I'm a nerd who read their briefs before the argument, I saw this coming.

They painted themselves into a corner. And so the questions that we heard from the judges are exactly the questions you would expect. Judges love to test hypotheticals. They love to trot out the most ridiculous example. You don't expect a good litigator to take it at face value. You would expect him to distinguish it in some way. There was a way to distinguish it. He didn't do it. It was a ridiculous answer. And it exposes the fallacy, I think, of their argument. And the point of the question, of course, is there anything, no matter how outrageous or so outlandish the president could do and not be immune? And the answer from the lawyer was no, he could have SEAL Team 6 kill an opponent.

So I guess the case they're making, help us understand and our audience understand, as they do eat those crunch berries, that the case they're making, help us understand and our audience understand as they do eat those crunch berries, that the case they're making is he would have had, Donald Trump would have had to have been convicted in his impeachment trial for there to be no immunity. But remember, when it was in the when they were having the impeachment trial, they said, no, this has to be settled in the courts. OK, now it's in the courts and they're saying, no, this has to be settled by the Congress. In a shocking development, politicians were making expedient arguments and not legal ones. But let's put aside what the politicians said for a moment. You're quite right. The argument they were advancing is that the only way a former president could be charged, the only way he would not have immunity is if he were impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. That's just not right as a matter of law.

I understand that Mitch McConnell and others said different things during the impeachment proceeding, perhaps simply to push the impeachment proceeding off. It worked then, but this isn't going to work now. I would be shocked, Willie, and I'm not really in the business of making predictions. I would be shocked if the Court of Appeals or even the Supreme Court ultimately accepted this argument at face value and found that the president was actually immune from prosecution under the terms that his lawyer set out. It doesn't add up. But the win here might be the time that they take to do it.

George Conway, you have a piece in The Atlantic entitled Trump's lawyers walked into a trap. What's the trap? The trap was exactly what Chuck was talking about there. I'm going to disagree slightly with Chuck in that I'm not sure that the January 6th case could be distinguished from the SEAL teen six case because they were just both equally brazenly illegal and in violation of law. But the way that Trump's lawyers attempted to kind of soften it to say that, well, you could sometimes do it was to rely on their other bad argument that they're making, an argument that's even worse, an argument based on what's called the impeachment judgment clause. All that clause says is that if you're tried and convicted and removed from

office and could be the president or anyone else, you can still be tried and convicted and sent to jail if after after you're removed from office. They flip that around and say, oh, in order to convict a president, you must have a conviction in the Senate first, which the clause does not say. So that's how that's how Sauer came up with that conflation, that argument, and creating the exception for presidents who are convicted. They can then be tried. Now, the problem was, one problem was it's extreme, but the other problem was he was talking out of both sides of his mouth.

The immunity argument is based upon, and he kept repeating this over and over again, the specter of a future president, I won't say who that would be, prosecuting his political opponents. So we can't have that. So we can't have Donald Trump being prosecuted now because we don't want political prosecutions. But at the same time, he's arguing you can have this prosecution. The president wouldn't be immune if the Congress of the United States, which is the most political body in this town, says you can. So he's saying on one hand, can't have political prosecution. Then he's saying the prosecution must be political.

Made no sense. And that's the other thing that Judge Florence Pan, when she was asking that question that you played, was doing. He was she was pointing out how utterly inconsistent and two faced the Trump argument was. And Joe, what does make sense is that this will take time and a lot of time and could push beyond the election? Well, I'm not so sure. And that's actually I'm glad you brought up the timing question, because that's what I wanted to go to Chuck with the question is that since this was such a preposterous argument, since it went so badly at the D.C. Circuit, is there not more of a possibility that the D.C. Circuit rejects it and the Supreme Court does a per curiam affirm where they just rubber stamp it, affirm it and send it back to the trial court? You know, Joe, I'm somewhat bullish on the notion that this case can be tried before

the election. This is the one that's set for trial on March 4th in D.C. federal court before Judge Chutkin. In many ways, it's the most straightforward case, just one defendant and just four charges. No case is easy, but this is a simpler one to prepare for trial. There's no classified information. There aren't multiple defendants. But Chuck, what about the appeal? What about the appeal? The D.C. circuitc circuit again it went so badly

for the the trump team it's not a close call isn't this something that the the supreme court might look at and go yeah get it out of here so procuring the firm go back to the trial i apologize my my wind-up was way too slow the, Joe. I think it's a relatively easy case for the D.C. Circuit to decide. The loser, Mr. Trump, in this case, may well ask the entire panel to hear it en banc. I think that will be denied. And I'm not sure the Supreme Court even takes this case at this moment in time. And so if those things happen, you could have the case back on track

quickly. I don't think the March 4th trial date is doomed. It is endangered. It might get pushed back a few weeks or a month. But you can have a trial in this case, I believe, in late spring, early summer, well ahead of the election, if those ifs line up. Yeah, it really, Cady, it does make sense at the D.C. Circuit that this panel just completely stuffs this legal argument back in the lawyer's face. It's such a weak argument, such a preposterous argument. I so agree with Chuck. And by the way, Chuck, I do know something about long windups before asking questions. It is what I've been doing now my whole adult life. So here's my windup caddy.

And now here's the pitch. It's fascinating. People are like, well, Donald Trump's in court. Why is he in court instead of campaigning? Because Donald Trump being in court is the greatest bully pulpit for him where he can play victim. You know, he's such a snowflake. He's such a victim. And Trumpers get triggered so easily that when a stupid argument like this is shot down, actually, Donald Trump thinks it's going to help him politically.

And maybe he's right. I'm not even a simple country lawyer and I've never seen a turn it drop, but I could hear the skepticism in the judges voices yesterday. I mean, it didn't sound like this is going very far and there's potential that they rule on this pretty quickly on the political front. You're right. And on the financial front. Right. I mean, we've seen these appearances be big money spinners, particularly early on. I mean, it's interesting that with each successive appearance that he makes, the amount of money he brings in for his campaign haul seems to be a little bit less. And I wonder about how well yesterday played for him. I mean, there were no cameras in the courtroom. That doesn't help him. He doesn't get the we just have these kind of descriptions of him

talking to his lawyers and getting animated when they talk about the fact that he's doing so well in the polls. And then he gave that rather kind of lackluster mini press conference in his former hotel down the road. He couldn't address the crowds outside the courtroom. The weather was terrible. There was so much security outside the courtroom, he couldn't really do it. So I don't, I mean, I'm wondering whether with each of these appearances, does it become less of a political draw for him?

I don't know. I mean, I think Willie's right that he's always said, you know, I could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. I wonder whether this particular case, the claims of immunity have more to do with his love of authoritarianism. He's often suggested, you know, why can't I do what Erdogan can do? Why can't I do what other authoritarian leaders can do, Kim Jong-un can do. He seems to have this kind of idea that that should have been his presidency. And blanket immunity for anything he may ever do wrong would seem to be the logical extension of that in his mind. George.

George. Yeah. Yeah. George Conway. Where does this end? Do you think, as Chuck believes, that this argument is so preposterous that Donald Trump's lawyers aren't going to be able to delay by getting the entire D.C. circuit to listen, getting the Supreme Court to mull over it? Is this something they just sort of brush away again because it's such a laughable argument? Also, it's the D.C. circuit. I mean,

this isn't this isn't some random circuit out in flyover space. The justices would call it where I'm from. But go ahead. Yeah, I'm I'm as bullish as Chuck is. I think this March 4th trial date could stick. I think this decision from the D.C. Circuit is going to come down within a week or two, probably a week and maybe even less. I think they're probably already writing the opinion. I think they probably got a head start writing the opinion. I know that if I were the presiding judge, I would have started writing the opinion already. And I think we're going to see. I don't think there's going to be a big, you know, a big deal when it comes to getting that opinion out. And I think there's a good chance the Supreme Court won't take it, even if the Supreme Court does take it.

And and here's argument in March or April, they could issue a decision in May or June. We'd still have a summer trial. So I think one way or the other, this case is going to be tried this year before the fall. Wow. And we've already heard Donald Trump's real core argument when he comes out of the courtroom and says, if I'm convicted in this case, there will be bedlam in the country. It's just a threat of violence if they convict him. That's really his only argument here. So, Chuck Rosenberg, you are bullish, as you said a little bit earlier about how this will move along. Let's talk about the Supreme Court real quick. How do you think they will weigh this question if it does make its way up? Well, if you have a good opinion from the district court judge, Judge Chutkan, and you do, and you have a sound and perhaps unanimous opinion

from the D.C. Circuit panel, and I agree with George, I think we'll have that soon. There may not be anything for the Supreme Court to weigh in on. I mean, remember, they get thousands and thousands of petitions each year from folks who want the Supreme Court to hear the case. Their jurisdiction in almost every case is completely elective. They are not required to hear this. And so if you look at the reasoning below and they agree with it, my suspicion is they just move on. I'm not sure why they would need to take this case to ultimately say what I expect the D.C. Circuit will say. All right. Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, thank you so much. We appreciate all your insights this morning. Coming up in just one minute, thank you so much. We appreciate all your insights this morning.

Coming up in just one minute, a government shutdown is looming. But today, House Republicans instead are focused on impeaching the Homeland Security Secretary and holding the president's son in contempt of Congress. We'll have the latest from Capitol Hill. Morning Joe is back in 60 seconds. Welcome back to Morning Joe. Welcome back. Talking on the set. You know, we have sets all over the world. And Willie, our set in Los Angeles.

They're all talking about Aaron Rodgers and Jimmy Kimmel's. And I just I just got to ask a question. What is it with Aaron Rodgers? Like, why does he he's got the Jeffrey Epstein list? Why is he so obsessed about it? You know, several months ago, Aaron Rodgers said when they were talking about UFOs, Mika, would you like to, this seems like this is just confusing you so much, but this is what Americans as they eat their crunch berries are asking about. Really? Okay.

Yeah. It must be me. Or whatever. Yeah, well, it's not Willie. So anyway, remember they were talking about UFOs and Capitol Hill and Aaron Rodgers goes, oh, yeah, they're talking about UFOs because Jeffrey Epstein's list must be coming out. I just create just bizarre. Yeah. And then he he moves forward and nothing seems really slanderous saying Jimmy Kimmel.

He's really concerned now because Jeffrey Epstein list is coming out and like a moth like to a flame. He can't stop himself. He goes back on Pat McAfee show and tries to explain it away again. I'm really not sure why Jimmy Kimmel hasn't decided to sue the guy. I mean, but these conspiracy theories, you got to ask a guy who sits out all season. I heard somebody yesterday, I think it was on ESPN radio, comparing Joe Burrow to Aaron Rodgers.

Joe Burrow, every week he gets hurt. What's he doing? He's on the sidelines. He's at practice. He's helping his backup quarterback. He's talking about the team. Aaron Rodgers, every Tuesday, It's conspiracy theories with Aaron every Tuesday. And he's trashing his coach. He's trashing his GM. I mean, he needs to go away. Yeah, I think at this point

in his career, you have to ask yourself if it's worth it for the New York Jets to have this guy around. I guess they think it is for another year. We'll see if he's healed and can play better. But you're right. I mean, he did not apologize. A week after, he completely, completely slandered Jimmy Kimmel, suggesting that he was on the Epstein list. Of course, he's not. He came back on, did not apologize, like a decent person would do,

and say, I'm so sorry. It was a flippant joke. I shouldn't have said it. He dug deeper and then went back to the Epstein list. You're right. He's obsessed with that for some reason. And then totally. Why is he obsessed with the Epstein list? Unprovoked and unsolicited starts going on a rant about Anthony Fauci and the covid vaccine and how it's this and that. I mean, maybe it's because he's had the season sitting around doing nothing.

He is so deep and soaked in conspiracy theories. It seems to be all he thinks about. And, you know, he's he's one of these guys, I guess, who lives on the Internet. And he gets a platform because he's famous and he says things that are wrong. He says things that are dangerous and he keeps getting a platform. He keeps saying it. And when given the opportunity to apologize for saying something truly awful about Jimmy Kimmel, he refused to do it, which tells you a lot about his character. Really does. And, you know, you're looking at the Jets and you're really wondering, do they really want to depend on this guy? Yeah. Why? Yeah. Why? That's what Mika asks about me every day. Why? Why are we having him on the show today?

Why? Is it really worth it? OK. Just randomly bringing up Jimmy Kimmel and Aaron Rogers when we're supposed to be talking about government shutdowns. It's just not worth it. I wasn't sure where this is going, but I actually think it's a good conversation about conspiracy theories and the irresponsibility of this guy. Because our kids watch him and they, you know, they don't watch a lot of other stuff. And I mean, our kids, I say that in terms of across the country and they listen to podcasts and they listen to, they go on social media and they think they know what's going on in the news. So it seems to me people with these really large platforms need to be required to be more responsible and quite frankly, shouldn't need the requirement.

They should be more responsible and, quite frankly, shouldn't need the requirement. They should be more responsible and kind. And by the way, while we're talking about this, and I know everybody wants us to get to the workings of Congress, the inner workings of Congress. Really want to talk about the shutdown. I don't think we've been together on this show since ought seven or ought eight. So we missed a lot. But the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, other other newspapers over the past month have started to focus on what we

were talking about after the terrorist attacks against Israel. And that is the insanity. That is tick tock. The insanity of of of our our our college students and younger voting Americans getting misinformation from a website owned by the communist Chinese government. And it's such massive misinformation that is being sent out day after day. And it is shaping how young Americans think not only about the terrorist group Hamas and not only the hatred that it is building for Israel, but we have now come into this bizarre world where social media is turning. It's hard to believe Osama bin Laden into a hero for a subset of younger Americans. That's what TikTok owned by the communist Chinese government controlled by the communist government there. That's what TikTok is doing to young Americans. There are people, a good number of younger American students that go to good schools that are now posting on their walls Bin Laden's message to America or something like that and are praising Hamas and attacking Israel every day. It is it is such such a threat. Would the FCC allow communist China to run a news

channel that spewed false information about Osama bin Laden in America? I guess I still I've never understood this whole, oh, it's the Wild West. We can't do anything about the Internet. I've never understood that because the government can do something about the internet. I've never understood that because the government can do something about everything else. Why do they continue to allow this disinformation to be spewed on TikTok? It is disinformation. It is, as you say, taking hold. It's a large enough percentage of young Americans than you can write off. It's a larger enough percentage than you can write off because they're getting these clips that suggest things like, oh, it was Israel that was responsible for the hospital bombing. It wasn't responsible for they're committing war crimes every day that there

are occupiers, all these things. And you have to stop and explain what these terms mean. They're committing genocide. Israel's committing genocide. These sort of buzzwords that have caught on on TikTok and caught on on college campuses. And they're taking hold. And by the way, it's not an insignificant matter for the president. I mean, if you look at his standing among young voters that he really, really needs to turn out this fall, their support for him is very soft. It doesn't mean they like Donald Trump. It means they might be looking around or that they're not going to show up. This stuff all matters. And I agree with you. We've talked to Chris Krebs on this show, the cybersecurity guru about, you know, leaving the back door open to the Chinese government through TikTok. They have a straight line, a direct line into young people, into kids, into young Americans,

and they can push whatever message they want. They can gather all their data. They got nothing to lose. And the Chinese government government enjoying this. And they have they set up algorithms. And this is what The New York Times watched. But all these Wall Street Journal, all these investigations, they set up algorithms that actually feed these lies to young young Americans that are on TikTok. And the I think it was a time set up a a 13 year old, 14 year old, 15 year old user. The just set up accounts that were supposedly that.

And they were just fed constant, constant pro-Humas propaganda. And those algorithms are not created in Silicon Valley. Those algorithms are run, again, by a company that's owned by the communist Chinese government, who, again, the communist Chinese government through TikTok are changing the views of American students and younger working Americans to the degree, again, that now with a pretty significant subset of them are now looking positively at Osama bin Laden. Congress needs to do something. Congress needs to do something. We need to do a full-out hour on this because our kids are on TikTok.

And as you just laid out, it's a huge problem. Moving on now to the Republican-led House Oversight and Judiciary Committees holding markups on contempt charges against Hunter Biden after he refused last month a congressional subpoena to testify in private, despite showing up to testify in public. In addition, the House Homeland Security Committee will be holding a hearing about the possible impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas surrounding the handling of the situation at the border. Let's bring in NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin on both of this. Good to have you right here in the studio in Washington.

Where do you want to begin? Because these House Republicans have a busy day of definitely obsessing over folks, anybody close to Joe Biden. And I just want to point out that normally these impeachment proceedings, they're not normal. But against Mayorkas, they would be held in the Judiciary Committee. But because it's busy and tied up with impeachment proceedings into the president, the Homeland Security Committee is actually taking that step. But the dynamic that I'm following here that is so interesting is while you have these border negotiations going on in the Senate, you have Mayorkas in the room. He was the point person from the White House for weeks now on this. It's not a secret. You then have Republicans impeaching him or trying to in the House. You have a group of

Senate conservatives yesterday who were defending that move. I asked one of them, Roger Marshall, a Midwest senator from Kansas, for example, what happens? How can you accept a deal on one hand on border while you're impeaching and criticizing the guy in the very room trying to steal it? Here's what he said. Well, certainly personally for me, it's very concerning. You know, I typically don't sit down and at a table with a person I don't trust. You know, how on one hand are we sitting here saying he should be impeached? On the other hand, we're negotiating with them. But we're playing the hand that's dealt us. We are

not the ones that get to choose who they send to the negotiations. I think that this is such an important issue, that this is a once in a generation opportunity to secure the border, that I'm willing to do this however we can. So clearly you have the group of Senate Republicans who are agreeing with this impeachment push, who went to the floor to try to call for a vote of no confidence. Obviously, that went nowhere with Democrats controlling the Senate. But you have them on one hand criticizing the guy who's in the room trying to give advice on border policy, while at the same time trying to impeach him. And I expect that if and when this deal comes together, which leadership in both parties tell me they still want it,

that will be something that will be a very interesting uptick. Do the Republicans really want one? Because some have said, you know what, I don't want a deal. It'll make Joe Biden look good. We'll put that aside. George Conway, this obsession with Hunter. Hunter did want to testify, just not in private. Now being what held in contempt officially. Can they do that? What else are they doing? What do you make of these of this focus on Hunter in this hearing today? Well, it's obviously it's just nonsense. I mean, we have never I mean, there is he's never held public office. He's never going to hold public office. I'm happy to see if he ever did.

We'll impeach him. That's great. But but they don't never had they've never had any connection to the president. And that's that's the problem. And they even admit that at times, the Republicans. And this is just going to go nowhere. But they have to but they but they have to bang the drums, I think, to just placate the base. They don't want to be criticized for being soft on Joe Biden. So they're ready to be kamikaze pilots and try to. So is the hearing so they can swamp the airwaves with talk about Hunter? Well, they can talk. Yes. I mean, so they can talk about talk about it and say, look at what we're doing.

We're fighting for you by going after this guy who doesn't have anything to do with anything else. I mean, it's just it's just beyond crazy. Joe, what do you make of it? Well, they're just playing for they're playing for the cheap seats. There's a very small portion of people in their base who want to see this happen. Most Americans don't even know who he is, don't even know his name. So but so they're playing for the cheap seats. What I was what I found fascinating, Willie, is that you had a Republican who's lined up to impeach him that is negotiating with with the secretary and that he talked about. And here's here's the phrase he talked about a once in a generation opportunity to secure the border. That tells me that this is something James Lankford has been working for for quite some time.

Willie, it tells me that even the most conservative Republicans in the Senate are actually considering finally, finally entering into an immigration deal. And the Democrats in the Senate are finally, finally talking about putting some real teeth into a border security plan where the two sides can come together and start bringing relief to to the humanitarian crisis that's been swelling at the border since Donald Trump became president of the United States. Yeah, that's the question we've been talking about for a couple of weeks now. Do Republicans actually want a solution to the border crisis? And it is a crisis. Or do they want to hang on to this issue through the 2024 election

so they can hammer the president on it? So I guess, Julie Serkin, that's the question for you. What is the progress over on the Senate side, at least? We know all the noise from the House will continue on the Senate side in these bipartisan negotiations about the border, about immigration. Are those real? Is there reason for optimism there? Or is it sort of just a signal from some Republicans like Senator Lankford that we are serious about this, but it's not actually going to go anywhere? Negotiations are 100 percent serious. There's no reason that Senator Lankford

and Senator Murphy, quite frankly, would be risking so much political capital in this moment by being seen in the room negotiating with not only Senator Sinema, also Secretary Mayorkas, as we mentioned, trying to really bridge the gap on something that is so politically fraught Congress has not been able to address it for nearly four decades. So I do think negotiations are serious. I do think that leadership, Republicans and Democrats in both the House and Senate want the deal. It's no secret, though, that Democratic majorities, Willie, are going to have to carry this deal if they want to push it through, not only in the Senate, but also in the House. And it is for that reason that some of these trickier issues, for example, humanitarian parole, that is something that is extremely difficult to figure out when you have Republicans on one hand wanting to completely restrict the Biden administration's ability to use that authority. And you have Democrats pushing back, bringing up Ukrainian refugees, for example, bringing up resettled Afghanistan, Afghan refugees.

So this is really a big issue. There are still outstanding problems here. But certainly, especially this is tied to Ukraine. Yeah, this is something that needs the help. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Sirkin. Thank you very much. And George Conway, oral arguments yesterday. Donald Trump was there. Then he heads to New York on Thursday for, I guess, the civil trial, which Letitia James has decided. I need a little more money back from this situation. So this is while Iowa is days away. Yeah, it's his magical litigation tour.

And I mean, again, I think it's as Joe put it earlier. I mean, he loves, I mean, first of all, he went yesterday because that, as Chuck previously said, there's a delay aspect to it. And there's also a fundraising aspect to it. And as Joe said, there was a narcissistic victimization aspect. But he's fighting for his life here. He's fighting for his freedom here. These cases, these criminal cases, not the one in New York, not the civil one in New York. That's just money. That means a lot to him. These cases can put him in jail for the rest of his life, and I think probably will. That's why he's desperate to make these immunity arguments, even though they're long shots,

they're Hail Marys at best. But he's looking at, and he deeply has to be fearing. In fact, he ran for reelection in 2020 in part because he knows deep down he's a criminal and he and that the law is catching up to him. And Katty, Katty, look at that ABC News headline at the bottom of the screen. Trump will reportedly deliver. I'm sorry. It's hard to even read. Trump. OK, let me let's hard to even read. Trump. OK, let me let me read it with a straight face. You can do it.

It's not possible. It's not possible. Trump will reportedly deliver part of his New York fraud closing arguments himself. Willie, my God, the the gods the cable news gods will be the best argument down from the heavens to all cable news executive producers wondering what they're going to do well forget forget cable news the late night comics willie oh my god late night comics are gonna have a field day on this well you know he does believe that he is his own best representation, that he alone can fix it. So I think he probably thinks he is so persuasive and so charming that if he got face to face with a jury, they would come around him or he might just threaten them.

He could go attorneys. And this is the hat George Conway gave me to give you, Joe. I feel bad for them as they watch the closing arguments on Thursday as Donald Trump delivers them. And by the way, we're reclaiming the red hat. You've made this one. Mine says, know your value. George Conway, thank you very much for being on this morning. Coming up, the U.S. and Israel are united in the war against Hamas, but appear to be sharply divided over plans for the future of Gaza. We'll have a live report from Jerusalem on the heels of Secretary of State Anthony Blinken's meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his war cabinet.

Morning Joe will be right back. In Israel are disagreeing on plans for post-war Gaza. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet yesterday to discuss the future of the territory. Blinken's plan was based on discussions he had earlier in the week with other region leaders. He urged Israeli officials to allow for revamped Palestinian authority to play a role in Gaza. He also explained that ending the war would allow Israel to improve its relations with its Arab neighbors. Those leaders told Blinken they want to see a serious

path toward creating a Palestinian state. They say there cannot be a long-term solution for this conflict without that. But Netanyahu and his far-right government are flatly rejecting those calls, some even pushing for the mass removal of civilians from Gaza. Israel's finance minister opposed giving the Palestinian Authority the tax revenue Israel has been collecting, saying it will, quote, go to the families of the Nazis in Gaza. Following the meeting, Blinken had this to say about Israel's post-war plans. Israel must be a partner to Palestinian leaders who are willing to lead their people in living side by side in peace with Israel and as neighbors. And Israel must stop taking steps that undercut Palestinians' ability to govern themselves effectively. Extremist settler violence carried out with impunity, settlement expansion, demolitions, evictions, all make it harder, not easier, for Israel to achieve lasting peace and security.

If Israel wants its Arab neighbors to make the tough decisions necessary to help ensure its lasting security, Israeli leaders will have to make hard decisions themselves. In a programming note, Andrea Mitchell sat down with Secretary of State Blinken in Tel Aviv. You can watch her exclusive interview on Andrea Mitchell Reports. That's today at noon Eastern. And join us now from Jerusalem, NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel. Richard, what's the latest there? So this has been a difficult trip for Secretary Blinken. He arrived with what sounded like carrots for Israel, incentives.

He had been on a trip all across the Arab world, a trip that is not over yet, trying to build some sort of consensus. And he came with a package from the Arab states saying that the Arab world is willing to resume a normalization process, resume making peace deals with Israel, including Saudi Arabia, going back toward potentially having a full diplomatic agreement with Israel on the condition that it end the war

in Gaza, that it change the leadership structure, allowing a single Palestinian government to run both the West Bank and Gaza. And most critically, that it relaunch the long frozen peace process, what used to be called the Oslo Accord, a peace process that will ultimately lead to the creation of a Palestinian state. That is something that Prime Minister Netanyahu and particularly this hard right government that he has formed, the most right wing government in Israel's modern history, have flatly rejected the finance minister. We're rejecting it out of hand. A national security minister here calling for just the opposite, calling for the Palestinian Authority to be replaced by Israeli settlers. So it is not something that this this government in its current configuration is willing to accept. But what we saw today was Secretary Blinken putting out this plan saying that Israel can be integrated in the Middle East if it meets these conditions. He went today to the West Bank to meet with the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas.

He was booed. Secretary Blinken met some angry crowds outside, people telling him to go home, accusing the United States of not doing enough to defend the Palestinian people, of just trying to placate Israel in the wake of the October 7th attacks that killed 1,200 Israelis and took hundreds of hostages. And then later today, there will be another summit. So we're seeing a flurry of diplomatic activity in Jordan with the president of Egypt, the king of Jordan and the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mr. Abbas. So, Richard, just over here. You had the secretary of state saying that Israel had to make some tough decisions. Benjamin Netanyahu, over the past decade or so, has done just the opposite. He always has refused to make any decision that would be politically tough. He's led radical settlers run roughshod over the Palestinians and the West Bank.

He's told Qatar to funnel billions of dollars to Hamas to try to cynically pay them off. He's refused to go after Hamas's funding, even when he knew about it five years ago. And now you have a front page of The New York Times. This is what you're talking about, about how Arab states are now pushing for a two state solution. I understand Netanyahu's political gain. It is in part what led us to this calamity's appeasement and funding of Hamas has gotten them to this point. And they do need to figure out how to move forward with the region and the world on a two state solution. You're hitting it one of the most fundamental questions here.

This solution that this proposed solution that the Biden administration is proposing that Secretary Blinken is carrying with him, which has been endorsed by many countries around the Arab world, a way out of this, which would get rid of Hamas by replacing it with a revamped Palestinian authority and move back toward a peace process leading to a two-state solution, in many ways, is a post-Netanyahu plan. It is something that I'm sure the Biden administration did not expect Netanyahu to accept, did not expect his coalition in particular to accept. So it is looking to a region in which half of the Palestinian population that in Gaza is not governed by the kidnapping, murdering extremists of Hamas and which and in which Israel is not led by a coalition led by

Prime Minister Netanyahu. So far, the Israelis are not pushing for an election at this stage because we are in a war here. This is a time of national crisis. But approval ratings, according to numerous opinion polls, suggest that Netanyahu's public approval rating is terribly low, that most people have lost confidence in his ability to rule this country. They don't trust him when it comes to security. They don't trust him personally. So this this plan, in many ways, is a plan that envisions a change of leadership or could only be accepted by a change of leadership in both Israel and and in Gaza. NBC's Richard Engel, thank you very much for your reporting and joining us now here in

Washington, White House reporter for The Washington Post, Yasmeen Abutaleb. So what's your reporting on all of this? As of course, there are concerns of a wider war breaking out in the Biden administration is hugely concerned about the risk of escalation, particularly in southern Lebanon right now, where Israel and Hezbollah have been exchanging some sort of low-level fire since October 7th, but that has escalated quite a bit in the last two weeks. U.S. officials said Israel was responsible for a strike last week that killed a Hamas commander just outside of Beirut. They believe that Israel killed a Hezbollah commander this week in southern Lebanon. And of course, Secretary of State Blinken is in the region,

in large part trying to prevent an escalation. We have reporting that U.S. officials are telling Israel this is not in their interest. The U.S. does not have interest in being directly pulled into a broader war with Hezbollah. And Hezbollah is a much more competent military group than Hamas is that, you know, Israel's already stretched pretty thin with forces and resources in Gaza. Hezbollah is a much more formidable enemy to take on. And it's just not equipped. U.S. officials do not believe that Israel is well equipped to take on a full scale war with Hezbollah. I mean, it doesn't seem like the White House is getting very much from Israel. They keep asking for, you know, reduce the attacks or make them more targeted in Gaza. Be careful not to attack the Lebanese armed forces because those are U.S. backed forces.

And, you know, go for that even in terms of the political stuff. Right. There's got to be a two state solution. You've got to revamp Palestinian authorities. And it keeps it seems like it keeps getting thrown back in the White House's face. How much frustration is there in the administration and what would that frustration lead to? Is there kind of any discussion about action that might be taken? I think you hit on a really important point here. And I think one of the main sources of criticism of the administration's approach, there are, of course, people who say, you know, this allows the administration to keep nudging the Israelis in private. But I think there are increasing questions from Middle East experts, even from allies of the administration, asking what are they getting for this bear hug strategy,

because it does seem like they send these warnings both in private and then a little bit more gently in public. And Israel keeps essentially ignoring what the U.S. is telling them to do. And you hit on the attacks on the Lebanese armed forces, which U.S. officials have told them is absolutely unacceptable. These are U.S.-trained forces who are going to be essential to any, you know, what they call day-after scenario in Lebanon, that Israel cannot be attacking them. We had a report over the weekend, my colleagues and I, that U.S. officials have assessed that Israel has hit Lebanese armed forces at least 34 times in the last couple of months. So, I mean, there is a risk. And I think

it's been made clear that Hezbollah does not really want a wider war. But I think the question is, at what point do they feel pulled in because of the attacks that are being launched? And all this while hostages are still being held in captivity. White House reporter for The Washington Post, Jasmine Abutala. Thank you so much for coming in. It's good to see you. Come back.