Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/12/24

Episode Date: January 12, 2024

U.S. and allies launch strikes against Houthis in Yemen

Haley and DeSantis really did go after each other with Haley presenting herself as the candidate of the future. What we need is a leader that's not looking at four years and eight years. We need a president that's looking at 20 and 30 years. Well, good news, welcome to Morning Joe. It's Friday, January 12th. Willie, so much to talk about today. Let's see what's front page of the paper. It's daily news.

He will not be speaking. I'm not sure where Morning Joe's paper of record is today. I guess because Mrs. Boo Miller is here out of respect. They gave us the New York Times, New York Times, of course, talking about the missile strike against the hoodies. Washington Post. Also, we have the strike as the lead on the other side, Trump's trial and Wall Street Journal inflation taking up.

But yeah, Willie, nothing in there also about all the coaches that just sort of yesterday was just the harvest, my friend. I mean, the one great coach after another gone. Well, as always, the paper of record delivers just right on cue joe here's the back page of the new york post saying hood riddance belichick done torturing jets after 24 years six crowns with pat so they're on it with bill belichick the question john now is does he coach again there's some atlanta talk there's you raise the possibility of dallas if they choke in the playoffs. The fans get restless there.

Do you think he's done coaching? I do not think he's done coaching. It was a very classy exit with him and Patriots owner Robert Kraft yesterday. Belichick made it pretty clear, and Kraft hinted as well, that they had conversations and that Belichick does not see himself retiring. He's 15 wins, so maybe two years short of setting the all-time wins record held by Don Shula, which people close to him say is very important to him. He is still a great, great coach. So there are some franchises that are rumored to be in the mix here. Atlanta seems to

be in the favor right now. The Los Angeles Chargers, who have a good young quarterback, also in the mix. The Washington Commanders with their new ownership group. They have the second pick in the draft, maybe them. And yes, there is the possibility if a team flames out quickly in the playoffs, they might look to say, hey, we're a coach away. And I think the Cowboys are the top of that list. Let's listen to Bill Belichick. Yesterday, as you said, a very amicable breakup, at least publicly, between him and the New England Patriots. So appreciative of the fans for all the support they've given me, my family, and this football team. And it's with so many fond memories and thoughts that I, you know,

think about the Patriots and I'll always be a Patriot. I look forward to coming back here. But at this time, you know, we're going to move on. And I look forward and excited for the future. But always very, very appreciative of the opportunity here, the support here, and, you know, what Robert, what you've done for me. Thank you. That's an amazing handshake right there.

Dynamic. I was going to say, going out the way he always did at the podium. Muttering how grateful he was for the time. I ordered some oatmeal for breakfast this morning. I put some 2% milk on it. Yes. Hey, Willie, we've done something wrong all these years, apparently. You know, we expect to win Emmys every year.

And sometimes we win so many Emmys. But we don't have enough people to give these Emmys to. Our friends at ESPN figured out a solution. They made up fake names for Emmys. Willie, what's that about? Willie? Reminds me of your famous, well, infamous cable lace scandal of 1986, where you made up a whole bunch of different names.

Boy, did you clean up that year with the cable lace swords. I did. They're still in my, you know, sort of men's cave. You go in and you just see. This is when you can tell you really miss Mika. It's Friday. Mika's not here. Everybody's in a lot of trouble.

It's going to be a long four hours. We start off like this, but we're just kind of looking around. On the bases, on the drums. Somebody jumped in. We're ready for Miles to turn around, yell at us, and start playing. Yeah, it's a little bit hard to explain. But something, College Game Day, which is a great show, and everyone on the show is great. They were changing names so they could rack up more Emmys, and now he has to actually return 20-some of them.

So I think we've covered every story on the front page of the paper now. I'm going to start taking some pictures here. Here you go. Smile. He does this. Yeah, I do. Yes, I do. That's a good picture.

If you're watching, please come in to work. We apologize. Yeah, exactly. All right. Well, we actually we actually have some news and it involves something that the Biden administration is increasingly been getting pressured for getting attacked for by people, especially on the right, for not responding to Houthi rebels who continue to fire missiles into the Red Sea. Last night, the response. Yeah, that actually is the top story above the fold here in The New York Times that U.S. missiles hit Houthi rebels facilities in Yemen. The U.S. and its allies launched military strikes against the Iranian-backed

Houthis in Yemen. Officials say they struck over 60 targets at 16 locations last night using more than 100 precision guided munitions. Those targets included command and control nodes, as well as production facilities, munitions depots, and air defense radar systems. The Houthis claim at least five people were killed. This was in response to more than two dozen attacks. Houthis have been launching commercial ships in the Red Sea since November. Earlier this week, the group launched its largest attack yet, directly targeting American ships, Joe. So as you said, this was something that finally the United States and the UK together said cannot stand. You can't attack commercial ships through the Red Sea. And a strong response last night.

Right. And it was a response that they saw coming. We kept warning the rebels and they kept firing at their ships. So the Houthis clearly expected, almost wanted this attack. They had launched a new wave of attacks on Tuesday. I think 18 different missiles targeting shipping. Since November, they've had more than two dozen attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. And finally, pow, the U.S. decided to go big in this strike. That's a lot of munitions, 100 precision munitions, 60 targets. So this is more than just sending a

message. It's trying to reestablish deterrence, which clearly has been failing. When the Houthis, this rebel group controlling Yemen, are essentially beginning to shut down shipping in one of the most important waterways in the world, the United States and its partners have a problem. I'm told that the U.S. considers freedom of navigation in places like the Red Sea an absolute red line. That's what we're prepared to commit force for. We waited for weeks. Finally, the response came. I think there is enormous fear in the White House that this will be part of a cycle that will now lead us into a new phase of the war that began in Gaza, a wider phase. You'll have other Iranian-backed militias like the Houthis thinking, well, I have to

show what I can do, too. So you may see an increase in attacks from Iranian militias in Iraq, from Hezbollah in Lebanon. All these dangers were factored in. But in the end, Joe, they decided they had no choice given the level of attacks on shipping, but to take a hard response. The goal was actually to have an effect, not just send a message, but actually deter them from these attacks and make it less possible they would do it. But with the wide range that they hit, you know, drone bases, they hit missile sites, they hit radar sites. It was a concerted effort to stop this for now.

Sometimes you're just checking the box that says military strike. This was more than that. This was a very targeted attempt to take out the capabilities that had been harassing shipping. Right. And Susan, over 2000 strikes against shipping thus far. Five countries have gotten involved in this. It wasn't just a U.S. operation. And it was, again, just it was five allies just saying enough is enough. You know, Rumsfeld had a saying, if you can't solve a problem, make it bigger. Could that work in this case? We have a problem that's so difficult to solve

between Israel and Hamas. Could making this conflict bigger be helpful? Or is this something that's got great concern and alarm, do you think? So there's been concern about the wider war, but it's also true that the U.S. and Israel both believe that Iran does not want to see a direct confrontation with either the United States or Israel. So if you expand it to the point that you're near that confrontation. There is some natural pressure to begin to de-escalate it because none of the parties want it. In the short run, I think that these individual proxies will continue to act. They'll want to show we're as tough as those Houthis. So you could get a spike up in violence.

I think the Israelis for the moment feel calmer than they did a couple weeks ago about their northern border. Right. You know, I've been searching for years, Susan, for the worst geopolitical advice in American history, and you just provided it. Thank you. You're welcome. From the late Don Rumsfeld. I couldn't participate in the coach talk. What is it? You've got a problem? Make it bigger? Well, actually, this is one of Rumsfeld. I couldn't participate in the coach talk. What is it? You've got a problem? Make it bigger? Well, actually, this is one of Rumsfeld's famous sayings, which I've applied in my own life. Sometimes I get stuck. I think, let's make this worse and see if it helps. Not often helps, but you know. Yeah, I wouldn't apply that geopolitically. Make it bigger.

Speaking of bigger, obviously, this draws in Iran. There have been questions, a lot of questions about Iran and their hand in all of this from October 7th through the Houthi attacks. Obviously, they fund them. How aggressive do they want them to be? How aggressive do they want Hamas to be? I must say, in my contacts across the Middle East and in the past two administrations, and some of those contacts very negative towards the Biden administration, who usually say, they're too easy on Iran. I keep hearing that the Iranians were surprised by the extent of the attacks on October the 7th, wanted to tamp it down. And also the Iranians, the last thing they want is a regional war. We're sitting here worried about a regional war if we provoke too much.

I'm hearing that the Iranians, it's the last thing they want right now. So that message, Joe, has been heard by Israel, the United States, you and me, from our sources. The Iranians have been pushing that line. We don't want a wider confrontation. The only thing that you have to remember is that Israel was convinced before October 7th that Hamas did not want a wider confrontation. They had totally bought into the idea that Hamas really wanted challenges, yes, but they wanted a policy of coexistence, and it proved completely wrong. And that's what haunts Israel. They have the same analysis you do, that Iran would be crazy to go to a larger war. But there's this haunting memory, and I think that's why everybody's a little bit on ten

points now in the aftermath of the strike against the Houthis. We just don't know what the response will be. We hope, we think that it'll be fairly limited, but nobody can be sure. That's why the White House has really been agonizing over what they did yesterday. They've been thinking about it for weeks, wondering what the right package of targets was. It's been the best known secret in town. But here it is. And now we have to wait and see what the reaction is. I have a question about that operation. Maybe you don't know the answer to this, but obviously this is all taking place in the backdrop of what was happening with Lloyd Austin,

gone for three days, unexplained absence, in the hospital, clearly sidelined. Did that affect the timing of this? There's been a lot of criticism from some factions. Other factions say they shouldn't have done it without authorization from Congress. But some factions say you waited too long. The deterrence was clearly not working. We should have hit quicker. Was the Austin situation at all a factor in why it took this long? I don't think so, Sam. I think the Austin situation is its own set of problems. What he did wasn't a capital crime. Clearly it was a mistake, and he understands that. The discussions between the United States and Britain about just what to do

have been continuous over the last two weeks. CENTCOM would pick targets. It's something he would approve, but he wouldn't be in the weeds on it. Because the reports were that he was approving it from the hospital bed. Oh, sure, but he wasn't planning it from the hospital bed. I think signed off on it from the hospital bed would be about the right phrase. I've just got to ask, how does the general, how does the secretary survive this? Well, I don't see him being fired. Why not? Because Joe Biden likes him and basically trusts him. Would any other secretary of defense survive this? He went AWOL for three, four days.

He's in the nuclear chain of command. So the problem at the Pentagon in terms of lack of communication didn't begin with the hospitalization of Lloyd Austin. It's been a continuous problem to this administration. He is not a communicator. He is he is a person who's really allergic to talking to the media and something like what happened. Shouldn't somebody in the chair, Mr. President, he's going to be. So as long as you had a commission, you had three days. Mark Milley, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nobody worried about the Pentagon

not communicating enough. That was not a problem. General Milley was out there. But with the new chairman's successor, C.Q. Brown, a very reticent, good officer, but very restrained, you've got a top team at the Pentagon that just doesn't communicate. And that's a problem. But I don't see— Should he leave fired or resign? Is this a sufficient offense? And obviously, as you say, at least a mistake that he should leave.

It is a violation of procedures. It's in character for the way he ran the Pentagon. This should have been addressed in terms of his broad communications long ago before he got to this. I just can't imagine an election year that he would be dumped now. I think it would be more trouble than it's worth. Also, he's got prostate cancer. But I think, too, the big question is exactly what went wrong. Did he tell his chief of staff and the chief of staff didn't pass the word on? I mean, where was the breakdown? I don't think he, there's no thought

that he deliberately kept this secret. We don't know. There's been a noun investigation, but I think that's the big question. Chief of Staff said he was sick. The most amazing thing to me was he talked with Biden on Saturday and one-on-one conversation did not reveal the cancer diagnosis during that conversation. So clearly, absence of communication here. And I mean, the inspector general report that was just launched by the DOD will answer these questions. But it's fascinating to think that you would not report something of that sort. It's a real problem. It's a real problem. I can't imagine. And most of you won't even accept a letter of resignation. That's fascinating. All right. We're going to

talk more about this, talk more about the attacks last night. But when we come back, going to New York and talking about the judge who had a bomb threat, I think, against his house early in the morning, telling Donald Trump's attorney, get your client in order. We'll be right back for that fun. This case has never been about politics or personal vendetta or about name calling. This case is about the facts and the law. And Mr. Donald Trump violated the law.

At the end of the day, the point is simple. No matter how powerful you are. No matter how powerful you are, no matter how rich you are, that no one is above the law and that the law applies to all of us equally and fairly. New York Attorney General Letitia James yesterday, the penalty decision in former President Donald Trump's civil fraud case now is in the hands of the judge. The trial against Trump, his two eldest sons, and the Trump organization ended yesterday in a New York City courtroom after the state attorney general's office and Trump's defense team both delivered closing arguments. The former president was allowed to speak briefly during part of the presentation by his lawyers. The judge asked Trump directly if he would, quote,

promise to just comment on the facts and the law. But naturally, Trump ignored him, immediately launching into a five-minute rant that broke every one of the judge's rules, claiming he was an innocent man who's been politically prosecuted. The judge called for Trump's attorney to control his client before cutting Trump off for a scheduled lunch break. The state AG is seeking $370 million in fines and to bar Trump from the New York real estate

industry. The judge said he hopes to have a decision by January 31st, so in a few weeks. He's deciding the case because state law does not allow for juries in this type of lawsuit. Joining us now, former litigator and MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin. She was inside the courtroom yesterday. Lisa, you were there. You saw and heard this exchange, which so we should go back a little bit. The judge and Gorin made this offer.

He said you can speak on your own behalf in a closing argument if you follow all these rules. That was ignored. But then that offer was put back on the table in the courtroom yesterday. Well, the offer was not put on the table affirmatively by Judge Ngoran. It was Chris Keis, Trump's lawyer, who at the end of each of the presentations by the three Trump lawyers renewed that request. You'll remember that the Trump lawyers ignored the last offer by Judge Ngoron, who said essentially, having failed to meet my third extended deadline, I'll take that as a no. Nonetheless, they renewed the request. And that's when Judge Ngoron asked if former President Trump could comply by just two conditions. Can you stick to the facts and the law? And as you noted, former President Trump immediately began to speak

in the guise of answering the question, basically saying, I couldn't accept your conditions and here's why, and then proceeded to deliver exactly the speech he would have wanted to, just at twice the pace, Willie, and a different cadence than we're used to from former President Trump, as if he expected to be cut off at any moment. So while he's talking, while he's doing everything the judge told him not to do, what's the reaction from the bench? Is he expected to be cut off at any moment. So while he's talking, while he's doing everything the judge told him not to do, what's the reaction from the bench? Is he trying to stop him and say, we agreed you'd talk about the facts or just go? He just he let him go for a little bit.

And, you know, it's a different Angoron than we've seen during earlier portions of the trial. It's sort of an Angoron tamed. And one of the things I'm wondering is to what effect were all of the cumulative threats against Judge N. Goran and his law clerk? We know that the threats against the law clerk alone filled 275 single spaced pages. We know that because a court security officer filed an affidavit essentially explaining that in defense of the gag order. Judge N. Goran yesterday, as you noted, had a bomb threat against him in his home in Nassau County. And then I wonder to what extent that really impacts his decision making in allowing Trump to continue speaking until he just said to Chris Kice,

Mr. Kice, please control your client. When Trump continued at that point, he cut him off. But he let him go for a while and the attorney general's office didn't object either. So the judge has suggested he'd make a decision by the end of the month, January 31st. This Trump rant yesterday, what sort of role, if any, do you think it could play in weighing in what the judge does decide? And is it possible, I heard other lawyers suggest, that in a way this was by letting Trump speak, this defangs a possible appeal opportunity for Trump? Well, I mean, look, there are a number of instances along the way that could have led to further arguments on appeal, right, by former President Trump that he wasn't given an opportunity to present evidence.

There are arguments about his experts. This is another argument he could have made, John. But I want to point out to you and our viewers how unusual it is for a party who has a competent team of lawyers to then get up in their own defense during a closing argument, particularly when they skip an opportunity to testify. Closing arguments are not supposed to be testimony. So to the extent that former President Trump yesterday said things that are against his interest, it will be interesting to see if they come up in the decision. One of the things he said was that he's paid over $300 million in taxes over the period of time at issue in the case. He also said that the only problem in his financial statements

had to do with the overvaluation of the triplex. That was the sole error. That's one thing that I think could come up in the decision because it shows just how obstreperous he's been in denying the facts of the case and how he continues to insist that he's blameless. That's a factor that the attorney general's office said the judge could properly consider when he's awarding the remedies here. So there are the theatrics of this case. We saw more of that yesterday. Then there's the substance. You've been in that courtroom. You've been paying very close attention. What's your sense of how the judge may rule here? Could Donald Trump be prevented from practicing real estate in the state of New York? Could he lose all that money?

I think the loss of the money is something different. I don't think they'll actually confiscate the properties. Do I think that he'll award some disgorgement remedy in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars. I do. I think for Donald Trump, though, as you noted, the worst outcome here is a bar lifetime bar on participation in the New York real estate industry. The other thing we saw yesterday is a really vociferous defense of Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. Mark yesterday in your calendars as the day the two adult sons stopped being children because both sides insisted that the boys not be infantilized. Essentially, they've been leading the company

for seven years as co-CEOs. And their lawyer essentially said, if you barred them from being officers or directors for a series of even just five years, there are thousands of Trump organization employees who are depending on Eric and Don Jr. to capably lead this organization. You're not seeing a defense of them that is sort of saying, oh, these guys don't really have anything to do with the organization. Yes, they're saying we don't know anything about the accounting. But they're also saying in the same breath, these are the two leaders of this organization on into the future. And the attorney general sort of twisted that and said, look, they are themselves telling you these guys are at the helm of the organization. They're not boys anymore. They're

not the children. These are grown men in their 40s. They should be treated as grown men who are responsible for their actions and decisions. It's always been one of the strangest parts of the story. These two guys are deep into middle age at this point. And Donald Trump's like, stay away from my children. Stay away from my children. Let me ask you about another trial in New York. Donald Trump said yesterday he might show up at the latest E. Jean Carroll defamation trial. What does that look like? And do you think we'll see him there? I'm not sure if we'll see him there. He certainly didn't show up to the first one. I was at that trial day in and day out. I'll be there again on Tuesday. And certainly if he shows up, I'll be in touch with you and our viewers. I think federal court presents a different set of barriers for Donald Trump.

Cameras are not allowed not only in the courtroom, but in the courthouse itself. He cannot walk out of the courtroom to a phalanx of cameras as he did day in and day out when he showed up at this civil fraud trial, his ability to conduct the sort of political communication campaign that he's done in this trial won't be replicated there. So I'll be interested to see if he comes to try and stare down the judge, stare down Eugene Carroll, who is expected to be the first witness in this trial. But Willie, if I were a betting person, I wouldn't put the odds of him showing up over 50 percent right now. All right. We'll be watching and we know you'll be there as always.

Former litigator and MSNBC legal analyst explaining it so well for us. Lisa, thanks so much. Good to see you, Joe. You know, I just look at the timing of all this. He's got E. Jean Carroll trial coming. He's got this judgment coming before the end of the month. He's got New Hampshire on the 23rd. We don't know exactly how Iowa's going to go. That should go well for him, but there's a new poll.

It shows Nikki Haley jumping over Ron DeSantis. And again, things strangely tighten up at the end as you go to... He could be facing, Sam, a pretty tough month post-New Hampshire. A lot of New Hampshire experts, political experts, if they're right about what they think is going to happen on the ground, that Nikki Haley is going to continue her momentum, possibly beat Donald Trump. We've seen Donald Trump meltdown after he lost to Ted Cruz, after he lost, of course, to Joe Biden. That's a month of melting down. You have a decision by this judge that could bankrupt him. We don't know how much money he has that could put

him out of business in New York. And you're going to have a month of spiral spiraling before the South Carolina primary. I'm telling you, for people that say it's over, I understand. And it's but I think there's an outside shot. Maybe it's 10, maybe it's 15 percent that things continue breaking against Donald Trump because March doesn't get any easier for him with Judge Chutkan. It's a very good chance of him being convicted by the end of the month. A lot coming at him. Right. I agree with you that people tend to think this is a foregone conclusion,

and that's not really the case. I will say, let's say Calamity Firm happens in New Hampshire, right? Nikki Haley does consolidate everything, somehow ekes out a win. Trump now is looking at, you know, all these civil trials and then also an uncertain political future. The benefit that he has politically, I can't speak legal stuff, but the benefit he has politically is this. Unlike in the past cycles, he actually has a semi-sophisticated campaign operation this go around. They've been working delegates. They've been working state parties. South Carolina, yeah, Nikki Haley has some roots there, but he still is pretty well positioned in the state. Nevada, he's going to just romp. I mean, that state party is controlled by him at this juncture.

And she's not even on the ballot there. Which isn't to say that things aren't going to get weird and tight and tricky for him. Because I think the combination of the legal stuff, the political stuff, the piercing of this idea that he's just this behemoth, which could potentially happen in Iowa and certainly could happen in New Hampshire. You know, those are tricky things to navigate. I do think that he, you know, the stuff where he's going to these trials, he's showing up there because it obviously works for him in the course of a primary campaign. We're talking about him. He gets to go in front of microphones. But that's not, you know, that's not going to be the same as we start moving away from these primary elections. When he has to start speaking to a different audience, again, it gets trickier.

And you're underscoring that here. And he's, you know, he's avoided all of his debates so far. Completely. He goes and he gives speeches, says really crazy, nutty things. He still thinks he's running against Barack Obama. He's still worried about the onset of World War II. Says bizarre things time and time again. About negotiating the Civil War.

Yeah. That was that one. Yeah, I mean. He could have negotiated an end to the war. Yeah. Does he have to? He said he could have beat Lincoln by 30 percent. Yeah.

Or we may not have heard of Lincoln if there had been negotiations about the Civil War. If it's a true two-person race between him and Nikki Haley, does he have to debate? Or can he continue to just? Ialey, does he have to debate or can he continue to just. I don't think he has to debate. But if it's one on one, it gets so much harder. And and I think at some point some Republicans are going to if if they can make Nikki Haley could make the argument. This guy wants to go and lose another election for us Republicans. He won't even debate. He's getting old. He's saying really strange things when he's in front of audiences. That's

a little more direct than she's been, though. Right. Criticism. But also, do you really want a candidate who's been convicted of a right? Yeah. And the polls keep showing that if he is convicted, right, that he will lose. Biden will win. Now, I don't I keep saying that if he is convicted, that he will lose, that Biden will win. Now, I keep saying that if he's convicted by a D.C. jury, he's going to say it was a fake jury, it was a Democratic jury, but it's consistently showing that. There was a focus group we had, the Times opinion page had recently, where half of the Republicans who were talking said that, look, a conviction is what changes things for me.

We don't want a criminal in the Oval Office. Right. We shall see. Just half. And he keeps saying things that work to his detriment. I mean, the Biden campaign, actually, Biden campaign sort of smirks at the Democrats that are whining. They really know. And I think they're right that, yes, they have to talk about what Joe Biden's done for America. But also they have to do. Donald Trump saying I'm the one who terminated Roe v. Wade the other night in just a powder puff debate interview on Fox News. Even there, he blew it. And he once again said nobody could terminate Roe v. Wade. They tried for 50 years. I was the one who terminated Roe v. Wade. The Biden campaign immediately was like cut, paste.

It's up online and it's going to it's going to hurt him. And that is going to be running with everything else that runs between now and November. And it's going to have an impact. And then even here, Donald Trump asked yesterday about the immunity argument made by his attorneys earlier in the week in the federal court regarding the January 6th election interference case about how Donald Trump could order SEAL Team Six to execute a political rival like Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis. This is what he said. Do you agree with your lawyers what they said on Tuesday, that you should not be prosecuted or could not be prosecuted if you ordered SEAL Team 6 to kill a political company? If a president of the United States does not have immunity,

he'll be totally ineffective because he won't be able to do anything because it will mean he'll be prosecuted, strongly prosecuted perhaps, as soon as he leaves office by the opposing party. So a president of the United States, I'm not talking just me, I'm talking any president has to have immunity. So, David Ignatius, he's not saying that only Donald Trump should be able to use Hill Team 6 to order the execution of Nikki Haley. He's saying that every president should

have the power to use Hill Team 6 to order the execution of their political opponent and have immunity from it. Again, think about the, you know, it's easy for us to sort of smirk at this. But again, this is a guy in the past week who's made that argument, who's argued that Lincoln should have negotiated with the South to keep slavery. And just 10 other just completely. That's why he also also made the argument that the economy he was hoping the economy would crash. He was hoping that senior citizens would lose their 401ks. He was hoping that jobs, joblessness would skyrocket and that we'd be in a Great Depression again because it would help him get elected president of the United States. That was all said this past week.

So he's a man for whom the world really is a prop. It all is about him. And he can't resist these moments in which he gets himself into trouble. That's why I think heading forward in the campaign through the spring and summer, he is so accident prone. Every week there'll be a confrontation. He's going to be in litigation pretty much constantly now through the progress of the campaign. And we've seen he can't resist saying things that make his problems deeper for independent voters. I'll just say that, you know, Democrats already get stand in. But there are a lot of people in this country who I think as the more they watch, the more they just kind of scratch their heads and say, this this guy should not be our president. And that's why that's why that's why Team Biden is is not so. They're just not as concerned as everybody on the outside. They have a phrase

for how Trump views the world. When he sees a problem, he makes it bigger. Yeah. He makes it bigger in ways that have not rebounded against him, mostly in his role to the Republican nomination, which I still think is mostly likely. But it complicates his life once that's over and he's in a general election. And that's what the Biden people are waiting for, because, as you say, Democrats are not going to vote for Trump. But there's a big swath of America in the middle that aren't that happy with Joe Biden, but haven't spent a lot of time looking at Donald Trump in years. And within this election, they will be. He's been he's been sort of off the airwaves for most of the last year. I mean, now he's coming back and people are remembering what it was like. I think there was a lot of people forgot, you know, those four years. And here he is back in our faces again.

I think that I think that's a big factor. It may not matter to a lot of Republican primary voters in Iowa and some other states. It matters in the suburbs of Atlanta, suburbs of Charlotte, the suburbs of Philly, the suburbs of Detroit, the suburbs of Milwaukee, the suburbs of Maricopa County in Arizona, the very places where this election, Willie, are going to be decided. That's right. And it shows up in polls. That poll last week from The Washington Post that showed just how many Americans had bought Donald Trump's version of what happened on January 6th. Yes, show that people who support him believe that story.

But when you looked out at the country, the majority of Americans don't believe it. They think January 6th was a terrible day. They think he had something to do with it. So it is a primary strategy, not a general election one. And let's underline the fact also that in the poll we showed yesterday showing Joe Biden ahead in Pennsylvania, you know, those polls are going to come and go. But again, the clear trend line that voters over 65, who I always assumed were going to be Trump voters, voters over 65 have been moving more and more steadily Joe Biden's way. It's pretty shocking, actually, if if you look at one report out of the villages in Florida, but that it's, it keeps moving and it keeps moving in Joe Biden's direction. A lot of that

has to do with the fact that these are people that don't get their news from Tik TOK. These are people that don't get their news from Instagram feeds. These are people that are actually worried about the rule of law, have some experience about the importance of the rule of law. Remember the chaos of the late sixties and the early 70s and are actually repelled by that. The same thing that moved Democrats to the Republican Party, the late 60s and early 70s. That's what seems to be moving these 65 plus voters from being Republicans toward supporting Joe Biden this time. It's it's a real problem for him.

People can say, hey, we own the libs, we own the libs. Maybe so, but you're losing, actually, part of the voting bloc that votes the most on Election Day. Yeah, it's a very narrow strategy. It deepens your support among them. That's a pretty striking number. Yes, it's early, all the caveats, but that's a 23-point lead.

Voters 65 and older in Pennsylvania anyway. So put all this together, Jonathan Lemire, how the Biden campaign as we turn the page to this new year with Iowa a few days away, things really get going in earnest. How they're feeling right now. They hear all the noise. They see the polls that send people into a panic every morning when they when they come out. But it seems to be the message from them is this is a long road when it's the two of us standing. They believe it'll be Donald Trump, Joe Biden and Donald Trump next to each other. People go into a booth. They're going to say in their view, we're not going back to that. I may not think Joe Biden is perfect. I may even think he's too old, but I'm not going back to that. Yeah, that is the number one argument. They think that the

president himself is very fond of saying, you know, don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative. When the alternative is Donald Trump, they like their chances. When they think it's a binary choice. And there's polling that suggests a lot of Americans don't even actually believe that the final two will be Biden versus Trump. But when we get there, and it may not be till the spring or summer, when Americans start paying attention, because right now, most Americans aren't. They're simply not paying attention. And when they do, the Biden camp believes even if they're lukewarm on the president or have their reservations about his age or whatever it might be, they're not going to want to go back to the chaos of Donald Trump. And to pick up on Elizabeth's point, because that's something the Biden campaign says a lot,

people simply haven't heard Donald Trump in a while. He's become background noise. And his reach is so much smaller than it used to be. We can't overlook the fact that the downgrade from the audience they had on Twitter to now Truth Social, no one hears that. Those tweets don't break through. So Trump's no more disciplined than he's ever been before. His campaign's more disciplined. He's not. But the crazy doesn't break through because it's confined, confined to the conservative news media space. And when it starts breaking through to the wider public and Americans start listening, the Biden campaign believes his numbers will go down

and that's their advantage. Coming up, we will get a live report from Israel on two major stories out of the Middle East this morning. The United States and allied strikes, as we mentioned, on Houthi rebels, as well as Israel defending its war against Hamas in an international court. Plus, an update from Iowa, now just three days away from those caucuses, where it appears the race for second place is getting a little bit closer. We'll discuss the significance of that ahead on Morning Joe. The United States and its allies launched military strikes against the Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen. Officials say they struck more than 60 targets at 16 locations last night using more than 100 precision guided munitions. Iran now is condemning those strikes. Join us now from

Eilat, Israel. On the Red Sea is NBC News foreign correspondent Josh Letterman. Josh, what more can you tell us this morning? Well, Willie, this region is really on edge right now, bracing for potential retaliation from the Houthis, which some type of retaliation does seem inevitable. The Houthis are already promising that they are not going to let the attacks from the U.S. and U.K. last night go unresponded to. is right here in a lot on the Gulf of Aqaba on Israel's southern border, which has already been the repeated target of multiple Houthi ballistic missiles, as well as drones. There has been damage here over the last several months, although no deaths so far. But the big question coming out of the strikes last night is really whether the Houthis are going to be deterred or instead emboldened. Because unlike Hezbollah, for example, in Lebanon, backed by Iran, which has made clear they don't really want to get dragged into a

full-scale war, the Houthis, both publicly and if you look at their actions, have really been itching for this fight. They have seen themselves at the forefront of really a regional battle against the influence of the United States, against the influence of Israel. And in a lot of ways, this has really elevated their profile. The largest and most powerful military in the world, the United States, now taking them very seriously, a coalition of Western nations now racing to try to stop them. And so in many ways, the events of the last several weeks, including these strikes last night, have really put the Houthis on the map in a way that they have never been before, even at the height of Yemen's civil war that started nearly a decade ago, Willie. Josh, stay where you are. We want to get your take and some analysis on what's happening right now with the war in Gaza. But first, let's bring in former CIA officer Mark Polymeropoulos.

He's an MSNBC national security and intelligence analyst and former chief of staff at the CIA Department of Defense, Jeremy Bash. Guys, good morning to you both. So, Jeremy, let me ask you for your view on this. I think the United States, the UK, the allies saw as the last straw another attack this week, a few days ago on Tuesday on shipping through the Red Sea. The United States and British forces intercepted some some missiles and some drones that were headed to those ships and decided it was time for this retaliation. What do you see happening from here? Yeah, I think the Biden administration really made the right call because they figured if the Houthis are armed with anti

ship ballistic missiles and if one of those missiles hits a U.S. naval vessel and sailors are killed, they go down to the bottom of the Red Sea, then we are at, in fact, a full-blown war with Iran. It's not a war of our choosing. Although I would say that in my view, we are in a proxy war with Iran on three fronts. Obviously, Hamas unleashed the attack on Israel in October, killed 50 Americans, took 14 American hostages and continue to hold six Americans hostage. There were there have been 150 attacks against American service members bases in Iraq and Syria.

And now these 27 attacks against shipping in the Red Sea in defiance of American warning. So I think we are in a proxy war against Iran. I think this is going to continue. So, Mark, how important were these attacks last night? I think it's absolutely critical. You know, we had to kind of regain this aura of deterrence, which, frankly, we were losing. You know, our enemies have to both respect and they have to fear us. So I think it's absolutely critically important, not only for kind of international shipping, but also in, as Jeremy just said, this proxy war that we're in with Iran.

And look, kudos to the intelligence community for the strikes yesterday in the sense of, certainly there was an all-source intelligence soak. We've been flying ISR, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions in Yemen for a decade. We have very good fidelity on what happens in the country. We had a punishing air campaign against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula for a very long time. So, you know, in my view, the IC really stepped up, provided the targets. And now the big question is, you know, the Houthi response. David, do your sources and the U.S. government and our allies agree we needed to do this? Yes. They've been really

waiting, tugging at the leash for the last week or so as the Houthi attacks continued. As I said earlier in the show, freedom of navigation is a red line for the United States. That is something we're committed to defending around the world. We take it very seriously, and it was being challenged. Shipping rates are going up. All the big ship carriers are moving away from the Red Sea. So action was required. I think Mark is right that we put all the pieces of retaliation together strongly. The question is how we now see this through. The Houthis will retaliate.

They said that this morning in their response. Are we going to go tit for tat? And then are you then in a space that's much harder to control? I mean, it's they took a big strike. This was this was going big. If the Houthis come back hard, then we suddenly are in a different space that really will escalate. You know, Jeremy, I'm curious how much of a cat and mouse game Iran really wants to play with the United States of America and its military might. I remember last year, Soleimani, after we killed him, or a couple of years ago, after he was killed by a U.S. attack, the Iranians responded.

But then they very quickly sent a message to an intermediary in the Middle East saying, let the United States know we had to respond. That's it. We're not going to do it again here. I don't know. I'm not so sure. But I think Iran even understands they've gotten out over their skis. I don't know. Do they really want to prompt us to start blowing up their energy infrastructure? Do they really want us to start going after their nuclear infrastructure? Because they're not. They can't stop us. They can't stop us. And they know they can't stop us. So how far do they push this cat and mouse game? Well, I think they're playing a dangerous game because I think they're tiptoeing up to the line. They want to keep us off balance,

but they do seem deterred. For example, they have not fully unleashed Hezbollah in Lebanon, in southern Lebanon, against Israel's north. Because, in fact, the U.S. moved two warships into the region and made a clear signal to the Iranians, don't. Don't step over that line. Yet in other places, like, for example, with the Shiite terrorist militias and surrogates and proxies in Iraq and Syria, they've unleashed them. And it's not a coincidence that there were 150 attacks against American service members, not a coincidence that there were 27 Houthi attacks against shipping, not a coincidence that October 7th happened. There's a broader regional context. They didn't want to see Israel-Saudi normalization. And they don't want to see that. And to them, they are absolutely committed to stopping that. David, final thoughts on that. So I just would caution that U.S. and Israeli intelligence keep saying that the leash that Iran has on these proxy groups is not as tight as you might think.

They supply them weapons. They supply them intelligence. But in terms of day to day command and control, it's not clear that they're that they're running the operations of Hamas before October 7th. And that's the message that we keep hearing. Iran surprised by the extent of the attacks on October 7th. And people roll their eyes, you know, Iran surprised by some of these other attacks. You're right. They find them, they give them the weapons. But it's not like they're getting on a phone in Tehran saying launch the missiles now. Right. Yes. I think that's certainly true of the Houthis. The firing of these missiles, it was they wouldn't have the missiles without Iran. But that doesn't mean Iran wanted them to push the trigger at this time and take this to the point of massive U.S. retaliation. Jeremy, thanks for being here. I understand you have another appointment. We're going to let you run off set. And also this morning, Israel's defending itself before the United Nations International Court of Justice at The Hague in a genocide case brought by South Africa.

Both Israel and the U.S. have dismissed the charges being without merit. South Africa's argument, though, does specifically cite proposals from far right Israeli cabinet ministers calling for mass migration out of Palestinians out of Gaza. And, Josh, you have new reporting on that. Tell us about it. Well, Joe, unsurprisingly, Israel says that this case is baseless. They're getting some support from the U.S. in that. But the South Africans have really based this case on the notion that this isn't just about indiscriminate bombing by Israel, but actually a deliberate attempt, they say, by Israel to try to wipe out Palestinian identity. And they are basing that on direct comments made by Israeli

ministers, one of whom suggested that a nuclear bomb should be dropped on Gaza. Another minister said that Israel has to figure out what is worse than death and inflict that on the Gazans. And they are also basing this case on Israeli ministers who have made some controversial comments about what should happen to Gaza after the war. On the eve of a landmark case against Israel in international court, Prime Minister Netanyahu breaking with top allies within his own government. I want to make a few points absolutely clear. Israel has no intention of permanently occupying Gaza or displacing its civilian population. The Palestinians aren't persuaded, and neither are a growing number of far-right Israeli cabinet ministers now calling

publicly for Palestinians to leave permanently, some urging Egypt and other countries to take Palestinians in. Their argument? Fewer Palestinians in Gaza means more security for Israelis. It's a scenario that stirs up painful memories of the defining event in Palestinian identity, the Nakba, or catastrophe. Some 700,000 Palestinians driven from their homes during Israel's founding in 1948. And now, fears that it's happening again. Already, nearly two million Palestinians have been displaced within Gaza, the U.N. says, as Israel works to free hostages and

destroy Hamas after the October 7th terror attacks. Because we realize that when you have more than two million people in a tiny area, it's not sustainable. Top lawmakers from Netanyahu's own party are calling it resettlement or voluntary migration, arguing Gazans will have a better future somewhere else. To give the option to people to move out, I don't see why there is a problem with that. Some influential politicians, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, even saying Israel should build new Jewish settlements in Gaza, where Israel withdrew in 2005. To many Israelis,

it's not a fringe idea. A Hebrew University poll last month found one in three Israeli adults support annexing and resettling Gaza. Under the Geneva Conventions, forced displacement is illegal, and the Biden administration has rebuked Israeli ministers calling for Gazans to leave. Palestinian civilians must be able to return home as soon as conditions allow. They cannot. They must not be pressed to leave Gaza. But Palestinian rights advocates like Wessam Ahmed say they fear Israel plans to leave Gazans with no other choice. Do you fear that the destruction of so many homes in Gaza

is part of a strategy to leave Gazans with nothing to go back to? Absolutely. In fact, it's been referred to as domicile, the destruction of civilian infrastructure that makes life uninhabitable. The United Nations says based on before and after satellite imagery, roughly 60 percent of homes in Gaza have already been damaged or destroyed. If this war were to end tomorrow, could Gazans go back home? No, there's a lot of work that needs to be done before people can go home. All of the rubble would need to be cleared with so much destruction. And that includes, sadly, the estimate at the moment, which I think is quite small, is that there's 7,000 people buried under the rubble.

In the Gaza Strip, Palestinians insisting they will never be pushed out of their land. People will stay here and they will rebuild Gaza. Noor is 22, an English teacher in Gaza. The war has already forced her to relocate within Gaza three times. We won't be refugees again and the Israeli army will not force us to evacuate from Gaza. And we will not leave it at any cost. Today, the second day of the case in The Hague is Israel's first chance to defend itself before that court. And unlike past cases at this court where Israel has simply boycotted the proceedings or basically ignored it, Israel is taking this very seriously. They are sending some of their top lawyers to The Hague to defend Israel. They clearly do not want to see any order from this

court for Israel to halt its ongoing war in the Gaza Strip. They say that would leave Israel defenseless. Joe. All right. NBC's Josh Letterman. Thank you so much for that. extremists in the cabinet, whose words are going to be used against Israel, these extremists in the cabinet are people who are loathed by the leaders of IDF, the IDF, people who are loathed by leaders of the Mossad, people who are loathed by people inside the Biden administration, people who are loathed by people inside the Biden administration, people who are loathed by those who really want the security of Israel first and foremost to be the most important thing. It is, we are starting to see, I think, an unraveling of this post-war myth that the United States is going to just stand blindly by and wait for the Israeli people to

move Benjamin Netanyahu, a guy who has a 15 percent approval rating there, out. I mean, it seems you have, again, internally in the country, you have the IDF, you've got Mossad back here. You've got the Biden administration saying enough of Netanyahu, enough of these extremists, enough of what they're doing in the West Bank. They're making all of our jobs more difficult by Netanyahu's continued radical, reckless policies of sending crazy settlers, extremist settlers into the West Bank. And by the way, that's not me. That's not me. A guy in Washington, D.C., in the studio. that's the IDF. That's Mossad. They are the ones really angry at Netanyahu making their jobs harder. So, Joe, that was my biggest takeaway from a trip to Israel in December, was that the security establishment is absolutely fed up with the settlers

deliberately provoking violence with the Palestinian villages in the West Bank. Israel needs to keep the Palestinian population from exploding the way Hamas had dreamed. They thought they'd start an uprising in Israel itself and in the West Bank. It hasn't happened. And the settlers keep throwing gasoline on the fire. It infuriates the military leadership. And I think what we're heading toward, maybe, is a break between people who say the state of Israel's interests are crucial and settlers who say the state of our project in Judea and Samaria, as they call the West Bank, is crucial. And there's going to be a real showdown between the two of them. And that's something that the United States can play an important role in and has begun to do.

We now have a ban on visas for violent settlers coming into the United States as a way of saying, we have an interest in this and we're going to help the IDF and others maintain order. What can the United States do, though, to encourage the forces that we think are helpful in Israel and act against those that we think are not serving the long-term interest of Israel or ourselves or the region? Well, one thing is what I just mentioned. So if we have evidence, and Israeli human rights groups, I must say, do an incredible job of tracking incidents involving violent settlers. If we have evidence, videos, other documentary evidence, there will now be a process at the State Department where people who can be identified will not be allowed to travel to the United States, nor will their

families. And there are things that you could do beyond that. What about U.S. aid? Could you do something with U.S. aid? Or is that too sensitive a topic? I don't think that can be too sensitive a topic. I just don't think it can anymore. We have got to separate aid for Israel, which we will always provide, and support, which we will always provide,

and aid for Benjamin Netanyahu to continue his campaign, whatever it is, to stay out of jail. I mean, that's what I think is coming. I think we're coming to that split in the road at this point. I think the Biden administration has just had enough. They're doing everything they can. They're spending U.S. money. We're supporting them any way we can. And chaos is still breaking out in the West Bank. Why? Not for security reasons, but because it helps Benjamin Netanyahu politically. He's still, you know, his approval

ratings down in the low 30s. Only 15 percent of them want to stay on after the war. Joe Biden's approval ratings in the 80s. So I think they've got billboards of Biden all over Israel. This is a great opportunity for Joe Biden to say, we support Israel's right to exist. We will always support Israel's right to exist. You know, Joe Biden has said in the past, I'm a Zionist. You know, he can go and he has the authority to say the things that other U.S. presidents haven't had the authority to say. And one of them is your future is not with Benjamin Netanyahu. And America's future is not with Benjamin Netanyahu. This has to stop.

And again, going back to what David wrote on the second or third day of the war, we have to look over the horizon. What does the day look like the day after the war ends? And I know right now, and I completely understand, Mark, that Israelis don't want to talk about a two-state solution. I completely understand that. Don't talk to us about making peace, you know, two months after 9-11, right? At the same time, we still have to conduct ourselves, comport ourselves that way. That's what's going to happen. And so we need, if we're going to keep funding Israel billions and billions and billions

of dollars every year, we need a partner over there, a partner who's not going to make their job harder, a partner who's not going to fund Hamas, not going to tell the cutter, fund Hamas, not going to find out that Hamas has billions of dollars that they're hiding across the world and say, oh, no, we'll let them continue to hide that money. Not going to ignore warning after warning after warning after warning. I mean, Netanyahu has made Israel less safe. We need a partner who will make Israel more secure.