Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/19/24

Episode Date: January 19, 2024

Trump mixes up Biden with Obama, again

The president of the United States, and I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about any president, has to have immunity. Because if you take immunity away from the president, so important, you will have a president that's not going to be able to do anything. Because when he leaves office, the opposing party president, if it's the opposing party, will indict the president for doing something that should have been good. Like Obama dropped missiles and they ended up hitting a kindergarten or a school or an apartment house. A lot of people were killed.

Well, if that's the case, he's going to end up being indicted when he leaves office. He meant well the missile went in the wrong direction and other things. And other things. There's so much, Willie, wrong. Wait, wrong. What president? He's still first of all, we have to get that. We'll get to the Hitler stuff in a second. But let's start, though, with I'll make a chart. The fact that Donald Trump is not well, we know this, but this this guy, he's looking so old, he's shuffling around. And he really does think that Barack Obama is still president of the United States. He's going through this thing and then about why he should have total immunity, total immunity, even when he crosses the line.

Right. This is the SEAL Team 6 can assassinate. Yeah. And by the way, Jenna Goldberg, I think it was this morning, Jenna Goldberg tweeted out this morning. What do Trump supporters say who believe that SEAL Team 6 can assassinate political rivals? What do they say if someone says, well, then Joe Biden could order a SEAL Team 6 this morning to assassinate Donald Trump and he would be immune by Donald Trump's arguments? It is pure, sheer authoritarianism and tyranny. So we have that part of it. It's it is Trump at his most dangerous, but also Trump at his most detached from reality. He's really losing it. You you we've been getting glimpses now of him shuffling around and and and looking lost and getting up on stage, talking about World War II, talking about President Obama.

And here he did it again and said, listen, President Obama may have bombed kindergartens, but he was trying to do good things. And when he leaves office, when he leaves office, he could face a conviction. It's crazy. Well, Donald Trump was on stage two nights ago bragging about how he passed that rudimentary dementia test again. He was very proud of that again. He really leaning into that obsessed with Barack Obama, as always, is the first name that's top of mind. Sometimes it seems like he thinks he's running against Barack Obama. Sometimes he just says that out loud. And to your deeper point about this immunity question, he's saying, well, any president then

could prosecute the previous president. First of all, it's the Justice Department. It's not the president, as we've said a million times, who's going after Donald Trump here. And second of all, yeah, if that president breaks laws, if that president attempts a coup against the United States government or takes nuclear secrets back to his beach club or medals in the Georgia election or is found liable for sexual assault, yeah, that guy might be prosecuted. We like to think that our presidents wouldn't do any of those things. This is a unique case that Donald Trump is trying to make a rule to keep himself out of jail that he says would apply to all other presidents. Yeah, let's bring in Eugene Robinson. Gene, this is this is again, Donald Trump once again detached from reality, again, thinking that, you know, World War Two is upon us and he's running against Barack Hussein Obama. That's one part of it. And we've seen images of him over the past couple

weeks. He's not he's just not doing well. It doesn't seem physically. Then there's a second part of it. And that is. Donald Trump, this was Donald Trump's closing statement, like poor Sean Hannity, poor Sean Hannity. He's like a dad that gets a baseball and he puts it on a tee and he goes, come on, Johnny, hit the tee. And Johnny keeps hitting his hand. Like Sean Hannity has placed more balls on tees only to hear Barack Obama's name come up time and time again. And he, Fox, other Fox News hosts have to correct. I'm going, no, you're running against Joe Biden. So let's put that on one side. And on the other side, you've got a former president who Republicans look like they're going to nominate, who is saying, I really could get still team six to assassinate my political opponents and I have to have immunity.

That was what your closing statement for the voters. And it's I need total immunity from everything. Yes. Even when I cross the line. Yeah, absolutely. You know, it's funny because I had that same thought about poor Sean Hannity. And I don't often feel sorry for Sean Hannity, but I did because he had just absolutely teed up the ball. And and Donald Trump, you know, hits the lamp on the table or whatever. It was ridiculous. It's just, I mean, just, it's like, what more could he do? You know, the thing about Donald Trump, of course, is that he is pure id in the Freudian sense. He just blurts out whatever he's obsessing about. So, you know now what's on his mind. And what's on his mind is trying to stay out of jail. You can just tell from these recent appearances how worried he is that he's going to go to jail,

he's going to have to pay massive, massive fines in all these various cases. Who knows how much he'll have to pay to E. Jean Carroll. He's going to have consequences for his actions, not just over his presidency, over his long life in which he crossed the line all the time. He's all about crossing the line. And he is so worried that he's going to have to go to jail, that this is what he's thinking about more than he's thinking about the line. And he is so worried that he's got he's going to have to go to jail that this is what he's thinking about more than he's thinking about the campaign or anything about anything else. He wants to stay out of jail. Jonathan Lemire. I mean, we've said it since 2019. Let me say that again. We've been saying this for four years. If Donald Trump loses in 2020,

he'll run again. Why? Only because he wants to stay out of jail. That's the entire purpose of this campaign. We've been saying that for four years. When people are saying, will Donald Trump run, Joe, do you really think Trump's going to? I go, yes, he is. But he's not going to know. He loves money. If he could cash in and make the money, he would. But right now he's only focused on staying out of jail. So, of course, he's going to run again here because Trump has lost so many steps. You know, we always talk about how long we've known him, Reverend, now how long we've known him. Not even a long time. That guy that I'm watching now, like that guy hasn't lost one step. That guy's lost five, six, seven steps.

And he still thinks he's running against Barack Obama. And so, I mean, he's shuffling around. I just I really I seriously I think it's going to be harder and harder for the campaign to manage this guy who it just my opinion looks like he's in a serious state of decline and seriously is so confused. He's still thinking about the guy that he started the birther conspiracy theory about back in 2011. Still on his mind, can't let it go and doesn't seem to be in a very good state at all. Just freaked out about immunity, immunity, even when still Team Six kills his political opponents. Yeah, I mean, I was a Metro reporter with the New York Daily News and covered Trump from time to time 15, 20 years ago. And it's very clear he's not not the same guy he was then.

And that post about presidential immunity also had the great Trump tell of this era, which is when he goes to all caps. And when he goes to all caps, and it's an all caps creed, particularly about his legal predicaments, you know it is a window into how upset and anxious he is. And that was a night where he had been posting overnight repeatedly about E. Jean Carroll and other, quote, witch hunts. And then yesterday morning went so far as to say this, to have the needing that full immunity for even events that cross the line. This is something that feels like not only a, of course,

a scary projection of what could come in a second Trump term, where he would say, I could do whatever I want. I can't be prosecuted. He'd have the Department of Justice. Jonathan, guess why? Jonathan, guess what? Yeah. First of all, this will happen. Believe him. This will happen if he gets elected again. But Jonathan, that's also, you know, Heilman says everything he says is either projection or confession. There is confession when he says, I crossed the line. You've got to give me immunity. I know I've crossed the line. I know that if America's rule of law plays out the way it's supposed to be, I'm going to spend the rest of my life in jail.

That's what the meltdown is all about. Yeah, I didn't invoke Heilman's name for fear that he would suddenly just show up here, which we don't want. But certainly confession. This is projection and confession. This is this is projection of what a second term Trump term would be like. But it's a confession to what already happened in the first term that he says he needs this immunity because he knows he broke the law, that he crossed the line in any number of cases. We're not sure which one he was freaked about right now. And Willie, we can't say this enough. You know, he his spin last night on Fox was like, hey, I'm not just asking for total immunity for me. I'm doing it for all presidents. Well, the previous 44 presidents, they didn't need it. None of them had ever faced any

criminal charges before. This applies solely to Donald Trump. Yeah, you don't need immunity if you don't attempt to lead a coup against the United States government or take classified documents back to your beach club. Let's bring to the conversation NBC News legal analyst Andrew Weissman. So, Andrew, let's talk about this question of immunity in the courts. It was just last week that that three judge panel on the federal appeals court sounded very skeptical of the president's claim and his attorney's claim that he deserved full immunity in this federal case about the 2020 election. Where does that stand? And based on what we heard in court that day, what do you suspect the judges there, how they'll rule? Well, I think there's no question that they're going to rule against Donald Trump. And I don't

think that his recent tweet, to the extent that it comes to their attention, is going to help. In terms of Donald Trump's strategy of saying something that outlandish, it really does not help in terms of the court looking and realizing what they're being asked to do is it's going to be acted on by this man. So strategically, it is a terrible idea. I think there's no no way in God's green earth that this panel is going to find that he is immune from criminal prosecution, that it's never been the law and it's not going to be the law. When they will rule, no one knows. I mean, there's a lot of people who always think, you know, it's going to come down on a Friday. So, you know, we could be getting at any moment. And then one quick thought

about this discussion, because I don't think that the courts are going to grant immunity, but just remember, if Donald Trump becomes president, he will use his pardon power to, in effect, do what he is saying he would do if he can't get the courts to give him total immunity, which is that he can use the pardon power to pardon people who commit crimes, including crimes for him. As he has said, with respect to the January 6th people who he is now determining that they are hostages and not actually criminal defendants. So it's worth keeping an eye out for how other powers that he could have if he becomes president will be used in a way that gets him to the same end result. All right. E. Jean Carroll returned to the witness stand yesterday for the third day of the defamation damages trial

against former President Donald Trump. Although Trump was not in court due to his mother-in-law's funeral, his presence was certainly felt in the form of a video played for the jury. Carroll's attorney played a clip from Trump's remarks at a press conference on Wednesday, attempting to show how the former president continues to defame Carol. During cross-examination, Trump attorney Alina Haba questioned Carol about her current income from her blog

and seems to attribute Carol's increase in earnings to the, quote, fame that she has received because of her connection to Trump. I mean, fame because. That is so sick. She got raped by Trump, according to the judge. Added twist from a female attorney. Carol admitted that she is more well known after writing about the abuse, but added she is also hated by a lot more people. The former

president is expected to be back in court when the trial resumes on Monday, where he may or may not take this. What do you think about that? Well, first of all, I just think you through this trial. You really are reminded what a vile, disgusting person Donald Trump is. Right. You watch the deposition with E.G. Carroll's attorney and how vile and disgusting he is in that deposition. What he thinks about women, how he views them as sort of objects, sex toys. Well, he- Literally so unbelievably misogynistic and rude

that you wouldn't have this person at your dinner table. You would not let your kids act this way. You would not want anybody in your life to act this way. And yet it's unbelievable. So many people still support him. This is just to be specific. This is that position, first of all, where he he said that E. Jean Carroll wasn't his type. And then he attacked E. Jean Carroll's attorney, said, well, where he said that E. Jean Carroll wasn't his type. And then he attacked E. Jean Carroll's attorney, said, well, you're not my type at all either. And then he talked about how throughout history, powerful men have been able to do whatever they want, access Hollywood style with women. And he said that he goes, you know, maybe it's for the good. Right. Or maybe not. I don't know. I'm suggesting that that sexual assault, if you're powerful. Right. Maybe.

I show a lot of that deposition on morning, Mika, Andrew Weissman. Where does this trial go? If he shows up, if he testifies, what do you expect? Well, Agent Carroll has not finished putting on her case. So we expect on Monday that there will be some more testimony. What happened yesterday is that she finished testifying. She was on cross-examination and then redirect. And there was also an expert talking about reputational damage. That's one aspect of the damages that she

is seeking. Obviously, she's also seeking punitive damages. And that's where the clip that you referenced was played to show that if you're trying to figure out how to make him stop, it's relevant for the jury to have heard that he's continuing to, as E. Jean Carroll says, to defame her to this day. So there was something very surreal in court about hearing sort of, you know, you could barely catch up with the defamation in court. And then we'll see next week, early next week, after the plaintiff, the Eugene Carroll arrest, whether Donald Trump takes the stand. It's very hard to see that he will, because remember, in this case, it is only about damages.

Liability has been found as a matter of law because Donald Trump has had his day in court already and lost. The jury found that he, in fact, sexually assaulted and defamed E. Jean Carroll. So there is a victim in this case and it is E. Jean Carroll, not Donald Trump. So it will remain to be seen whether he testifies and what he could possibly testify to with respect to damages. Gene Robinson, we're just in the very early stages of a long year in a lot of different courtrooms, likely for Donald Trump. And already, as you watch there, none of them is going particularly well, by the way. As Andrew just said, it's unlikely his immunity claims will hold up before that federal appeals panel.

We're hearing about all of his grotesque behavior with E. Jean Carroll, his behavior inside the courtroom, toddler-like, pounding the table, being admonished by the judge. What's your sense of, as he tries to run for re-election and spends almost every waking moment talking about himself, talking about the past, talking about how he has to keep himself out of jail, about how this accumulates over the course of a year, how it will play in a presidential election. Look, if he's at this state at this point of the campaign, who knows how over the top crazed he will be as we get closer to the election. I mean, it gets worse and worse and worse. And the only case that is going in any way more favorably to Trump is arguably the documents case

where Judge Cannon has issued sort of favorable rulings that might delay that trial potentially until after the election, I would think. So I think Trump would like that, although the evidence of that case in the end is absolutely slam dunk. But the E. Jean Carroll case, I mean, you know, with Trump, it is money is always front of mind. And he is really worried about this case that, you know, he bothered to go in the courtroom and put on a show. And that's not all political. I think he's I think he's really worried about the money. I had a question for Andrew Weissman, which is, OK, so this this phase of the trial is about the money. Let's say that the jury decides that actual damages to E. Jean

Carroll—we heard a figure of $12 million. Let's say they say it's $15 million, $20 million, whatever the actual damages are. Don't courts have kind of a rule of thumb about the ratio of punitive damages to actual damages. I'm worried about how high the jury could go in terms of punitive damages, especially since Trump has continued to defame E. Jean Carroll, even in the trial, even as the trial is going on. If the question was asked, how much money will it take to make him stop? How high could the jury go and stay within Judge Kaplan's ratio? So there's sort of two separate components to that. The jury, with respect to compensatory and punitive damages, will really have no limit, particularly with respect to punitive damages. Compensatory

damages, the plaintiff has sought at least $10 million. Yesterday, we heard from an expert who said that just one part of compensatory damages should be between $7 and $12 million to repair her reputation. But then again, there's also emotional damages. It's just the amount that you suffer when you are defamed by the then-sitting president of the United States. There is no limit that's going to be given to the jury in deciding the punitive damages. So they can come up with any award they want. And the way to think about this is when Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss sued Rudy Giuliani last month, the jury could come up with any figure they wanted. Afterwards, if the number is viewed by the courts as just so beyond the pale, there is a way for the courts to reduce it. Here, I think it would be

very hard for Donald Trump to win that kind of argument. Obviously, we have to see what the number is, but it's because the issue is you usually do not have the person who has defamed the plaintiff continuing to do it. So you have continuing harm. And the point of punitive damages is to get the person to stop, to punish them for their behavior. And if they are continuing to be so recalcitrant, it becomes very hard for that person to say, reduce the award. Joe and Mika, we're course, focused on the wise analysis that Andrew is bringing us on all of this. But it has to be said with the viewers are thinking nobody. And I mean, nobody gives you a better morning backdrop than Andrew Weissman, the

beautiful art, the duplex staircase. It's all there. Yeah, I like it. And really, it's great. Much better than when I go on Zoom and you tell me, you know, pick your closet. There's your guitar. You can be in your guitar closet or you can be in your sock and underwear and T-shirt closet. I actually only have one closet, so it's all in one. But look at Andrew. It's just fabulous. It's just beautiful.

It's absolutely beautiful. Andrew Weisman, we thank you for all of that and more. Thanks for being with us, Andrew. I want to I want to follow up on something that Gene said. He he talked about how Donald Trump really he was in that courtroom with with with Eugene Carroll because there's money on the line. And money at the end of the day is what trump has always cared about the most that's also something that you pointed out about the new york fraud case that he was you you talk about he was in there every day for a reason because maybe he's gonna have to pay money that he doesn't have. Well, in terms of the felony charges against him, the indictments, you know, he's hoping to put those off by running for president. He runs from jail time.

But in these cases, that could impact him now and that could impact his bottom line. That could cost him. I think, though, to Andrew's point, the fact that they can come up with any number for E. Jean Carroll and he continues to mumble and grumble in the courtroom, defaming her in the courtroom, saying things that are not true in the courtroom, speaking back to the judge. I mean, the man's not helping himself. I feel sorry for his attorneys, although I don't know who would be his attorney at this point. His behavior is beyond despicable that anybody who acted this way would be thrown out of any room except for Donald Trump. But he keeps losing attorneys and he does really, despite what he and his followers say. I mean, he's such a snowflake. He lives by a different standard than everybody else.

He does. He does. Well, he hates being held to account by women. Time and again, he hates being held to account by women. But time and again, time and again, Donald Trump does things in court that would get anybody else thrown in jail for contempt. Anybody else. He still is above the law. He still lives by his

own rules. He still doesn't believe for good reason, for good reason, that he's never going to have to face the music, not because he's going to win election, but because judges are scared of him. They don't do again. They don't do what any other judge would do to any other defendant when they have those outbursts. They would they would warn them and then they would send them straight to jail for contempt. Which makes Carol even more impressive. An 80 year old woman who has decided, you know what, if I have to be like women, if I if no one's going to do it, I'll do it. Yeah. She's stepping up and she's holding him to account and it's driving him nuts. Coming up, we'll show you how Senate Republicans are reacting to the revelation that Trump is working behind the scenes to sink the border security deal.

We'll be right back. time Meaningful border policy changes. And for whatever reason people come up with, they don't want it anymore. That's going to be a pretty tough position to stand by. So they're saying a couple things, right? Well, we'll never vote for it if it's attached to Ukraine. Really? Like we get meaningful border policy from Ukraine and you're not going to vote for that. So you want Russia to win more than you want border policy changes. That's tough. You defend

that. Um, some people say, oh, well, I'll be able to, Biden wants it now because it's helpful to him politically. Okay. I want border security. That's, that's what I, that's what I told my constituents that I would do for me. So if we can get that deal, that's enough. Spoken like a true conservative, actually spoken like a true conservative. My feeling. What do I always say? I'm always up in the converts. I don't care why. I don't care why they come to the side of reason. You know what? You know what?

You know what? Gene Robinson, he's in South Carolina. He grew up in the church like me. Preachers, they don't care what got you to the baptismal area. They just are glad you're there. But here's Dan Crenshaw speaking the truth, saying, saying it's bizarre. We Republicans have been pushing for border security for years and we have a Democratic president and a Republican Senate that's going to give it to us. And now we hate Ukraine

more than we like border security. Gene, let's just underline again today for our friends that may not have been watching yesterday, that we know everybody watches four hours every day. It's important to remember we have a speaker of the House that has voted, taken the pro-Putin line in every vote on Ukraine aid. Every time he gave aid and comfort to Vladimir Putin by voting against aid for Ukraine to push back the Russian invaders. And so here's Crenshaw saying,

wait, do we really like Vladimir Putin so much that we're going to give up the best border deal we will ever get? And that's what Republicans are saying. The best border deal we will ever get. Yes, Senate Republicans have pointed out, Mitch McConnell and John Thune and others have pointed out, they will never get this deal. Even if Republicans were to take the presidency in both houses of Congress, they would still need 60 votes in the Senate to pass a deal, and they wouldn't get it. This is the best they're going to get. And yet they will not take yes for an answer because they think Donald Trump or they know Donald Trump doesn't want them to. And so they're saying no.

And let's talk about Mike Johnson for a minute. You know, Mike Johnson is the speaker of the House. Right. He is not just the representative of his district in Louisiana. He is he is the third ranking official in our government. He has a broader duty to the country. The United States has made commitments. It's made a commitment of this Ukraine aid, and that commitment has to be fulfilled. And I remember back when Nancy Pelosi first became speaker of the House under George W.

Bush, the Iraq War needed to be funded. A bill had to be passed to fund the Iraq War. She was against the Iraq War by then. Her entire Democratic caucus, which controlled the House, was against the Iraq War. But she knew it had to be done. She couldn't leave the troops hanging. She had to fulfill U.S. commitments. And so she split it up—split

up the funding bill into a couple of pieces. Well, on one piece, all her caucus could get to vote, we hate the war. On the other piece, they and Republicans—and she can count, so she got the number of votes she needed—would pass the money. And And so she did it. And she didn't do it because she wanted to do it. She liked to do it. It was her duty as Speaker of the House. I wonder what job Mike Johnson thinks he has now. But he needs to understand that he has broader responsibilities. And these include fulfilling U.S. commitments overseas. They do. And just think about that for a second. You have Nancy Pelosi. And I will say, even though he drove me crazy and I helped like run him out of the speakership. Time and again, Newt Gingrich was faced with things he didn't want to do, things that he was against.

But just like you're saying, Gene, just like Nancy Pelosi, Gingrich and other speakers that I saw up close were like, there's a responsibility. We don't like it. We can try to make a change by voting. But yes, we've got to keep America's commitment at home and across the globe. And here you have, Willie, you wonder what Dan Crenshaw and Mike McCaul and other people who actually support freedom in Europe, support freedom across the West, want to see the Russian invaders pushed back, are at least held where they are so Putin can't march into Kiev. You wonder what they're thinking when they see Senate Republicans working their tails off on a bipartisan package that would increase border security and push Putin back. But they're facing opposition from this speaker who, instead of worrying a Republican, who instead of worrying

about America's commitments across the globe and freedom in Europe and freedom across the West. He's concerned about three or four back benchers. And also he's getting calls from whom? Donald Trump, who's telling him reject it. Bingo. Donald Trump is running the operation, telling the speaker what to do. And by the way, listening to that soundbite from Congressman Crenshaw, I haven't heard anybody put it more concisely. By the way, Dan Crenshaw is an actual patriot. There are a lot of people running around calling themselves patriots, a guy who served the country

and gave his eye and earned a purple heart, a guy who cares about the country saying effectively, I don't care if somebody looks at this as a win for Joe Biden or whatever political question you want to lay over this. I want border security. We have in front of us a border security deal. Take the deal, he's saying. And he also folded in the question of Russia and their aggression and backing Ukraine. So to your point, there is a deal. There is a deal to be had in the Senate. The question is whether the House will take it. This is Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina, Republican, been involved in the negotiations on the Senate side, reacting to the revelation that Donald Trump is, in fact, working behind the scenes to torpedo the Senate deal. You know, I respectfully disagree with the president.

I mean, he could not have possibly seen what we're negotiating. And so I'll reserve judgment on that after it's been made public. But I think what James Lankford has done is good work and we should support it. When the bill is released and everyone, particularly conservatives and President Trump, sees the tools that will be available to a President Trump, should he win the election, to lose this opportunity to get it passed into law, I think is malpractice. Well, total, total, total malpractice.

This is what they've been trying to get for years. They will not get anything better, not even in the future in a potential Trump presidency. And again, this looks so bad for them. And again, they're idiots if they don't think this isn't going to blow up in their face in the election. Here you have House Republicans fighting against Lindsey Graham, fighting against John Thune, fighting against James Langford, fighting against Dan Crenshaw, fighting against some of the most conservative Republicans on Capitol Hill, trying to stop a border security bill, the best border security bill ever. At the same time, we have a continuing border security crisis.

So Jonathan Lemire, they are going to try to impeach Mayorkas for a lack of border security. At the same time, they're listening to Donald Trump and killing what the most conservative Republicans in the Senate are saying is the best border security bill we've ever had. And it's the best, as John Thune said yesterday, it's the best security deal bill we've ever had. And it's the best is as as John Thune said yesterday, it's the best security deal for the border we will ever get. And they're willing to push that to the side to let Putin move into Ukraine, all because they're afraid it might help Joe Biden. There's something more snowflakes or they want to. Or they want to help Trump and Putin.

Yeah, there's no question. We've heard from Republican senators say, look, even if Republicans win everything back next year in our total control of D.C. in 2025, they won't get as good a deal as this one. Democrats won't let them. They'll fight them tooth and nail. The White House, President Biden, again, in his meeting this week, I'm told, signal to the Republican leadership, I'm willing to make a deal. Let's do tough border security. We need to do this. It's for the good of the country.

But that's not what some of these Republicans in the House and seemingly Speaker Johnson are focused on. They're focusing not on governing, but on politics. And they refuse to let Joe Biden get anything he can claim a win. And they're doing, once again, Donald Trump's bidding. And it's on a number of issues. Trump doesn't want this border security to be taken away as a campaign issue. So therefore, it looks like Mike Johnson doesn't want to give that deal. Trump, as we know, is famously very friendly to Putin and doesn't want the U.S. to continue to arm Ukraine like it has to this point. So therefore, that funding piece of it is also in jeopardy. And

let's recall, the entire effort to impeach Joe Biden to launch that impeachment inquiry is because Donald Trump told his Republican allies on the Hill he didn't want to be the only candidate this November to have been impeached. So it's all politics. It's all Trump. They're all examples of how he controls that party, and they're willing to do his bidding. What the problem is, I just how do I say that they're being stupid politely? Because what they're doing is because I talked to I talked to senators on the Hill yesterday, talked to the people, well, across Washington about this. And if they if the House rejects this, they're setting themselves up for a massive loss and they're going to make Joe Biden look like a bigger hero? They have they have they have two choices. And, Gene, you're you're talking about this right now.

They've got two choices. They can either be part of this deal or they can be run over by Joe Biden taking executive action, taking emergency action, using the Senate bill as as as the blueprint. So it is a bipartisan emergency action that they can use to implement these policies. And is the House Republicans who get run over and who are the only losers who aren't part of this deal? That's right. And so let's assume that that happens and Joe Biden takes executive action, tough executive action on the border. What are the House Republicans going to do then? They're going to blast him and slam him for doing exactly what they have said should be done for years and years and years. It is just ridiculous, the position they have put themselves in, yet they won't budge. And, you know, look,

I realize that Mike Johnson has this small majority and he's got the Marjorie Taylor Greens and the Troy Nelses and the Chip Roy's of the world to worry about. But, you know, that's his job. And he's not helping. He's not making it better. He needs to be out in front saying that this deal has to be made. And as long as he's not, you know, he's not's he's not helping his party here and he's certainly not helping the country. Yeah. Willie, you you you you you you're an Avengers fan, right? You saw

Endgame, right? I did. I did see Endgame. Yeah, sure. Good. So you wonder you understand if Dr. Strange had showed up at the White House six months ago. And Joe Biden's aides had said, hey, how do we end up looking good on border security? Dr. Strange would say you have a one in 14,578,000 chance of looking good on border security. Just one out of 14 million plus, as Dr. Strange said. We're here. And here it is. And he hit the number. He somehow hit the number. We're here. And at this point, this is where Dr. Strange holds up his finger and says, this is the time, Tony Stark. If the House Republicans get in your way and vote no, you get to declare an emergency and use the Republican bill in the Senate and go on TV and say the situation at the border

is so dangerous that Republicans and Democrats have come together in the Senate and they have told me this is what needs to done. I will do it. But because the House Republicans are standing in the way, I mean, it's a Tony Stark moment. Biden gets to act tough and decisive on the border because the people in the House Republicans are standing in his way. That's the one in 14 million chance. And it's the House Republicans that are given. I don't know who's Tony Stark is. Oh, please. Biden.

Oh, come on. Hold my beer. You do. You do. You do. You do know who Tony Stark is. Come on. Robert Downey Jr.

He's going to win the Oscars. So can I get. I got I got to get. I do. You do. You do know who Tony Stark is. Come on. Robert Downey Jr. is going to win the Oscars. So can I get I got I got to get I need an EKG. I'm about to fall. I mean, clear the paddles out. Oh, get the paddles out. Go on. All right. Hey, let's get some more insight on this from NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin, who's been covering every twist and turn here. Julie, good morning. So we're hearing now more and more Senate Republicans saying, hey, guys in the House, this is as good as it gets. We actually have a deal that we can live with that we think actually favors our view of how immigration should be approached and addressed. Take the deal. And you have Speaker Johnson saying, well, I don't know. We don't want to

give Joe Biden a win and saying openly on Fox News. Yes, I talked to Donald Trump quite frequently, confirming the suspicions that they are living in fear of Donald Trump. And then he, in fact, is pulling the strings behind the scenes. So what is your sense of this dynamic and whether the House may change its tact and actually listen to Tom Tillis and listen to James Lankford and listen to the Republicans in the Senate who are saying, guys, take the deal. Well, now we know why the border negotiators were working so hard in December to try and seal a deal before the end of the year, because they knew the moment the threshold skipped over into 2024, the moment it became an election year, they were going to have to deal with Donald Trump on the campaign trail, not wanting to give the president a win, just like you guys have been talking about. But Dan Crenshaw, he is a border state Republican. Some of the

hardliners, most of the hardliners in the House who are railing against this deal, who are fighting tooth and nail and moving the goalposts, by the way, originally saying they do want it linked to Ukraine, now saying it should be linked to spending. They're not from border states, so they really don't have skin in the game here. And I find it so interesting because you have these top Senate Republicans from John Thune, Cornyn, McConnell. They're not looking to protect Johnson here, as maybe they would have the former Speaker Kevin McCarthy. You'll remember he's dealt with quite a tight majority, too. He's dealt with all these political issues. And they would often say dealt with quite a tight majority, too. He's dealt with all these political issues. And they would often say, well, the House is the House. They're going to

figure it out. Now they're throwing Johnson under the bus because they know that they have to get this deal passed. They know they have to get it to the House. And then he will have a political problem looking at this deal that can solve the problem and looking at Trump and the other side, who clearly is doing this for political purposes. Tom Tillis last week, he told me it would be immoral of Republicans in the House. He used that word to vote against this deal, something they've been talking about for months and months and months, if not years. You have Todd Young yesterday, Mike Brown, certainly no fans of former President Trump. But I asked Todd Young, I'm like, do you think Trump's goal is to kill this deal for his political gain? And he said that is exactly what he seems to be doing.

I mean, there's just no surprises about that. So I do find this really interesting. I also find it interesting from the Democrat perspective, right? The Democratic progressives, the Hispanic lawmakers, they want to vote for Ukraine, aid to Taiwan, Israel, Gaza, but they don't want elements of this border deal. And so you're really looking at something in the Senate that will shape up to have about 25 Republicans, about 35 Democrats. This isn't something where it's like 50 Democrats and 10 Republicans. This is going to be as bipartisan as it gets. And by the way, the most conservative border deal in half a century. All right. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin, thank you so much for your reporting this morning. And coming up on Morning Joe, Morning Joe, economic analyst Steve Ratner

is at the Southwest Wall with charts. And before we go to break, I'm happy to announce that we have posted the first episode of Morning Mika. Do you know how many times I've seen it already? No, I've seen it four times. Okay. It is really, it's great. I love that. Look at you.

This is amazing. My new series on YouTube and Peacock featuring weekly conversations with Jen Psaki, Simone Sanders-Townsend, and Huma Abedin. By the way, they are so great. You guys are so great together. We tackled this week Donald Trump's long history of misogyny and the dangerous impact his views on women have on policy.

Plus, a special announcement surrounding the upcoming Forbes and Know Your Value 3050 Summit in Abu Dhabi. You can find it by searching Morning Mika on YouTube and streaming on Peacock. We'll be right back. Wow. An ominous shot of the Capitol.

That is kind of ominous. It is. There's a lot going on in there. Well, there is. And, you know, you get a speaker who is doing Donald Trump's bidding and Vladimir Putin's bidding. I mean, whether whether whether you say directly or not, if you if you are standing in the way. Of the majority of your members and the majority of the Senate and the majority of Americans and everything you could ever get Vladimir Putin to be pushed back and who want border security at the southern border. And you are the speaker that's stopping that. Whoa, Nelly. Whoa, Nelly. That one's not going to end up well. Someone's priorities are not with

the U.S. of A. Well, so the one thing Congress was able to do yesterday was avert another government shutdown narrowly. And it only did so by kicking the hand down the road, leaving key issues of government spending and immigration policy to be dealt with over the next six. You know, and really, we had I mean, we got a national debt that's like, what, $33, $34 trillion. It's just when I ran for Congress in 94, 30 years ago, I was railing against a $4 trillion debt. $4 trillion debt. And as I said before, we balanced the budget four years in a row. And I promise you, everybody told us it was impossible. Bill Clinton said you can't balance the budget without wrecking the economy. The Washington Post, The New York Times, they all said you can't balance a budget without wrecking the economy

and throwing people out in the streets. Balance the budget four years in a row. And yes, Bill Clinton followed along. And not only that, the economy grew and it prospered. Now, I'm not saying with a thirty three, thirty four trillion dollar debt, we can balance the budget in the next three or four years. But we've got to start down that path. And all we have are people in both parties kicking the can down the road. And they have been doing it since 2001. And I must say, you add up Republican debt and Democratic debt. Republican debt is so much worse. And the biggest offender, and I think Nikki Haley's talking about this. Ron DeSantis is talking about this.

I just don't think Republicans care anymore. They're not fiscally responsible anymore. They want to I guess they want to elect an authoritarian who wants total power, total immunity. But there are Republican candidates talking about moving towards a balanced budget, rational spending at the federal level, but not Donald Trump. Now, Donald Trump's administration in just four years added nearly eight trillion dollars to the debt, eight trillion dollars. And now since he's left office, many of the Republicans who went along for the ride on that and the massive tax cuts are now finding their debt and deficit hawkishness again that Joe Biden is in the White House. Funny

how that happens. Let's talk more about this with former Treasury official, Morning Joe, economic analyst Steve Ratner. Steve, good morning. Want to get to your charts in just a minute, but let you weigh in on this question of debt. Obviously, Donald Trump added almost $8 trillion to it. Continues, though, not at that rate under President Biden. Is there any serious conversation about bringing that number down? Do you see any urgency in the Congress on this? Not a bit, Willie. And in fact, as we're going to talk about in a minute, there are these bills that are going to be in front of Congress, the supplemental and the debt deal that actually will add to the debt, add to the deficit and add to the debt. No, there's there's nothing serious going on. The Republicans just want to cut taxes,

cut spending. The Democrats would actually be more constructive, but they're not in charge at the moment in the House of Representatives. So, no, I think that $34 trillion is just going to keep it's going to be a $2 trillion deficit in the current fiscal year. And it's just going to keep going from there, absent some other crisis that forces the Congress to deal with it. All right. Let's talk about your charts. start with the first one right behind you there. Slim majority, slow Congress. We've talked about how historically unproductive this Congress has been. What are you looking at there on the chart? Yeah. Yes. You guys have been talking about it. So I thought I'd bring some charts and some numbers

to put some facts behind it. So the Republicans have the smallest majority, actually, I think, in history at the moment. They have just two seats. They started with four. You had George Santos leave. You had Kevin McCarthy leave. They're down to just two seats. And the consequence of that is that they have passed the fewest number of bills in modern history in their first year. They've passed just 24 bills. And you can see what went on here in the past. It's a dramatic drop off. But, you know, it always wasn't thus. And this gets back a little bit to what Joe was talking about, about the debt and the deficit, because back in 99 and 2000, they also had a small majority. But you can see over here that they actually passed a lot of

legislation. And as Joe said, they dealt with the debt. We had a surplus. We got a lot of legislation passed. Congress could function. But it's really a problem within the Republican Party because they can't function. Mike Johnson does not have control over that far right, as we're going to talk about further in a minute. And so it's all stalled. And it's so ironic because the Senate was supposed to be the ones who were slow and the House was supposed to be the ones who were fast. And the Senate's job, as it was famously said, was to cool the hot tea of the House. Now it's the other way around. Legislation like this deal that James Lankford is working on with the Democrats is coming out of the Senate and the House is sitting there essentially doing almost

nothing. So as we move to your next chart, Steve, it's illustrative of what you're talking about here, which is the inability to get anything done, including a budget, which used to be not such a difficult task. But now we live moment to moment, almost month to month, trying to pass these emergency budgets to avoid government shutdowns. Yeah. When the Republicans took over the House, they said regular order. We're going to have a budget. The government's fiscal year starts on October 1. We're going to be ready to go with a real budget. Here we are now in the middle of January. There's no budget. There are a bunch of continuing resolutions. There was one passed last night to avert a government shutdown. Tonight, that's how close it came. It was only passed because the Democrats supported it. Johnson barely got one above a majority of his caucus.

Half of his caucus voted against this deal. But it's a stopgap measure, as you pointed out, and it takes us to about the 1st of March. And between now and then, they have to deal with it. So let's talk about what's at stake there. So Biden originally proposed $67 billion of more spending for the current fiscal year. Kevin McCarthy made a deal with him before he was kicked out that essentially federal spending would not go up. Chuck Schumer just kind of renegotiated that deal with Mike Johnson. And while the numbers sort of are the same, in fact, Mike Johnson got one thing that's important. He got, to him anyway, he got a further cut in IRS spending

from $10 billion to $20 billion. Now, the irony of this, the irony of this is cutting IRS spending actually increases the deficit, as this chart shows, because the government collects more than a dollar from taxpayers who are not filing their taxes properly for every dollar we spend on more IRS agents to do those audits. And so the Republicans who claim they want to cut the deficit actually are increasing it because they're trying to give Americans more loopholes to not pay taxes. Now, the other issue that Johnson is going to face is the fact that his far right caucus wants 58 billion dollars of spending cuts. It is not at all clear that they will vote for any deal that Johnson makes. And once again, he's going to have to go to the Democrats to pass this thing.

If and when we ever get to it because of the immigration issues, we'll get to in a second. He's going to have to go to the Democrats and it'll be interesting to see how all that unfolds. And of course, the question is, how long does Johnson survive with a caucus that doesn't even support him when he makes a deal? So let's slide along the wall to that next chart on immigration. This is the question that's being debated as we speak in the Congress right now. The Senate says they're close to a deal, a bipartisan deal.

The House won't take a good deal, it appears, because they're getting pressure from Donald Trump not to give Joe Biden a win. But let's talk about the immigration crisis and what it looks like right now in your chart. Sure. Sure. So just as a reminder, yeah, we have had a big surge in what are called encounters at the border. It's up to about two point six million a year. This this chart is in months, but it's about two point six million a year. But let's just be clear. These are not people who are sneaking across the border and disappearing into America to become illegal immigrants. These are people, as I'll talk about in just one second, who actually are in the hands of our Customs and Border Patrol and are going through the system. This group down here at the bottom are what are called the gotaways, the ones who actually do sneak across the border and disappear into our system. But the consequence of that is that this black line, almost 90 percent of the people who try to cross our border end up in the hands of Customs and Border Patrol. So it's not an issue of a wall of people sneaking across and disappearing.

This number has actually come down very substantially for some complicated reasons that I'm going to spare you. And most of these people are in our hands. So what happens to them? So last year, 2.6 million of them ended up in the hands of Customs and Border Patrol, as you can see here, either by coming across through a port of entry or coming across somewhere else. And many of them just turned themselves into Border Patrol because they want to go through the system. They're going to claim asylum. Here's the problem. The problem is they end up in our court system. 1.5 million of them came across the border. They were apprehended. They were processed and they were given what's called a notice to appear before an immigration court and begin their hearings. But it hasn't happened because we have this huge backlog. Why do we have this huge backlog? Because Congress has not funded, ironically, and

this is why we need this bill, Congress has not funded the whole immigration court system sufficiently to process all these folks. The other thing most people probably don't know is that 850,000 of them actually left. Some of them voluntarily, some of them were sent back, but out of the 2.6 million of them, 850,000 just went back. 300,000 got what's called parole, which is a humanitarian process for people coming from places like Haiti and Cuba, Venezuela, where there's essentially a failed state. But our court system is so messed up that of all these 2.6 million people, fewer than 300,000 actually got relief at the end of the process. And so we need to pass this immigration bill to get this problem solved. We do. And Republicans are obviously pushing the White House to reform the parole side of that. I suspect they

probably will. And Lindsey Graham, who supports this bill, has said it's critical that they come to a negotiated settlement there. I suspect they will. Steve, thanks for those charts. I want to just remind our viewers that that you're talking about how bad the deficit is, how bad the debt is and how badly Donald Trump added to that record setting deficits, record setting debt. But I just I just want to remind everybody that I guess it was about 10 years ago while Barack Obama was president of the United States, you and a group of CEOs and other business leaders

took out full page ads, did everything you could to warn of the coming debt explosion. And Washington just won't listen. Like this is this is this is this is. Reminds me of trying to explain to liberal economists. And I know you did the same thing, about the warnings about inflation. And liberal economists kept saying, oh, it's never happened. It's not going to happen. And when it did happen, they said it's transitory. Don't worry about it. Well, guess what? Your warnings, my warnings, other people's warnings about massive spending leading to deficits or leading to inflation happen. This national debt is so much worse. And yeah, it hasn't severely impacted us. But what happens, Steve, when it does, when the bill comes due?

Yeah, look, there's two terrible scenarios out there, one of which will almost certainly unfold, one of which we have to see. The second of these is the financial markets. At what point do the financial markets wake up and say $34 trillion of debt, $2 trillion of deficits every year, adding to that debt? as far as the eye can see, at what point do the markets wake up and say, we're not going to let you finance this at 4% anymore. We want 8%, 10%, 12% interest rates. We'll see how that unfolds. The one that we know is going to happen is that eventually this is going to have to be dealt with, this debt. And the interest payments on it make it more and more difficult to find the spending

money that we need for the other critical needs. And at some point, this is going to affect Social Security, Medicare and all kinds of things that Americans feel essential because the cost of the servicing this debt, the interest costs are going to squeeze out all kinds of other funds, all kinds of other spending that we badly need to maintain and will have to increase as our society gets older. All right, Steve Ratner, thank you very much once again.