Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/12/23
Episode Date: December 12, 2023Zelenskyy visits DC amid ongoing aid negotiations ...
Transcript
Discussion (0)
All right. Thanks for bearing with us, everybody. It is Tuesday, December 12th.
Getting started a little bit late this morning. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early,
White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, U.S. Special Correspondent for BBC News,
Katty Kaye is with us, and former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James
Stavridis. He is chief international analyst for NBC News. Thank you all for bearing with us.
Let's get to our top story this morning. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is here
in the U.S. for the third time since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February of 2022.
He'll meet with President Biden at the White House to discuss his country's needs on the battlefield and the importance of America's continued support.
President Biden has proposed just over $60 billion in new wartime funding for Ukraine as part of a national security package. But Republicans say that
foreign aid must be tied to additional funding and policy changes at the southern border.
We'll talk more about that, Willie. The top senator on each side, meanwhile, of these talks,
Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Republican James Lankford of Oklahoma,
cautioned yesterday a deal involving foreign aid and border measures that would make
both sides happy may not be reached by the end of this week. Senator Murphy has called Republicans
demands in negotiations, quote, extreme and implausible. Zelensky also expected to meet
with House Speaker Mike Johnson and to deliver remarks to a meeting of U.S. senators in addition
to his White House visit. So, Admiral, sometimes high
stakes is a term that is overused. But for President Zelensky, this is a very high stakes
24 hours here in the United States. It absolutely is, Willie. And, you know, if you look at that
photo we just showed of him, he looks worried. And I'll tell you, if I were the president of
Ukraine right now watching this unfold in D.C., I'd be worried. They've still
got time. There's still plenty of armament in the pipeline for another couple of months here.
But the clock is ticking. Make no mistake, President Zelensky, this is indeed a high
stakes move. I'm encouraged and I'll close on this. I'm encouraged with the fact that he's meeting with the entire Senate.
In the end, Willie, I think the center will hold on this. But boy, we are skating on thin ice.
You contrast this with visits, say, last year, John, where you standing ovations addressed to Congress.
Now you have some senators saying my schedule doesn't work. I can't be there.
Senators who have said they're fine holding up the aid until they get an order deal.
And that could push into next year for sure. I mean, the visit may already be a failure.
There's very little chance that that deal is going to get struck this week.
Now, Zelensky, of course, is still going to apply public pressure.
He'll stand next to the president, President Biden at the White House later today.
The two men will hold a news conference. But senators flat out acknowledged yesterday publicly that a deal is not going to get done this week. It would take a real about face at
the 11th hour for something to happen. So if it weren't, if something doesn't occur in the next
24 hours, the Senate and the House will leave town at the end of this week for the Christmas recess.
And it'll be early January before they can reconvene. And when they come back in early
January, suddenly the clock is also ticking on government funding and a potential shutdown. So there'll be a lot more things on
their plate. And to the Admiral's point, White House officials tell me there's a presidential
drawdown authority. The Pentagon can stretch their resources a little, but pretty soon,
within a few weeks, this is going to start showing up on the battlefield. And that can
make a real difference, as Russia is believed to be mounting
a winter offensive. So if you talk to people on Capitol Hill the last couple of days, they're
now think it's almost certain that this will get pushed into next year, that there will not be a
deal because Republicans are making the aid to Ukraine contingent on immigration reform.
One caddy also, you look what's happening in Ukraine. You don't have the urgency of the Russians sweeping towards Kiev.
You also don't have the positive argument that Zelensky could make that they're making up ground
with Russia and they're moving closer to the Russian border. It is a deadlock. And you're
starting to hear that from some members in Congress. Yeah, I mean, it's interesting that
the headlines in Europe at the moment are that Putin is winning in Ukraine. And that certainly wasn't the kind of headlines that
we were seeing after they first launched this invasion. The reality of this counteroffensive
from the Ukrainians, even by their own admission, is that it hasn't worked and politics are starting
to creep up in Ukraine, too. Zelensky is facing more criticism internally. None of that makes his
visit to the U.S. any easier.
And he's walked straight into an American political fight.
We've been saying for a year, Joe, that the problem for Ukraine is that it's on America's political timetable.
We thought that was November of 2024.
It turns out to be December of 2023. and this fight between, you know, progressives in the Democratic Party who are warning the White
House not to cave, to do more on immigration funding, and those in the Republican Party
who are saying you've got to do more on immigration funding. There's very little
that Zelensky can say while he's in Washington to get around that.
And then there's the other war. Israel says it's prepared to fight for months or longer in order to defeat Hamas.
This is troops have now gained control of more areas within Gaza City.
The Israeli military believes the region is the headquarters for the leader of Hamas.
Officials are on a mission to find and kill him.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is worsening. Infectious diseases
are ravaging residents due to overcrowding and shelters, scarce food, dirty water and little
medicine. Hospitals are so overwhelmed treating people who've been injured in airstrikes. Israeli
officials say the amount of aid entering the strip will double once a second screening station opens.
So many questions. Well, where do we begin?
There are, Admiral. I mean, let's start with the humanitarian crisis there and the argument that if you give a dollar to Gazans and humanitarian aid, you're helping Hamas.
And then they might use that dollar for the war or that fuel you give them.
And then rewind, you know, say, well, that's what they've done for years. Then rewind to September
right before the attack. And The New York Times is telling us that Yahoo's government was telling
Doha, yeah, keep giving Hamas money. Keep giving them money. Keep it. Keep the spigot open. That
was less than a month before the attack. And then, you know, they knew this was coming for a year and seven, eight hours without a reaction.
I mean, a lot of things are adding up here that just show the most gross incompetence.
And yet Netanyahu's government and we keep hearing, well, let's wait till the war's over. Let's wait till the war. Well, yeah, you know, that doesn't really make a whole hell of a lot of sense if all of all of his his his actions over the past decade have got
us to this point. I agree. And if you add to the mix of what you just laid out, Joe, the fact that
many credible reports suggest that Israeli intelligence had the actual plan, the actual blueprint of this attack over a year in advance.
So it's strike three when you add it to funding to Hamas and lack of response.
And I'm not an analyst of Israeli politics, but I think that clock is ticking on Netanyahu just as certainly as it is
in a very different way on President Zelensky. What I look for in terms of Gaza at the moment,
Joe and Mika, is the humanitarian piece of this is beginning to rise above in the concern
bucket globally. And I think that that will have an impact on Israeli
operations going forward. Meanwhile, Admiral, you have Israel talking about the threat to the north
with Hezbollah. And now we have these commercial ships, a Norwegian commercial ship being fired on
by rebels, the Houthi rebels, Iran-backed rebels from Yemen as well. If you're looking at this
battlefield and you're looking at this battlefield and
you're Israel and the United States helping Israel, what do you see? I'm worried. And I'll
start with Hezbollah to the north. 150,000 surface-to-surface missiles. They are a creature
of Iran. And if Tehran decided to unleash that missile barrage, that's an existential threat
to Israel. So I think if you're the Israeli defense forces, you're looking north with a lot
of determination. And that's why two American carrier strike groups are in the region to deter
Iran. And then, you know, the admiral is going to mention it. Thanks for bringing up the
sea. These Houthi rebels are for real. They're trained. They're highly capable. Not only are
they shooting missiles at commercial shipping, they actually took down a commercial ship about
three weeks ago. Twenty five mariners are being held hostage by these rebels, again, creatures of Iran.
Let's hope U.S. deterrence alongside Israeli determination can carry the day here and avoid this conflict spreading even more widely.
And, Cady, there's been some discontent throughout Washington and some grumbling within the Pentagon about the Biden administration not doing more, not standing up more forcefully to some of these attacks, missiles being dropped on American bases, some of the incidents in the sea that we just
mentioned there. In the U.S., of course, their official approach is, well, we don't want to do
anything to escalate potentially a more regional conflict. What are the concerns there in Europe
about that, this conflict spiraling out of control, as public sentiment definitely seems
to be shifting against how the Israelis are conducting their offensive in Gaza.
So public sentiment towards Gaza has shifted in Europe a while ago when it comes to the
humanitarian crisis in the Strip. I think there's some there are some people here who are saying,
you know, look, there is a chance here for a total remake of the Middle East,
that you've got these Gulf states and Saudi Arabia who have been meeting to talk about the future of the area and that they are so invested in their relationship with Israel at the moment.
They really want that to succeed, that they will try to do something.
But that depends on what Joe was saying earlier on Netanyahu going and on new leadership for the Palestinians. I think it also depends on
whether in the Gaza Strip you have now created generations of people who have such anger towards
Israel that all they're going to want to do is become terrorists themselves. There are a lot of
ifs there, but there is, you know, the potential, I think, here, and people are talking about it, and I know they're talking about it in the Middle
East, for some kind of remake after this is all over. But, wow, I mean, it's complicated,
and those attacks against Americans, that's how, so far, Iran doesn't seem to want to get involved
in this, but it's the kind of mistake that, you know, if the Houthis bring, really do attack
Americans, it's that kind of a mistake that could lead to this widening.
Admiral Stravitis, let me ask you a question we've been asking for over a month now, and we don't get any answers.
We certainly don't get any answers from Israeli leaders, from military leaders, from intel leaders.
We don't get any answers from supporters of Israel when they come on the show. And I'm just curious if you've heard any explanation at all.
If there's a school shooting in America, three minutes later, police are arriving.
Ten minutes later, they've shut down the whole community. The school's on lockdown in four or
five minutes, four or five minutes.
When 9-11 happened, first responders got there three minutes later, three minutes later. You know where I'm going, but we have to go there. I need an answer. You need an answer.
What's your best guess?
If we're spending billions and billions of dollars defending the Israelis, I want to know, and I'm sure you want to know,
and the families of the hostages want to know, how in the world is it possible that a government
that bases its very existence on security would allow people to be raped and murdered and abused and dragged away and dragged away
over seven, eight hours and not respond for seven or eight hours. What what is there is no good
explanation. What is the best one that you've heard? I have heard zero explanation of that. What I have seen is finger
pointing, starting with the prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who began with blaming the
intelligence services for failure, the IDF for not showing up. Look, there's a lot of failure
to go around. And you are correct. 9-11 was our intelligence failure. But our responses on
that day were profound. I was in the Pentagon. I actually glimpsed the aircraft as it hit the
building a few hundred feet off to my right hand side. The next thing I remember, clouds of
billowing smoke. And here come the first responders. Why that did not happen immediately
in Israel in terms of military first responders is something the most senior leaders of the
Israeli defense forces, their intelligence services will ask themselves for the rest of
their lives. How did we fail to protect our women, our children, our elders, our very civilization?
How did we fail? Really? It's just going to be left hanging like that?
I mean, they knew they knew that's the thing. They knew it was going on, Willie.
They knew it was going on. Netanyahu knew it was going on. They did nothing. It does. There is no good explanation,
but we need an explanation. And we have a right to an explanation, not as much as
parents of children who were kidnapped, raped and abused and dragged off. But seven, eight hours. Think about New York City cops on 9-11. After the gates were
breached, first of all, they sit there and they have this wall, this security wall, and it's
broken down. And again, they get through there. At about that point, NY PD cops would be there and it would be all over. Instead, they let them run
across Israel for seven, eight, 10, 12, 13 hours, raping women and killing grandmothers,
burning little children. They do nothing. They do nothing, Willie. How could it be?
I don't have the answer. And apparently no one does, because we've had Israeli officials just a couple of days ago.
We put the question to her. Mika did as well again and again.
And the answer is exactly what we've heard from Prime Minister Netanyahu.
There will be a time and a place to talk about the intelligence.
And they say it was a failure. We failed. But we need to root out Hamas.
We'll talk about it later. There's no answer. If that's the answer, that tells you what the answer is. There isn't one. And, you know, there were
IDF soldiers killed that day. There were people bravely fighting. But when you have people hiding
in closets for 24 hours, in some cases, waiting to be saved, there's got to be a better answer
than we'll talk about that on another day. Well, and that's all they do, Mika. I mean,
there's an intelligence failure and then there's a response to a ragtag group of terrorists. I mean,
by the way, Netanyahu had been funding weeks up until weeks before the attack. And terrorists
that the Israeli government will tell you live and breathe 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, 365 days a year to kill Jews. So why do they give them money? Hundreds of
millions of dollars. This is a question. And Admiral, when you don't have an answer to a
question, when there is no answer to a question, it would be if a light was falling in slow motion right on top
of Willie's head there next to you and you saw it and you sat there. Is that a mistake on your part
or what is it? It's complacency. It's avoiding the hard conversations.
And it's absolutely time to begin unpackaging what happened.
I disagree with Prime Minister Netanyahu that they are going to need to step back from Gaza at some point
and recreate a security border around it, having watched this one fail so egregiously.
And final point, I think a lot of Israelis realize part of this, Joe and Mika, was their
own internal divisions, their own fights inside their society, the constitutional crisis.
All of this lands on the head of Benjamin Netanyahu.
Retired Admiral James Tavridis, thank you very much for being on this morning.
We so appreciate it. And still ahead on Morning Joe.
Donald Trump is now claiming that he was only joking about being a dictator on
the first day of a possible second term. But our next guest says everybody should be taking his
rhetoric seriously. Plus, we'll get expert legal analysis on Jack Smith's petition to the Supreme
Court in the federal election interference case. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back.
Oh, man, what a beautiful sunrise over New York City at 634 on a Tuesday morning.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis responded on social media yesterday to something former
President Trump said over the weekend.
On Saturday, Trump claimed that in 2016, a military general praised Trump for his bravery
for his decision to debate Hillary Clinton shortly after the Access Hollywood tape was released.
A classic Sir story from the former president.
We were doing really well, but this one particular event came up and I said, you know, if we get out, it's historic.
I went on to that stage just a few days later and a general who's a fantastic general actually said to me, sir,
I've been on the battlefield. Men have gone down on my left and on my right. I stood on hills where
soldiers were killed. But I believe the bravest thing I've ever seen was the night you went onto
that stage with Hillary Clinton after what happened. In response to those comments, DeSantis,
who is a military veteran, accused Trump of, quote, denigrating military service.
He added debating isn't brave. It's the bare minimum any candidate should do.
Hiding from debates, on the other hand, is an example of cowardice.
And quote from Governor DeSantis. Join us now. Special correspondent at Vanity Fair, host of the Fast Politics podcast, our good friend Molly Jong Fast.
A classic Trump's, he loves a sir story.
Anytime someone that he respects or is in power, even if invented, calls him sir, he can morph that into a story.
By the way, hasn't been to any of the debates yet, but says a general three star called him brave for showing up in 2016. You know, if I were Ron DeSantis, I would not be bringing up debates
because he kind of got his lunch handed to him by Gavin Newsom. But at least he was there. Yeah.
Yeah. Iwo Jima, D-Day, the debate stage in St. Louis in October of 2016. Moments that we will
all remember forever as examples of bravery. I mean, just nonsensical from Donald Trump.
But as far as what it means to the Republican primary, it means exactly nothing.
Because DeSantis, anytime he is taking a quick hit at Trump, he backs off.
And a day later, none of these attacks tend to stick.
And none of them, frankly, make any difference in the polls.
Now, obviously, I guess good for DeSantis for saying what is true, that Donald Trump was grossly offensive with these comments and did denigrate military service. But it's not going to change the trajectory of the race at all.
And if anything, shows a little panic on the DeSantis side where he's finally changing tactics
when it does look like Nikki Haley has the momentum as the anti-Trump contender. But even
momentum needs to be put in quotes because she's still about 30 to 40 points down.
And Iowa, of course, is where DeSantis has put all of his eggs and he's down 30,
35 points in most polling.
So, Molly, your new piece of Vanity Fair is titled Donald Trump's dictator promise is no joke.
In it, Molly writes, quote, Over the past week, Donald Trump promised to be a dictator on two different occasions.
Sadly, that's not a completely unexpected sentence to write, given that he and his allies have not been shy about planning an authoritarian second term from installing MAGA loyalists throughout the government to using the Department of Justice
to target political enemies. Fox News host Sean Hannity, who first blamed the media for focusing
on a scary second term agenda, asked under no circumstances you are promising America tonight
you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody. Trump responded, quote, except for day one, end quote.
We find ourselves, Mollie writes, at a precipice with Trump making his autocratic tendencies crystal clear.
The news media needs to take him literally and seriously, especially as his anti-democratic impulses have infected the rest of the party.
Republicans have purged those in their ranks who have sided with democracy over Trump, like Liz Cheney, who's now sounding the alarms while elevating an election denier
like Mike Johnson to Speaker of the House. It is time for the media to warn voters of the stakes
of this election, one of which is whether there will still be Democratic elections. So something
we've been focused on for the last several weeks here on this show. The Atlantic has had its series of pieces saying, hey, this is what a second term would look like.
And I do think most people understand that in 2016, he couldn't do all the things he was claiming he was going to do.
He's just being brash. He's being Donald Trump for The Apprentice. We like that he's going to shake things up.
Now he's got a record to run on and now he's on the record promising it will be worse from his own lips. He's promising it will be worse. Yeah. And he has institutional
backing now. Right. He has the Heritage Foundation saying they're going to fire all government
employees, you know, not all government employees, but they're going to try to remake the, you know,
the government in in ways that we hadn't even sort of dreamed of. The thing I'm so struck by is it feels like the mainstream media is addicted to giving
Trump the benefit of the doubt.
Right.
We saw in 2016 that a lot of the stuff he wanted to do, the autocratic stuff, he just
couldn't do because he wasn't able to.
Right.
He didn't understand how government worked.
This time he's taken four years off and he's really got allies that are very smart and know how government worked. This time he's taken four years off and he's really got
allies that are very smart and know how government works. And you see his plans. I mean,
the stuff they're saying already, this is the stuff they're advertising is really scary. So
imagine what they're not advertising. And, Cady, we're already seeing once again some of Trump's
allies try to cushion what he's saying. Oh, he didn't mean it
like that. You know, we had that from former Speaker McCarthy over the weekend suggesting
that, you know, that Trump wouldn't actually follow through this. New Speaker Mike Johnson
yesterday was asked about this and said that he did not believe Trump would be a dictator. Of
course, we wouldn't participate in that. But we have seen time and again Republicans do embolden
him. Why would any of us think that it would be any different next time around if Trump were to take office again,
free of having to face voters again and also completely unchecked where he could say, I've been impeached twice.
I was indicted on 91 counts and yet I still won.
So, I mean, we know that there's a history of Trump supporters saying that we tend
to think things that he take things that he says too seriously. And it was just a joke. And,
you know, where's us? Where's the sense of humor of his critics? But actually,
when you have conversations and I know you do, John, as well with the Trump campaign,
and I've had several, when you ask them what a Trump second term would be like,
they're pretty clear about it. I mean, they do
want to radically change, for example, the Department of Justice, perhaps one of the most
important bastions in terms of guarding the rule of law of any democracy. And they want to bring
that much more into the purview of the White House. They want to seek retribution against those who
have they believe in the Republican Party and in the Democratic Party who have attacked the former president, they say.
And they want to take action against members of the press who they say have been too critical.
So all of those I mean, you look at the model of Hungary and Viktor Orban, you see echoes of all of that.
And they're pretty frank about it. So, you know, Molly, when you when you talk to the Trump campaign and they're honest about what they want to do and they're pretty clear about it and you hear members of the Republican Party saying, well, we're just,
you know, we shouldn't take any of that seriously. Where's the disconnect there? Because
the Trump campaign is pretty clear about what they want to do. Yeah, I don't understand how
they're still getting the benefit of the doubt when it's so clear what they want to do and they're advertising it.
I mean, it's just very strange. And I think, look, traditional mainstream straight media wants to normalize things.
They don't want to look like they're being hysterical. Right.
The worst thing you want, especially when you're sort of a straight news reporter, as opposed to being on the opinion side, that you don't want to look like you're being partisan or overreacting or, you know, being making it too much about your own point of view.
But clearly, we need to be focused on the restoration and the continuation of democracy.
And and that is not a partisan issue. Mika, to hear people like Kevin McCarthy and Speaker Mike Johnson sort of wave away these questions we talk about every day on this show, which, oh, he's not really going to try to be an authoritarian.
He already did. He tried to overturn the 2020 election.
And how did he do it? With the help of the very people who are claiming, oh, he would never do that.
So his friends already in many ways are in place. And if he loses the 2024 election, you better believe that Speaker Mike Johnson,
a constitutional lawyer who helped to push the overturning of the 2020 election,
will be back at it again. I mean, there are facts now to prove that his jokes and his
intonations and his touching on things and end up being 100 percent true. So it's worth believing him when he's joking or making crazy statements.
We want to get to the latest now about the woman at the center of the latest abortion battle out
of Texas. And she has left the state for the procedure after days of judicial whiplash.
Kate Cox, a 31 year old mother of two, sought an abortion after being
told her 21-week pregnancy was non-viable and her health was in danger. The fetus had a condition
that would likely result in miscarriage or stillbirth, according to the Cleveland Clinic.
Her doctors warned her that had she continued with the pregnancy, it could have jeopardized her health
and also her future fertility. Because of this, Cox sought an abortion through the Texas courts
and was granted one on Thursday. However, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has no medical
education, fought the ruling in the Texas Supreme Court. He argued that Cox
did not meet the requirements for an emergency abortion and that the judge was not medically
qualified to make the determination. In addition, he threatened to sue any medical professional who
was involved in providing Cox with the procedure. As a result, the Texas Supreme Court found Cox's situation was not enough
for an exception and put her stay on the lower court's ruling.
Again, Molly, making this woman carry the baby to term. So if it survived the birth,
it then would die gasping for air in front of her.
The mental anguish this woman has been put through is enough to put her in a deep depression,
to make her extremely anxious, impacting the rest of her family,
let alone the physical trauma that she was going through.
Going to the ER up to four times, elevated vital signs, leaking fluid.
I mean, I'm sorry, I'm not a doctor, but these are just facts that I am sure 60-year-old white
male, far right wing, Trump or Ken Paxton did not consider or didn't, even worse, didn't care about
as he fought this for whatever clicks he wants to get or support on the far right.
This is not where America is. And abortion, what he is teaching most Americans as this story gets amplified
and as this woman has to run away from the state of Texas to get the health care she needs,
what this is teaching America is what America already,
most of it knows that abortion is not just some lazy woman who had sex by mistake,
like Ken Paxton had sex by mistake with someone and got someone pregnant and now needs to get
rid of it. That's, that's like crazy. This is health care. Yeah. These are doctors saying, unfortunately, we have to make this very difficult decision because we need to save the life of the mother and the life of this fetus is not viable. are showing Americans just how sick and cruel they can be to women when they are seeking
lifesaving health care. If I were a woman in the state of Texas, I'd be afraid.
I'd be literally afraid to lose my health care and my rights.
And I would add that Kate Cox proved to us that these exemptions are not true.
Right. We saw a woman having a baby, you know, 99 percent chance of a miscarriage or death right after birth.
And the state said, no. Right. This is the life of the mother.
Right. She has had been in and out of the hospital. And the state is saying, well, prove to us that you're really going to die. I mean, so I think that what I think is so important about this case is that it really proves that these exceptions are not true, that these bans that were built with exceptions, they're not really exceptions.
They're not really available.
And Mika, as Kate herself says, you know, she's fortunate enough to be able to afford to travel out of state.
She has a support network that can help her, although, of course, they are now scared
that the law could come after them in Texas. I mean, this is the absurdity of her situation,
is even her husband faces some kind of legal retribution if he helps her get an abortion
that she needs. This is this is health care. I mean, in Kate's case, she wants a big family. She said she wants a big family. She wants this child.
This is a health care situation. Her health will be at risk. And as Molly was saying, you know,
Republicans you speak to and have said, well, you know, there are exceptions that this should never
happen. We shouldn't have cases like this, but we have a case like this and it's going all the way to the top
of the legal
structure in Texas
and it won't be the only one
this won't be the only one, we know it's not
the only one of a woman who needs
this health care
it's basic health care
to keep her health and safety
Consequences of Trump
Vanity Fair's Moll Jong Fass, thank you
so much for being on this morning. We'll see you again very soon. And coming up, Jack Smith is
asking the Supreme Court to get involved in the federal election interference case against Donald
Trump. We'll explain how a ruling from the high court could impact the case. Morning Joe is coming right back.
We're going through the loss of a child. There's no outcome here that I take home my
healthy baby girl, you know, so it's hard, you know. I think forcing me to continue the pregnancy
and the pain and suffering put me through the risks of continuing the pregnancy, the risk of childbirth again, especially given how my last two went.
I think it's cruel.
Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked the Supreme Court to step in immediately to decide whether former President Trump has immunity from
prosecution for his actions in trying to overturn the 2020 election results. In a filing with the
high court yesterday, Smith stated it is, quote, of imperative public importance to the court decide
the question so Trump's trial can move forward as scheduled in March. Under the timeline proposed
by Smith, the court could hear arguments and issue a ruling in a matter of weeks if it does, in fact, decide to step in.
In a brief order issued just hours after Smith's filing, the court asked Trump's legal team to respond by December 20th.
Trump campaign issued a statement accusing Smith of attempting to interfere in the 2024 election.
Joining us now, former U.S. attorney and an MSNBC contributor, Barbara McQuaid and state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg.
Good morning to you both. Barbara, I'll start with you. What do you read into this request from Jack Smith?
Is he trying to sort of short circuit the argument that might come from the Trump defense team here?
Yes, this is a really interesting strategy. I have to say I didn't see it coming, but it is a really shrewd move on the part of Jack Smith.
He's trying to leapfrog the Court of Appeals, because if this case were to play out in the normal course,
there could be a delay of many months, which would jeopardize that March 4th trial date.
And so what Jack Smith is essentially saying here is, look, we all know that this is the kind of question that's going to the Supreme Court anyway.
So there's no need to waste our time going to the Court of Appeals. It's a rare move, Willie, but it's not
unprecedented. It's happened 49 times in the last 100 years, and it's happened 25 times in the past
five years. Usually it's for cases with some urgency, like COVID cases or gerrymandering
cases, but it's also been used for student loans. And so when time is of the essence,
this is a move that makes a lot of sense. So, Dave, it's not unprecedented and it seems
certainly time is an issue here. But what's your read on the request? But also,
how do you think the Supreme Court will? Well, it was a positive development yesterday
when the court granted the expedited review of the request. So that tells me that they're in
line with thinking that this is their special urgent consideration.
They know the stakes here.
And Jack Smith was right to go to the Supreme Court.
The District Court of Appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeal,
they took their time taking weeks to determine the gag order issue.
I mean, if they took weeks on that, can you imagine how long they'd take on this?
And Donald Trump is now complaining that Jack Smith's going to the Supreme Court.
You would think he would want that to determine whether or not he has presidential immunity,
but that's because it was never about immunity. It was always about delays.
So we should also note that, of course, the Supreme Court had ruled against Trump during
some of the 2020 election cases, except for Clarence Thomas. And we know, of course,
that his wife has been outed as being prominently involved in efforts to help overturn that election. There'll be calls for Clarence Thomas to recuse himself.
Do you see any scenario where that would happen? Nope. Clarence Thomas has no shame. He's going
to stay on the court. He's going to help decide these issues. But he's one of nine. And it's been
shown that even the justices that Donald Trump appointed, the three justices out of nine,
have ruled consistently against him on issues like his taxes, for example, issues about document production. So I think in the end, the Supreme
Court will do the right thing here. I mean, I know that made me make me look like a Pollyanna,
but I think they understand the moment we're in. So, Barbara, the thinking with all of these cases
against Donald Trump is that the one we're talking about? Everything around the 2020 election, January 6th, the federal case is the one that probably could go forward before the election.
Is there anything you've seen lately, anything with this request here that tells you it too
could be pushed down the road a bit? It is possible if the court were to deny this request,
that would mean that the court of Appeals has to hear it.
And as we just heard, that could take many months.
So that would be one thing that could happen.
There are also all kinds of other things that could happen.
Willie, you know, a case takes on a life of its own and gets sort of organic.
There are other motions yet to be filed.
Donald Trump has filed motions for selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution.
Again, I don't think those are going anywhere. There's a double jeopardy case that has already been ruled upon by the district
court. That one could go on appeal. And so there are a number of things that could slow down a
case. But one thing I think does seem certain, Jack Smith seems very focused on keeping this
on track. And so far, the district court judge, Tanya Chutkin, seems to be moving with appropriate speed
to make sure that that date sticks as well. So I would say it looks good, but it's never a certainty.
We will see another legal matter tied to the 2020 election. Former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani
is on trial to determine how much he will have to pay in restitution for defaming two black
election workers after the
2020 presidential race. Lawyers for former election workers Ruby Freeman and Shea Moss
yesterday provided thousands of examples of harassment and racial slurs thrown at them.
The threatening messages came after Giuliani promoted and parroted false conspiracy theories
that the pair was tampering with ballots in the close Georgia race.
They were not.
On at least one occasion, Giuliani reportedly directed Trump supporters to Freeman's home.
The Washington Post reports U.S. District Court Judge Beryl A. Howell instructed jurors
she had found Giuliani liable for more than a dozen defamatory statements
and that the only question is how much he should pay in damages
for the violent threats
and harassment Freeman and Moss received. Giuliani's lawyer focused his statement on the yet
to be determined settlement. He stressed it would be, quote, the end of Mr. Giuliani if Freeman and
Moss were awarded the millions of dollars they're seeking. But Giuliani is doubling down. Speaking
of reporters after court yesterday, he insisted now, though he didn't previously, that his claims about the two were true.
Whatever happened to them, which is it's unfortunate if other people overreacted, but everything I said about them is true.
Do you regret what you did? Of course, I don't regret it. I told the truth.
Of course I don't regret it.
I told the truth.
Dave, help me out here, because in the trial, now they're in the damages portion of this,
but he effectively said, yes, I said things that were not true.
He said that on the record.
Also, I mean, we've told this story a million times, but it's worth repeating. He made up this story, said there was a video showing Freeman and Moss
exchanging what he suggested could be vials of drugs.
That's, we'll put that matter to the side, the racial element of it.
It was a mint, we found out.
It was a breath mint being passed back and forth.
And they endured people showing up at their house, pushing through the front door.
They had to move.
They'd been threatened online.
So what's he doing now, claiming he was telling the truth when previously he said he made it all up?
He's doubling down.
And it's bizarre.
And it's repulsive.
I mean, when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
He's buying a bigger shovel.
And I think he knows that he's going to lose.
He's already lost the case.
But now it's about damages.
And he thinks that, look, you can't get blood from a stone.
He is broke.
And he probably thinks that I'm not going to have to pay it because I don't have it. But his reputation continues to be hurt every day.
I mean, just when you think that he can go no lower, the bottom falls through.
But Dave, what about like E. Jean Carroll? Can they sue again?
Yes. Mika, every time that he makes a defamatory statement, he's subject to be sued.
But unlike Donald Trump, who still has assets, Rudy Giuliani really is dead broke.
I mean, he even has an IRS lien on his property in Palm Beach.
So I think he's just counting on the fact that they're going to chase his money for years, but he's going to evade it.
They're not going to get any whatever money he has squirreled away.
And so he thinks he has impunity to say what he wants.
And that's why I think he's going to take the stand
because I think he's going to go on his diatribe,
his narrative, hoping also that it pleases the boss,
Donald Trump.
Yeah, this clearly, Barbara, is desperation.
Remember, he had to convince Donald Trump
to hold a fundraiser for him at Mar-a-Lago
to try to raise some money for his legal defense.
So is that all this is, a desperate man trying to save some money?
I think so, but I don't think it's going to matter to the court. I think after hearing all
this testimony, the court is going to do two things. One is award compensatory damages. That's
where they want to hear about all of the things that have happened to Shea Moss and Ruby Freeman,
their pain and suffering, their lost wages, all of the compensation that they are due.
But the other thing I think the court will do, especially if Rudy Giuliani continues
to double down, is award punitive damages.
And that's extra money designed just to punish the person for doing something that's so wrong.
And it's important to award punitive damages as a deterrent for him and other people
who might think this is how we do business in America. And so even if the money isn't collectible,
even if they have to chase him for the rest of his life, it's really important to see a big
dollar sign awarded against Rudy Giuliani for what he did to these women. Barbara McQuaid,
Dave Ehrenberg, thank you both. It's two minutes past the top of the hour.
Our top story this hour, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is here in the U.S.
for the third time since Russia launched its full-scale invasion in February of 2022. He'll
meet with President Biden at the White House to discuss his country's needs on the battlefield
and the importance of America's continued support.
President Biden has proposed just over $60 billion in new wartime funding for Ukraine as part of a
national security package. But Republicans say that foreign aid must be tied to additional funding
and policy changes at the southern border. Joining us from Moscow, NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons.
Keir, how is this new visit from Zelensky playing in Russia?
Well, Mika, this is an absolutely pivotal week in the Ukraine and Russia story.
President Zelensky's trip to Washington is vital in the ways that you laid out,
vital in his efforts to persuade the U.S. to continue to fund Ukraine's military efforts.
And then later in the week in Europe, the Europeans will decide whether to proceed with
a session for Ukraine to the European Union, despite the objections so far
of Viktor Ivanovich in Hungary. So a very important week for Zelensky and also for
President Putin, who this week will hold for the first time in years a question and answer session
with journalists, the Russian public, combining that with a traditional radio phone-in that he's held,
that, you'll remember it, that kind of news conference that goes on for hour after hour.
He's going to do that again on Thursday.
And what we heard from the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, today is that the Russians,
the Russian government is watching events there in Washington very closely, trying to argue that it doesn't matter whether the U.S.
would fund Ukraine, or at least it doesn't matter in the sense he says, he's been briefing
journalists, that it will just be bad money after good money, if you like. That's Russia's argument.
And then we also heard from our own Peter Alexander today, a briefing from the National Security Council, talking about that Russia continues to push an offensive since October that the National Security Council spokesperson is saying has lost Russia 13,000 troops and suggesting that Russia's maximalist aims remain to try and take all of Ukraine. I think that's interesting. I think that
there is going to be a question this week about what we hear from President Putin, whether the
Kremlin is watching events in Israel and Gaza, watching events there in Washington, whether the
Kremlin is wondering whether the mood is changing, if you like, whether it is going to try to reach for some
kind of a freeze in this conflict, some kind of an agreement, if you like, that the territory held
by both sides should remain the same. Now, the issue is, of course, that clearly President Zelensky
is unlikely to accept that. And I think what you're going to hear from President Zelensky is unlikely to accept that. And I think what you're going to hear from President Zelensky during his trip there in Washington
is that in the end, you can't trust Russia.
In the end, Russia's aims are going to be to continue to try and put pressure on Ukraine territory
in terms of territory.
And that is why the U.S. should continue to support Ukraine financially.
Keir, Zelensky's visit, of course, comes as Vladimir Putin announcing he will where he was serving, according to his supporters, who say his whereabouts are unknown. What more
can you tell us about Alexei Navalny? Yeah, it's a mystery. Not clear what's happened and why.
He was supposed to be present for a court hearing today.
He wasn't there.
His name has been removed from the list of prisoners
at the prison where he's being held.
His spokesperson saying that he's now been missing for seven days.
There is some suggestion that he had some kind of an illness
at some stage, some recent stage.
But it may also be, and I'm
speculating, but everybody is, it may also be that he is being, you know, kind of moved out of the
spotlight for this crucial week, particularly as we prepare for President Putin to take on this
hours-long question and answer session later in the week. So listen, it's completely feasible that Navalny
will just reappear at some stage and that he'll just have been moved from one prison to another,
for example. But it is a mystery right now.
NBC's Keir Simmons reporting from Moscow. Thank you very much. Willie.
So Jonathan Lemire with President Zelensky in Washington right now,
going door to door,
reminding members of Congress, of course, the president, he needs the United States. Without
the United States, they lose the war. There is talk, as we were speaking with Admiral Stavridis
a little bit earlier, the counteroffensive did not go as planned. It did not work. They didn't
push into new territory. So perhaps a rethinking of strategy as they think about how much money
to give. First, we should note, as questions persist about Navalny's whereabouts, that the U.S.
just had an offer rejected by the Russians to free Evan Groszkowicz and Paul Whelan,
Americans being held there in Russia.
And as far as this counteroffensive goes, you're right.
It was a failure.
It needs to be said as such that the Ukrainians did not make much in the way of territory.
The Russians had really dug in.
They were defending their territory, the land they had seized illegally from Ukraine. And already there were questions
about how long the allies would be able to support this effort. How much pressure would
they then put on Kiev to head to the negotiating table? Now, Zelensky has said he doesn't want to
do that. He wants to fight for, to reclaim all of that territory. U.S. officials say that's
unrealistic. They're not going to get all of it back. But Zelensky arrives in Washington now to try to convince Congress to open up the purse
strings again for Ukraine. But it seems very unlikely to happen, at least this week. Senators
from both sides of the aisle have signaled openly that they don't think a deal can get done these
days because of what Republicans want, connecting it to border security. This probably pushes into
the new year. It gets that much more complicated because there's going to be a debate in Congress about keeping the government
funding, keeping the government open with that spending bill. So this is only going to get
harder. And we have heard President Biden since the first day of the invasion say that the U.S.
will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. But now, through no fault of this president,
that's really being tested. And it does seem that if the U.S. is not able to supply
aid and aid soon, it will have disastrous consequences for Ukraine on the battlefield
and may prompt other European allies to question their own support, saying, well,
if the United States is not involved, why should we? And President Biden saying clearly again
yesterday, Vladimir Putin cannot win this war, needs Congress's help to continue to back. We'll
see where that goes.