Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/29/23

Episode Date: December 29, 2023

Maine's top election official rules Trump ineligible for 2024 primary ballot

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. That's a look at Times Square. We're just a matter of hours from now. That ball will drop and we will turn the page to 2024. Good morning. I'm Willie Geist. Joe and Mika have the morning off. A lot to get to this morning, including another state removing Donald Trump from the 2024 Republican presidential primary ballot. We will have expert legal and political analysis on that big decision from Maine's Secretary of State. Plus, we'll show you Nikki Haley's attempt at cleaning up her highly criticized answer on the cause of the civil war. Also ahead, the latest from Gaza.

Israeli forces continue to strike refugee camps where it believes Hamas terrorists are hiding. This comes as the Biden administration is putting more pressure on Israel to protect civilians inside Gaza. Plus, we'll take a look at the stories that dominated 2023 from two wars overseas to chaos on Capitol Hill, as well as the former president's many legal battles as he enters a presidential election. A lot to go through with us for all of it. NBC News national affairs analyst John Heilman, president of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Washington bureau chief for USA

Today, Susan Page, senior columnist for The Daily Beast, Matt Lewis, and former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg. A great group assembled, and let's get right into it. Maine is now the second state to remove former President Trump from the 2024 primary ballot. Secretary of State Shanna Bellows announced the decision yesterday after receiving three separate challenges to Trump's eligibility. Under Maine state law, voters first file complaints to the Secretary of State, not to the courts like they do in many other states. Bellows' ruling can be appealed, and the case would then go before a judge. She has stayed her decision until the state superior

court rules on a future appeal. Bellows used the same 14th Amendment arguments cited by the Colorado Supreme Court in its decision to remove Trump from the ballot. In her 34-page opinion, she called out Trump's actions leading up to and on January 6th, writing, quote, The weight of the evidence makes clear Mr. Trump was aware of the tinder laid by his multi-month effort to delegitimize a Democratic election and then chose to light a match. I do not reach this conclusion lightly, Bellows wrote. Democracy is sacred. I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of

ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection. End quote. The Trump legal team tried to head off this decision earlier this week by filing a request to have the Secretary of State recuse herself. The campaign has promised to file an appeal responding in part, we are witnessing in real time the attempted theft of an election and the disenfranchisement of the American voter, end quote. Trump's super PAC also issued a statement calling Maine's secretary of state a quote, anti-Trump partisan Democrat. So let's start with the legal

side of this before we get into the politics of it. For that, Chuck Rosenberg, I will turn to you. What do you make of the legal standing of the decision made by the secretary of state in Maine? Right. Well, Willie, it's an interesting one, and it's like the one in Colorado, but it's unlike others that we've seen in Michigan and Minnesota. This is sort of the paradigmatic example of why you need the Supreme Court to address the issue and to issue a rule so that all 50 states are doing the same thing. Whether you loathe Mr. Trump or whether you love Mr. Trump, I think everyone would agree it's best to have one set of rules. And so it may be the case that Colorado and Maine have it right as a matter of law. It may be the case that they have it wrong

as a matter of law. You know, I think we ought to leaven this conversation with a dose of humility. I may be completely wrong, but I think Colorado and Maine have it right. You know, I think the president did engage in an insurrection. I think the disqualification provision of the 14th Amendment applies to the office of president. That's just my opinion. I don't have a vote. I literally don't have a vote. There are nine votes that will ultimately matter. And we do need the Supreme Court to step in and to announce a rule for all 50 states because we need clarity here. So, Chuck, the counterargument you've heard, not just from Trump's campaign, but from many people actually running

against him, is this is a question for voters to decide that the former president has not yet been convicted of insurrection that should be settled by the courts and not be the opinion of one secretary of state in the state of Maine. What do you say to that? Historically and literally, Willie, the 14th Amendment does not require a conviction for insurrection in order to be disqualified. So I think that argument fails. It may succeed politically, but as a legal matter, I think that argument fails. There's another thread that runs through your question, this notion that removing someone from the ballot is anti-democratic. But that provision comes directly from the Constitution. I mean, it's the foundation

of our democracy. And so I don't know that following the Constitution, adhering to the Constitution can really ever be construed as anti-democratic in this case. We may differ about what those terms mean and whether they apply here. Again, the Supreme Court will resolve that issue for all of us. But there is also an irony here for a person, a president, Mr. Trump, who does not accept the outcome of an election. You know, it's hard to say that his voters will agree that if he, you know, if he loses, it was fair and free. And so if it's resolved ultimately by the courts, so be it. It's resolved by the courts in adherence to the Constitution.

That is anything but anti-democratic. So, Chuck, let's talk about timing here, which I know a lot of people are thinking about as they look to the calendar. We're just a few days away now from a new year. That means primaries, the Iowa caucuses, just a couple of weeks away. As these decisions come down, there obviously is a it's a pressing matter to decide these things, whether at the state Supreme Court level or at the United States Supreme Court level. As you say, will he or will he not be on the ballots that are going to be printed very soon? How fast do you think these cases can move through? Well, they have to move quickly. And we know the Supreme Court is capable of it. You know, you go back in history, almost half a century, when the Supreme Court decided the U.S. v. Nixon

case and did so in really, I think, a matter of three, three and a half weeks. So can the Supreme Court move quickly? Absolutely. Do they need to do so here? Absolutely. So I hope they take this case and hear it fast, because to your point, Willie, ballots are being printed and soon people will be going to the polls and we need a single rule. And we can only get that from the United States Supreme Court. So as we saw after that Colorado ruling, former President Trump's 2024 primary opponents quickly came to his defense following the Maine decision yesterday. In a statement to NBC News, Nikki Haley's campaign said, she feels the same about this ruling as she did about the Colorado one, that she would beat Trump at the polls, not with the help of the courts. Vivek Ramaswamy posted a video on social media,

doubling down on his pledge to remove his name from any state ballot that did not also include Trump's. And here is how Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida responded in an interview last night. Well, the idea that one bureaucrat in an executive position can simply unilaterally disqualify someone from office, that turns on its head every notion of constitutional due process

that this country has always abided by for over 200 years. It opens up Pandora's box. So we've heard this, Matt Lewis, from just about everybody in the primary. Chris Christie said the same after Colorado. He said, look, I don't think Donald Trump should ever see the White House again, but we should beat him with votes and let the voters decide, not have secretaries of state or Supreme Courts one by one deciding this question. Where are you on this? Did Maine make the right call here? Well, look, here's my take. And I am a simple country pundit,

not even a country lawyer, just a country political writer. I think it's entirely plausible that Donald Trump did incite a riot and that this statute would prevent him, disqualify him from running. I just don't think it's patently obvious. Like, I think it is debatable. I think that the verbiage is vague enough that you could argue it either way. And I think smart people, people in good faith are arguing it either way. And so I think it's going to go, obviously, to the Supreme Court. And I think a tie goes to the runner, in this case, the person running for president. Like, I just can't imagine the Supreme Court keeping the guy who is now poised to be the Republican nominee off of ballots. I could be wrong. So in a way, I think it becomes political.

So Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, I would love to go back and see what a race would look like if they had actually attacked Donald Trump and run against him the whole time. At this point, I think that they are probably saying the politically astute thing, let's beat him at the ballot box. And if by some stroke of luck, the Supreme Court actually agrees with Maine and Colorado, then I'm sure they will quietly celebrate that. John Howman, as you know, talking to people around the Trump campaign, they think two things. Number one, that the Supreme Court will, in fact, rule in favor and say, we're not going to be the people to take a leading candidate off the ballot and make that decision instead of the voters. And they also believe that at least in a primary and with his base, this only helps further his argument that everyone's out to get him, that the deep state and secretaries of state and Supreme Courts at the state level and people in Washington don't want him to be president again.

They're trying to take your vote away from him. At least that's the argument from Trump. Yeah, it's a good argument from a political standpoint, Willie, so long as the United States Supreme Court, which Trump and his team boast about having as one of the great legacies of his first term, you know, the Trump court, we talk about it all the time. And one of the other many, many people have pointed to many ironies this morning. But one of the other great ironies here is that if this Supreme Court takes this case and again, I'm like I'm worse than a simple country lawyer or a simple country pundit. I, you know, I'm just sitting someone sitting here watching these guys on the Supreme Court, guys and men and women on the Supreme Court who do

things often that that we find confounding and befuddling. But in this case, it seems hard to imagine they're not going to take this case given the stakes. But if this court does follow originalism, does follow textualism, the kind of conservative court principles that have driven a lot of conservative jurisprudence on the court, there's a perfectly plausible case to make that this court will side with the Colorado court. And if it does, the great irony here will be that a court that liberals largely think of as being partisan and compromised by conservative ideology, if that court rules against Donald Trump, what will, Rev, what will the Trump campaign say then? This is a court that Donald Trump stands up every day out there. One of the main things he has going for him is he says, you know, this Supreme Court, I got these three justices on

here. This is my court now. It's now, yes, it's a conservative court. It's a MAGA court. If that court were to sort of decide that the Colorado and now the main secretaries of state have it right and the Constitution bars him from being on the ballot, it seems like a huge problem for the Trump campaign and one that is very difficult to rebut politically, given the nature of the court. Well, if that were to happen and we're speculating here this morning, so we're in the realm of speculation. So please indulge. I'm not a country pundit or someone watching. I'm just a boy preacher from Brooklyn. Yeah. Let me just speculate with you. If they were to do that, I would clearly think the Trump people would have a hard time responding.

But knowing Donald Trump, he'll come up with something ludicrous in response. I think the real issue that we're facing here is that if Donald Trump does not qualify, whether it's litigated all the way or not, to have incited an insurrection and on top of that has made it clear, no matter what the results are of this election, even if he's in it, he will not accept it. Then what is the Supreme Court ever going to set the bar of who is qualified to run or not. You not only have a person that has in clear day inspired an insurrection and participated. He's saying, I don't care what happens in November. I'm not going to accept the outcome unless I'm the winner. No one could be more qualified in

my judgment to be put off the ballot to protect the electoral process in this country. That's what the Supreme Court has to look at. What precedent are they setting? Susan Page, I would add in here that the state of California sort of quietly yesterday kept Donald Trump on the ballot. The secretary of state there was under some pressure from the lieutenant governor to remove Donald Trump for the ballot. California's secretary of state, at least, saying this is not a question for me to resolve. This is something for the court. So it is fascinating that this now, because of Colorado, because of the success from the point of view of Democrats there of getting Donald Trump off the ballot, it has now opened

this up across the country, state by state, and why many view it as so critical for the Supreme Court to act quickly to have a national standard here. Yeah, well, Willie, you know, the legal questions are surely complicated. I'll leave that. I'll leave that to our lawyer. I think the political issues are not so complicated. I think two people greatly benefited from Maine's decision. One is Nikki Haley, because we're not talking about what caused the Civil War as our first item this morning. And the second is Donald Trump. I think this is clearly, to my mind, to his political advantage. It forces his rivals two weeks before the Iowa caucuses start the whole primary process to come to his defense.

And it gives him another talking point with his general argument that the establishment, political establishment, is against him. But, Chuck, let me, Chuck Rosenberg, since you're the lawyer, perhaps the sole lawyer in this panel, let me ask you a question about the political effect on the Supreme Court. Of course, the court will decide based on the law and the Constitution, but it's not like they live on Mars. They're aware of the political implications of the decision. How big a role do you think that is likely to play in their consideration of this issue of ballot access? Yeah, it's a great question, Susan. You're right.

They don't live on Mars, although if you read some of their opinions, it sometimes seems that way. But here, they would very directly, if they sustain what the Colorado Supreme Court did, be in some ways deciding a presidential election. That happened in 2000 when the Supreme Court halted the recount in Florida, and Mr. Bush won the presidency over Mr. Gore. And the fallout from that politically, as you well know, Susan, was tremendous. Whatever side you were on, it was clear that the Supreme Court took an action, made a decision that determined the outcome of an election. That could very well happen here again. Look, I think, and maybe this is the perfect world in which we do not live in,

that the Supreme Court has to put the politics aside. There is a constitution. It has a text. There is an amendment. There's a section three to that amendment. It's the disqualification provision. It either applies or it doesn't apply. And while the legal questions are hard, that's what they get paid to do, to render hard legal judgments. And so at the end of the day, they're going to make a determination. I have an opinion, but it doesn't matter. And their determination may very well affect the outcome of this election. It's happened before and it was tumultuous. It could happen again. Chuck, I think one of the things people, the next question a lot of people are asking, particularly supporters of Joe Biden, Democrats are, what would this mean for the

general election? Because what we're talking about right now, to be clear, is just the primary Republican primary ballots in Colorado and Maine and across the country. Is there a chance, depending on what the Supreme Court rules, that Donald Trump could miss the general election ballot in some of these states? Yeah, it's a great question, Willie. And so it depends in part on how broadly or how narrowly the Supreme Court rules. Hypothetically, the Supreme Court could simply overturn the Colorado decision, but not give guidance to all the other states about whether or not the 14th Amendment applies and under what circumstances it would apply. Or they could rule broadly that the provision requires an act of Congress to execute it. So it really turns on how broadly or how narrowly the Supreme Court rules.

And to your point, right now we're talking about access to the primary ballot. Some states have already said that the president, the former president, Mr. Trump, can appear on a primary ballot. But whether or not he can appear on the general election ballot is a separate question for another day. Frankly, we need all of these questions answered by the Supreme Court, and we need them answered quickly, and we need them answered at one time. And so we're asking a lot of the Supreme Court. But again, that's their job. That's what they get paid to do. Now, this is a historic decision coming from the Supreme Court, which, as you say, could could change the way this election goes, could change history, even as we get more evidence by the day of the ways in which Donald Trump and his campaign sought to overturn

the 2020 election. Chuck Rosenberg, indeed the sole lawyer on this panel. We're grateful for you this morning and always appreciate it. Coming up next year, Nikki Haley is trying to clarify her comments after omitting slavery from her explanation of the Civil War. We'll show you that and how her 2024 presidential rivals are responding. And Matt Lewis will explain why he says Nikki Haley's slavery gaffe shows how scared she is of MAGA Republicans. We're back in one minute. Presidential candidate Nikki Haley spent the day yesterday trying to clarify comments she made after facing widespread backlash for not including slavery as a driving force behind the Civil War. Here's the exchange she had with a voter in New Hampshire back on Wednesday.

What was the cause of the United States Civil War? Well, don't come with an easy question or anything. I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn't do. What do you think the cause of the Civil War was? I'm sorry? I'm not running for president. I want to listen to yours.

That's a good thing. On the cause of the Civil War. I mean, I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are. And I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people. Government doesn't need to tell you how to live your life. They don't need to tell you what you can and can't do. They don't need to be a part of your life. They need to make sure that you have freedom.

We need to have capitalism. We need to have economic freedom. We need to make sure that we do all things so that individuals have the liberties so that they can have freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way. Thank you. freedom of religion, freedom to do or be anything they want to be without government getting in the way. Thank you. And in the year 2023, it's astonishing to me that you answer that question without mentioning the word slavery. What do you want me to say about slavery? No, you've answered my question. Thank you. Next question.

What do you want me to say about slavery? So yesterday, Governor Haley spent a lot of time trying to clarify what she said. Yes, I know it was about slavery. I'm from the South. Of course, you know, it's about slavery. Of course, the Civil War was about slavery. We know that. That's unquestioned, always the case. We know the Civil War was about slavery.

But it was also more than that. It was about the freedoms of every individual. If it required clarification of saying, yes, the Civil War was about slavery, I'm happy to do that. Two of Haley's Republican primary rivals, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie had some thoughts on this yesterday. You know, I noticed that Nikki Haley has had some problems with some basic American history. She's asked a very simple question and responded with just a really incomprehensible word salad about this and that. And, you know, what she asked the voter, what do you want her to say about this or that and then now is taking different positions and this and so I just think that this shows this is not a candidate that's

ready for primetime if someone asked me what the cause of the Civil War was. It's easy. It's slavery. And by the way, you don't have to take my word for that. When South Carolina passed its resolution to secede from the Union, the first reason they gave was the other state's resistance to allowing slavery to spread spread to the Western territories. So even if you're from the South, so you know these things, you should also know why your own home state seceded from the union. So, Rev, Nikki Haley spent the entire day yesterday trying to deal with her comment a couple of days ago in New Hampshire. What we didn't hear there at the beginning of the day yesterday, she said it was a Democratic plant

that somebody from the Biden campaign or somewhere had pushed, pushed a plant into the audience to ask that question. Well, that's a town hall. You're asked questions from all kinds of people, all different ways. And let's let's stipulate that shouldn't be a real hard one to answer. And there was something about the way she then sort of asked almost mockingly, well, what do you want me to say about slavery? Maybe that was an abomination and a blight in our history whose impacts are still being felt today. There are a lot of easy answers to that question. But what does it say first about Nikki Haley, but also about the Republican Party today that she felt compelled to sort of pull back, thinking about who she might offend if she criticized slavery, for God's sakes? Well, if there was someone there that helped the Democrats, it was Nikki Haley. It wasn't whoever was in the audience.

Because if you look at her answer, she talked to two things that was most troubling was one, she said freedom to do what they want to do. Well, in the days of the Civil War, that's what they were arguing. We have the freedom to maintain our slaves. They're our property. So what do you mean freedom to do what they want to do? The Civil War was to say you're not free to own other people and to enslave people. And secondly, when she say, what do you want me to say about slavery? Like even then she is, as you asked the question, playing to a crowd that she either is with that crowd or she is afraid of that crowd. Either one, it makes her unfit to be president because she's saying, I'll ask you what you want me to say about slavery. I'm not going to take an affirmative here saying, oh, wow, I should have said slavery was a sinner.

So when given the opportunity to correct herself, she threw it back to the questioner because she's either, again, afraid of the MAGA crowd or that's her feeling. Let's not forget, we had to march many times on her as governor of South Carolina to even take the Confederate flag down. And she didn't do that until nine people were massacred in a South Carolina church. But, John, you and I spent time in South Carolina and the whole atmosphere in the last couple of weeks around this campaign has kind of evaded the fact that there's been a war on D.I. and there's been affirmative action. And now this has brought race right back central in the campaign for the Republican nomination. I find it ironic Ron DeSantis, who's banning black history in Florida,

is raising a question about Nikki Haley and her not answering a simple question. Do you think this, though, politically helps or hurt any of the Republican candidates if race becomes the issue going into this New Year's weekend? Well, so much to say here, and one thing to say is the most amusing way to watch Ron DeSantis standing in the dark, stammering and stuttering and saying that Nikki Haley is not ready for primetime. I would say or suggest that Ron DeSantis, even in attacking Nikki Haley, demonstrates yet again that he, in fact, is not ready or even lit for primetime. I think the other the one thing that just dispense with it does not matter who was in the audience or why they asked the question.

It's like attacking the motives of the questioner is totally irrelevant. It's, it's an easy question. She should have been able to dispense with it quickly. It would have caused her actually no damage with, even with the MAGA right for simply to say, you know, of course the slavery was the cause of the civil war. Next question. No one would have even paid attention to it. We would have moved on. And I think it speaks to something that Chris Christie has been saying most forcefully on the campaign trail. And I'm not saying this to puff Christie up, but he's been pointing out over and over again that Nikki Haley has been, in fact, very timid in the way that she's gone after Donald Trump. She is the hot Republican rival to Trump right now. The one person people say has a chance

to maybe beat Donald Trump in New Hampshire and then be a viable alternative to him. But this shows something that has come up again and again with Nikki Haley is that she is timid politically. She doesn't have her footing. She has had a hard time navigating this position. How does she kind of keep enough of the MAGA part of the party on her side? She doesn't want to offend them. It's clear that she was worried about that here, even when I think she was wrong. I think she could easily, as I said, dispense with this quickly. And I'll ask Matt Lewis whether he agrees with that in a second. But this is the core weakness of Nikki Haley. She is on paper and in a lot of this very prospective polling, the strongest general election candidate Republicans have against

Joe Biden. But she does not have Matt Lewis. She does not ever exhibited throughout her whole career. She's exhibited a lot of talent, a lot of promise, a lot within the Republican Party as a new kind of Republican. But she's also exhibited often in key moments, a kind of lack of political guts that you can trace over the whole biography that she's had, the way she started out, how she moved, becoming kind of a Trump supplicant, then sort of a Trump critic, then a Trump supplicant again, and now trying to weave between those things. That's what's got her in trouble here, is that she doesn't really know who she is or where she stands in the modern Republican Party. What say you? I think that's exactly right. And look, a lot of us kind of never Trump conservatives were

skeptical of Nikki Haley because she has wavered over important moral questions, including Donald Trump. But I would say once the debates began, John, the very first Republican primary debate, Nikki Haley came out swinging against Donald Trump, attacked him for raising the debt. And I think at that point, I thought, wow, OK, Nikki Haley finally maybe has figured out what her brand is, who she is, what her message is going to be, and more importantly, who her constituents are. And she has done a pretty good job within the context of the last few months of the campaign of actually being that person. And if you think about what Nikki Haley needs to do, we are now two weeks away from the Iowa caucuses, three weeks away from New Hampshire.

Nikki Haley doesn't need to be worried about. By the way, I think this is the fundamental mistake that Nikki Haley and Ron DeSantis both have made. They think they can win MAGA voters. They can't. If you love Donald Trump, you are not going to vote for somebody else, certainly not Nikki Haley. So Nikki Haley shouldn't even be worried about appeasing someone who wants to relitigate the Civil War. Those are not Nikki Haley voters. Nikki Haley was in Berlin, New Hampshire, running to try to win New Hampshire, not Alabama, not Mississippi, New Hampshire. Her core constituency are not Trump voters. She needs to win independents in New Hampshire and non-Trump center-right voters in New Hampshire.

That should be her top priority. And what does she need to do for that to happen? She needs to get Chris Christie to drop out of the race. I think it is much less likely today that Chris Christie will drop out of the race than it was two or three days ago. So I think this was a big, potentially a big deal. Again, with the caveat that news cycles move quickly. This, as John was saying, this reinforces a negative stereotype about Nikki Haley not being ready for primetime. And it speaks not just to her bad political strategy.

I think it speaks a little bit to character as well. You know, Susan, we heard from Chris Christie, a point others have made, too, that Nikki Haley looks like somebody who wants to be secretary of state or whatever the job is in a Trump administration. So tiptoeing very lightly around Donald Trump when ostensibly she's trying to defeat him. But what kind of a statement do you think that moment was, again, about the Republican Party today that someone who knows better, who knows why the Civil War was waged over slavery, had to stop and pull back from saying that out loud? Yeah, you know, candidates make gaffes that we all in fact, we all make gaffes.

I myself have made any number of gaffes. And the reason that they matter or don't matter is if they go to something more fundamental about your character or about questions about where you stand or who you are. And I do think that is the big problem here for Nikki Haley. Her brand has been negotiating, threading the needle, threading the needle on criticism of Trump, threading the needle on handling the issue of abortion. But as with abortion, race is an to say is slavery caused the Civil War is a I mean, that's a that is a pretty fundamental question on which there is not really much room to maneuver. So I do think this is bad for Nikki Haley. And as you say, it's spotlight one of the issues that is going to be most perilous for the Republican Party. Maybe not so much in the primaries, but in a general election for sure. So, Matt Lewis, before we let you go this morning, this is our last show of the year.

Let's turn the page and look ahead to 2024. Just give us, from your point of view, the snapshot of this race. Obviously, Donald Trump is up 20, 30 points, depending on the poll, depending on the state you look at. Nikki Haley, as you said, has closed some ground in the state of New Hampshire. But is there any reason to believe at this moment that anyone other than Donald Trump will be the nominee? No, you have to really squint and imagine. And I've said that the only way that you could even conceive, you know, barring Donald Trump being kicked off ballots. Right. And that could happen. That's not an implausible idea. But assuming that the race goes forward with the candidates that we have,

the only sort of conceivable way that Donald Trump isn't the nominee, I think, is if someone else wins Iowa, Nikki Haley wins New Hampshire. She's able to parlay the New Hampshire victory into South Carolina and all the stars would have to align. So it was always going to be highly unlikely, but within the realm of possibility. I think that this gaffe, and again, there's a danger, of course, being a country pundit of overplaying any one news story or any one gaffe. But I actually do think this one is very damaging because it comes at just the moment when Nikki Haley needed to be consolidating support, galvanizing independents and non-Trump Republicans behind her and getting Chris Christie to drop out of the race. I think that's now a little bit less likely. And so are you saying there's a chance? Yeah, there's a chance. But I think there's less a

chance today, actually, than there was a few days ago. Well, the good news is just over two weeks from now, the voters get to have their voice. The speculation ends and we'll learn a lot more about where this race is. The Daily Beast's Matt Lewis. Matt, thanks so much and Happy New Year to you. Coming up, we're taking a look at the stories that defined 2023. Straight ahead on Morning Show. And almost a year now since Kevin McCarthy waited 15 long votes to finally land his dream job as Speaker of the House. As we close 2023, McCarthy is out of Congress altogether. Symbolic of a wild year in news. NBC's Joe Fryer has a recap. How do you define a year like 2023?

Was it the year of the strike? No faith! No faith! Or year of the swift? Did it offer a glimpse of the future with the rapid rise of artificial intelligence and the weight loss drug Ozempic or a blast from the past? Hi Barbie! Hi Ken! With the pink-coated resurgence of a classic doll. Was it the year a speaker was muted? Or simply a political prelude to 2024 and a campaign trail lined with pit stops in the courtroom? 2023 can be defined in so many ways.

To much of the world, it was a year headlined by war in the Middle East. Major breaking news tonight. War erupts in the Middle East. A stunning news tonight, war erupts in the Middle East, a stunning surprise attack by Palestinian militants. It started on October 7th, the day many now call Israel's 9-11. The surprise attack, Hamas militants stormed into Israeli towns and military bases. They were just all around me and they were going tree by tree and shooting. Israel's foreign ministry says about 1,200 people were killed,

more than 200 taken hostage, including young children. It's something that no parent can ever imagine, to see a child in the hands of terrorists. Israel's response was swift and relentless, but with thousands of Palestinians killed in a humanitarian crisis growing, Israel faced mounting criticism. Those tensions seen on American streets and college campuses, with reports of both anti-Semitism and Islamophobia spiking across the country. As the Middle East war raged on, the one between Ukraine and Russia trudged on. Ukraine's long-awaited counteroffensive stalling and American support waning. Just one of many issues highlighting America's stark divisions.

In January, it took 15 ballots. A speaker has not been elected. Has not been elected. Has not been elected. To elect Kevin McCarthy as speaker, a position he held just nine months before he was ousted. I fought for what I believe in, and I believe in this country of America.

Like a reality TV show, new contenders came and went. We're a ship that doesn't have a rudder right now. Before Louisiana's Mike Johnson got the gavel. The House will be in order. An election followed by an expulsion. Scandal-plagued Representative George Santos became only the third congressman since the Civil War to be ejected from the chamber. But no controversy, it seemed, could shake the GOP support for former President Donald Trump, who in April made history, too.

It was a legal spectacle never seen before in America, the former president being fingerprinted and being charged with 34 felonies. Mr. Trump's appearance in a New York courtroom created a media circus that was repeated with indictments in Florida, then Washington, then Georgia, where he mugged for this shot. We did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. He is pleaded not guilty to all charges while preserving a vast lead for his party's presidential nomination, skipping debates. Donald Trump's a lot different guy than he was in 2016. He owes it to you to be on this stage, leaving the rest of the field to squabble for seconds. Do you want a leader from a different generation is going to put this country first? Or do you want Dick Cheney and three inch heels? They're five inchinch heels, and I don't wear

them unless you can run in them. On the Democratic side, President Joe Biden announced his re-election bid in April. Are you saying that you would be taking part in our upcoming election? I plan on running out. While inflation dropped in 2023, so did the president's approval rating, hitting an all-time low. Now voters are bracing for a potential 2020 rematch that's leaving many disenchanted. We are the future! We are the future! A wave of labor discontent swept the country in 2023, pushing unions to the picket line. The United Auto Workers went on strike against Detroit's Big Three, eventually winning record pay hikes. Well, Hollywood was effectively shut down with writers striking, then actors before reaching deals with studios.

This is the best day ever. It is the best day ever. It is the best day ever. Amid the strikes, the box office got a boost from an unlikely couple, Barbie and Oppenheimer. We're in a race against the Nazis. Both movies opened at the same time, inspiring a cultural phenomenon dubbed Barbenheimer. Like the double features are legendary. Now the films are hoping to follow in the footsteps of this year's big Oscar winner, Everything Everywhere All at Once. Sci-fi flick won Best Picture,

and its star Michelle Yeoh became the first Asian woman to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. There were firsts that were far less desirable in 2023. The United Nations declared in late November this was virtually certain to be the planet's warmest year on record. A year with the most billion-dollar disasters in U.S. history, including Hurricane Adalia. Some wind gusts are starting to pound us. We actually just lost power here right now.

And a firestorm that ravaged the island of Maui. Local people have lost everything. They've lost their house, they've lost their animals, and it's devastating. It was the deadliest U.S. wildfire in more than a century, with more than 100 people killed. Gun violence plagued the country again, with cities like Lewiston, Maine, joining the long list of communities linked to mass shootings. Why would he do this? Like why in Lewiston, Maine? 18 people were killed there while six were gunned down at a private elementary school in Nashville,

three of them children. How are our children still dying and why are we failing them? Tragedy also reached the depths of the ocean. Let's get right to the story. The whole world is watching the urgent search for a missing submersible. In June, Ocean Gate's Titan submersible vanished while on a sightseeing tour of the Titanic's wreckage. A desperate search offered hope the five people on board could be rescued, but crews eventually determined a catastrophic implosion killed everyone on the ill-fated voyage. In the sky, the U.S. military shot down a Chinese spy balloon flying over American airspace, heightening tensions between the two countries. The crisis at the border widened in 2023, with places like New York and Chicago running out of room to house migrants who were bussed to their cities.

Indict! Convict! Send those kiddo cops to jail! In January, protesters took to the streets following the death of Tyree Nichols. I'm just trying to go home! The 29-year-old black man was kicked and punched during a traffic stop in Memphis, dying three days later. Five police officers were fired and charged with state and federal crimes. One has since pleaded guilty, the others not guilty. In the courts, the Supreme Court handed down a historic decision in June, gutting affirmative action, effectively ending race-conscious college admissions.

This is a really disappointing decision. Perhaps no court case generated more attention in 2023 than the trial of Alec Murdoch, the disgraced attorney from South Carolina accused of killing his wife and son, took the stand in his own defense. Did you take this gun or any gun like it and blow your son's brains out. No, I did not. The jury deliberated only three hours before finding Murdoch guilty. King Charles III was officially coronated in May.

Prince Harry was there for the event. His wife Meghan Markle was notably not in a year when the royal rift between the couple and palace spared no one. Harry's memoir... We want privacy! We want privacy! ...and a South Park parody. Thanks for having us on the show! For many, the year 2023 was the one we lost a friend. Hi, it's Chandler. Actor Matthew Perry died in October,

the age of 54. The music world said goodbye to an icon, Tina Turner, the mayor of Margaritaville, Jimmy Buffett. Tributes also poured in for trailblazing women in politics, Senator Dianne Feinstein, the first female Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and former First Lady Rosalynn Carter. It was a huge year for women in entertainment. Stadiums were ruled by Queen Bee, Beyonce, who also won a 30-second Grammy. And by Taylor Swift, who became a billionaire, the Times Person of the Year. The artist even crossed over into football, showing up at Chiefs games to support her new beau, Travis Kelsey.

Speaking of sports, Simone Biles returned to gymnastics, vaulting to her sixth world title, a comeback on the mat, matched by one on the field. When Buffalo Bills safety DeMar Hamlin suffered a cardiac arrest and medics restarted his heart. This event was life-changing, but it's not the end of my story. Hamlin didn't just recover, he returned to the game he loves, the symbol of resilience and strength. That just might be the best way to define 2023. Joe Fryer with a look back at a very busy 12 months. And ahead, we'll be joined by NBC News legal analyst Danny Savalos for a look at the year's big courtroom battles from those Murdoch murders to Gwyneth Paltrow's skiing trial. Morning Joe's coming right back.

Cooper. So he's in cities tonight. More is now out marquise goodwin comes in as the wide out to look for and flacco almost gets sacked there he goes throws on the run caught inside the 30 inside the 20 goes their own ford still on his feet. Ford looking for the end zone. Dix there. Woo-hoo. Al Michaels on the call as Cleveland Browns quarterback Joe Flacco showing some escapability. Get the pass off to Jerome Ford, who broke at least three tackles on the way to the end zone. A 50-yard touchdown reception in the second quarter for the Browns.

That was Flacco's second touchdown pass to Ford in the first half. His third of the night, as the Browns clinched just their second playoff berth since 2002 with a 37-20 win over the New York Jets. Joe Flacco is going to be 39 years old in a couple of weeks, stepping in as the backup, doing an incredible job. Cleveland is in the playoffs. Good for those fans there. Over in the NBA, a historic loss last night for the Detroit Pistons and a blown lead. The Pistons were up 21 points on the road in Boston, the team with the best record in the NBA. The Celtics, though, rallied from six down in the final minutes. They forced overtime.

Boston recovered in OT to win 128-122, sending Detroit to its 28th consecutive loss, now tied for the longest losing streak in league history. And another big prize in college football. We're starting to enjoy these. We showed you the mayonnaise yesterday at the Duke's Mayo Bowl. Well, last night, Pop-Tarts. Kansas State beat North Carolina State in last night, Pop-Tarts. Kansas State beat North Carolina

State in last night's Pop-Tarts Bowl. Yeah, the bowl sponsored by Pop-Tarts. And you guessed it, if you win that thing, you get a giant edible version of the breakfast favorite. That was preceded by the Pop-Tart mascot jumping down into a giant toaster and then coming out the other end right there for the team to enjoy. Congratulations to K-State.