Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/8/23

Episode Date: December 8, 2023

Israel intensifies attacks in southern Gaza

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, December 8th. Glad it's Friday, but we do have a lot to get to this morning, Willie. President Biden is putting more pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to allow additional aid into Gaza. We'll have more details on the first conversation between the two leaders in 11 days and a lot of questions. Meanwhile, the president's son is facing several new tax charges. We'll break down the allegations against Hunter Biden, plus a recap of Donald Trump's day in court for his civil tax fraud trial. He was there as the former president is now expected to be the last person to take the stand. That should happen next week. Also ahead,

a rare ruling in a post-Roe world. A judge in Texas granted an emergency request for an abortion, but the state's attorney general is threatening to prosecute any doctor who treats the woman. We'll talk about that with us. We have the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle is up early for us. Willie? Let's begin, Mika, in Israel as the country continues its offensive into Gaza, pushing further into the southern part of the territory on a mission to destroy Hamas. Yesterday, IDF officials announced they struck dozens of terrorist targets in the area, including a tunnel shaft. Now the United States is urging Israel to do more to protect civilians and to allow aid into Gaza. NBC News chief foreign

correspondent Richard Engel reports. Two months after Hamas killed more than 1,200 people in Israel, the Israeli military is escalating its campaign to overthrow the group in Gaza. But for the 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza who can't leave, the war isn't the only danger. Hunger is spreading. Massive crowds gathered outside a food distribution center. The UN is warning of a humanitarian catastrophe. Just across the border from Gaza, we visited the kibbutz Neroz, where on October 7th, Hamas fighters killed and kidnapped everyone they could find. Driven by her neighbor, Irina Tati returned. The 73-year-old was held hostage by Hamas in Gaza and freed last week.

She was overwhelmed by the damage. Her door is still smashed in. Hamas dragged her away from here. Irina came back to collect a prayer book for Hanukkah. Her neighbor, Rita Lifshitz, tells her Hamas is still firing rockets and she should go to the safe room if there's incoming. Irina badly wanted to see if her cat was still alive. She thought about the cat while a hostage and when she found him, she smiled.

What's it like for you to come back here after all that you've been through? Here I feel better, but not very well. I want the war to stop, she says. She did not want to talk about what happened to her while she was a captive. And Irina's 28-year-old grandson is still being held in Gaza. Hanukkah is a holiday of light.

People close to us in Gaza must return home, she says. Hamas went house to house here for eight agonizing hours before any rescue came. Residents locked themselves in their safe rooms. So Hamas set houses on fire to smoke them out. Rita says many here are furious at Hamas and the government. How did it take eight hours to have a response? Why it took eight hours? Because they didn't care.

6.30 they came in here. Rita took me to the local post office, where the boxes have been marked with stickers. This is one of the most disturbing images that I've seen in a long time. This post office, and on the boxes, red killed, blue returned, black dead. Yes. And to be honest, it's not a lot of blue. Next door is the cafeteria where the tables are set for those who can't come, the dead and missing. One out of every four people who lived on this kibbutz was either murdered or taken hostage. Now is the first holiday of the kibbutz that is not happening, and we need to bring them back now. Richard Engel joins us now live from Jerusalem.

Richard, just incredible reporting there. We heard in your piece the frustration with the Israeli military response, the time that it took on October 7th to reach those kibbutzes, we were talking about that a bit yesterday on this show. What do officials say about that long span of time before they can get there? They are saying absolutely nothing. They are postponing that question until after the war is over. And many Israelis initially were accepting that.

And they said, fine, this is a time of national crisis, national emergency. The investigations will be held later. But as time passes, they are demanding answers. How could it possibly have taken, in just that kibbutz, eight hours? Other places it was longer. We spoke to people who were hiding by the side of the road for 10, 12, 14 hours, some cases 24 hours. This is a country with an active military, active police force, has lots of planes, lots of helicopters. How could it possibly, and it's a small country, how could they have missed what looked like an army crossing the border?

The Hamas militants crossed in Israel, most of them in a militarized uniform, in green, many of them in vehicles, on motorcycles. They then were setting fires, rampaging. The Israelis throughout were calling each other, communicating. I've spoken to families of survivors who managed themselves to send friends and relatives to go rescue people before there was any kind of military or police response. So there was a not just an intelligence failure to do not anticipate this attack, but then a complete failure in responding to it. And the official line is, yes, there was a failure. We will deal with that at a later time and there will be a full and thorough investigation. Yeah, that's all we've heard, too, is this not the time or the place to talk about that. That day will come for now. We have to root out Hamas. But obviously, some serious questions posed by the people who suffered the most, like the woman you spoke to there, by the way, in our next hour,

we'll speak to a spokeswoman for Prime Minister Netanyahu and put that question to her as well. Richard, so Israel also now saying it has detained hundreds of people suspected of terrorism. What more can you tell us about that? So there is a considerable amount of confusion about these images that many people are finding disturbing. They were broadcast on Israeli television extensively yesterday, and they show at least 100 Palestinians on the ground, stripped down to their underwear, holding their head in their hands, guarded by Israeli troops. And the Israeli military spokesman said that they were not officially released by the military. He didn't deny them, but he said he didn't know if or when the Israeli soldiers may have taken them.

But he said that the main mission is to confront Hamas and go after Hamas suspects wherever they are. The Israeli media said that they were men who were arrested in Gaza and that some of them included Hamas suspects who turned themselves in. Palestinians are viewing this very differently. They say that this was an attempt by Israeli forces to humiliate Palestinians and break the will of the people in Gaza. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel reporting again this morning for us from Israel. Richard, thanks so much. So, Jonathan Lemire, we know that yesterday President Biden spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Obviously, again, public support for the mission to destroy Hamas. But again, emphasizing perhaps even a little more strongly this time the need to avoid civilian casualties and to allow routes for aid to get in. Yeah, this is probably the sharpest criticism the White House has delivered yet to what the Israeli military is doing in Gaza. The president expressed that in his phone call with the prime minister, but also we heard publicly from Secretary of State Blinken, who held a news conference yesterday and was very frank. And he said, when I visited the region last and talked about the limit to the effort to limit civilian casualties, what I said then and what is actually happening, a gap remains in between, meaning that Israel has very much not done what it promised to do to to not take out these civilians. These are obviously disturbing

images. Yesterday, we don't know much about them just yet with these Palestinians being held. But we do know that the civilian casualty total continues to rise. It remains very high. And to this point, Mike, I mean, the White House is still very clear and that's not going to change. They're supporting Israel. But there seems to be a real growing rift with how this war is being conducted. And we know privately the president has some real misgivings about the Israeli prime minister. I think he probably privately has some real misgivings about Bibi Netanyahu. Yes, indeed. It's a highly controversial thing that's going on in Israel right now. You have the most congested urban situation in the world in Gaza, and you have ongoing combat each and every hour of each and every day. You have a nation, Israel, a small nation, as Richard just pointed out in the report,

consumed by the fate of the hostages and the plight of answering the question of why the Israeli army, what happened to the Israeli army. Those two things you keep hearing, you've've heard it are consuming the state of Israel. And there's no answers yet. And Bibi Netanyahu is sitting on a very perilous position for himself. Willie, this is a tough situation all around. Yeah. And Mika, Secretary of State Blinken also held a joint news conference with David Cameron, the foreign minister of the UK yesterday. He was very explicit in saying there is a gap right now in what Israel says it is doing to protect civilians and what's actually happening on the ground. He said that, of course, after pledging America's support for Israel.

But the criticism has become more public. There's a gap in trust. a real challenge for the administration and for Joe Biden, President Joe Biden, when he's dealing with a counterpart that you're not necessarily sure you're getting the full story. Think of it this way. This response time question is not just a little follow up. We'll leave for later. This is a disturbing reality. Eight hours. Israel is the size of what? Massachusetts, maybe? Benjamin Netanyahu was very quick to declare war. He could assess the situation and realize that Israel was at war. by the way, for a year, for months, uh, disregarding a female analyst who said, this is coming. There's a 40 page document spelling it out. And I want to spell this out even more specifically for you. Think about it. This is a small country. These gate crossings are militarized. You're going to tell me they don't have cameras. You're going to tell me they don't have panic

buttons. You're going to tell me they have absolutely no communication with the outside world, but they could, there was no warning of this. There was no sign of this. There was no way to know that we immediately need to respond and get there within minutes? This is a problematic question. And it's it's fair to ask. It should be asked now. And quite frankly, how does the administration go forward without knowing the answer? We're suffering the repercussions here in the United States. We're learning a lot about attitudes and the response to this complex situation. But that question needs to be answered. Meanwhile, a 28-year-old man is facing federal charges for firing a gun outside a synagogue in upstate New York hours before the start of Hanukkah yesterday afternoon.

The man allegedly fired two shots from a shotgun outside the temple in Albany. Roughly two dozen children were at a preschool inside the building at the time. No one was hurt. Police say the man was caught in the temple's parking lot. As he was being taken into custody, the man said, free Palestine, according to police. The episode is being investigated as a hate crime with the FBI. In response to the incident, New York Governor Kathy Hochul directed for the country and the world. Joining us now is one of the contributors to the issue, staff writer at The Atlantic, Mark Leibovich. And Mark, your piece is entitled This Is Who We Are. And in it, you write in part, quote, in the last spring of the Obama administration,

Michelle Obama was delivering her final commencement address as first lady at City College of New York. Obama couldn't help but lob some barely cloaked denunciations of Trump's wrecking ball presidential campaign, the one that would soon be ratified with a Republican nomination. That is not who we are. The first lady assured the graduates that is not what this country stands for. No, the promise did not age well. Not that November and not since the axiom prompts the question, who is we anyway? Because it sure seems a lot of this. We keeps voting for Trump. You can dismiss Trump voters all you want, but give them this. They're every bit as American as any idealized vision of the place. If Trump wins in 2024, his detractors will have to reckon

once again with the voters who got us here to reconcile what it means to share a country with so many citizens who keep watching Trump spiral deeper into his moral void and still conclude, yes, that's our guy. And Mark, I can't agree with you more. I think that especially applies to the evangelical community and people who call themselves Christians, who spend a lot of time judging other people, but can't seem to reconcile these two realities. I would also add that I do think a lot of people are somewhat victims of sort of a cult, really. There's no doubt, I mean, the the powers of persuasion in the media and given the sound machines that the right and the Trump world has at their disposal,

you know, online, you know, whether it's Fox, whether it's any number of outlets, I mean, they they have a very powerful messaging system. And it starts with the guy who basically has been in our faces for eight years or seven years. And, you know, and it could be more. So, I mean, I think what I wanted to look at here and, you know, the issue of the Atlantic looks very, you know, very sort of issue by issue granularly at what this administration, if it happens again, could look like. What I wanted to do is step back and sort of evaluate what it means to actually live in a country where this keeps happening, where this is a critical electoral mass. It might not be a popular mass, but it's an electoral college

majority where just a lot of people think this is fine. And obviously, I don't think one of the, we have a lot of information about Donald Trump. I mean, his character is not a mystery at this point. The fact is, a lot of people like it. And that's the country we live in right now. Mark, good morning, as usual. You're on. I think one of the central questions of our time, which is if you could say in 2016, people took a flyer on Donald Trump. Maybe they didn't like Hillary Clinton. They thought he was going to be that CEO they'd seen on TV and shake things up and change the way Washington gets done and do a bunch of deals with Democrats and make everything work. But now, as you write in the piece, there's a large body of evidence of how he conducts himself as president, how he conducts himself outside the presidency of attempting to overturn the government. He got 74 million votes in 2020. And it's not just Donald Trump, as you write.

It's all the people like Marjorie Taylor Greene. And the list goes on and on. They're getting a lot of support. And a lot of people see what they do. They see how they conduct themselves. They see how they behave in public. And they say, yeah, I want more of that. And it's a question I don't think a lot of people have reckoned with yet that it's not some anomaly. Maybe it is who we are. Yeah, it's definitely not an anomaly. I mean, it's not, again, it's probably not a majority electorally. But the powers of denial, though, among people who don't support Donald Trump are extremely strong. I mean, I think there were, like you said, I mean, there were people who sort of assumed at the end of 2016 that, OK, this is a one off. This is a statement. You know, Donald Trump was sort of teaching a lesson

to the political establishment, to the media, to people who have been sort of entrenched in this in this stuff for a long time that we want something new. We want to break this. And, you know, then it was broken. And then, you know, Donald Trump did not exactly go out in a blaze of glory. I mean, he did not, you know, land his presidency and even his post-presidency do a lot of things that would enhance his popularity. And yet still to this day, he's probably a jump ball possibility of being elected again. And again, people know exactly who he is. I mean, again, it's not like he's being, you know, the con, you know, he's very in some ways fundamentally a con man, as he's been pointed out many times. But again, it's all very upfront. So, yeah, I mean, this is our country right now, at least a good portion of them. And

that's sort of why I started with the that's who that's not who we are question that we've been sort of scolded with or at least maybe comforted with for a long time now. You know, Mark, one of the most interesting aspects of the whole Trump phenomenon is, and you just pointed it out, he's not hiding. He's not hiding anything at all. And you live in a town and we all live in certain areas and know certain people, a lot of people who come up to you and eventually the conversation might get around to Trump. And the question they pose to you is, you know, who are these people who vote for him? And when you tell them the truth of it, when you say they're your neighbors, they're people you work alongside with. And I've come to the conclusion

over the past several years that maybe we focus in the media, focus too much on Trump and not enough on the legitimate human beings. And there are many people who vote for Trump who are absolutely otherwise normal. And they lead normal lives and have normal families. What's their beef? Who are they? We don't focus enough on those people. And there are a lot of them.

There are. And I think one thing I would point out is that, yes, there are neighbors sort of figuratively in some ways. But when you live in sort of blue bubbles or red bubbles, I mean, the fact is a lot of your neighbors are going to vote exactly like you, I mean, sort of physically. I mean, there are very few swing districts, swing neighborhoods left in this country for a lot of reasons. And that extends to the online world that extends to the media sort of silos that we choose for ourselves. So the fact is, it's entirely possible, you know, in a lot of in a lot

of, say, big cities on the coasts or if you're, you know, in a rural area to sort of go long stretches of time without ever dealing with someone on the other side. And I think one of the the sort of realities of the Trump years is that it used to be a lot more possible for kind of garden variety Republicans and garden variety Democrats and so much as there was such a thing to sort of interact. And it's like, OK, we're on both sides. They're on shirts. Or we, you know, we have different views, but we can get along. They're shirts and skins. But I think at this point, a lot of Trump supporters and a lot of non-Trump supporters make some pretty, you know,

kind of black and white value judgments on the other side and just don't want to deal with each other. So not only do you not have to deal with people so much on the other side on a day-to-day basis, but you really recoil at the idea of it. And if you look at surveys about how people view, you know, finding a spouse or something, it's almost quite often, I mean, the strongest indicator is, or the strongest sort of prejudice people have is I'm not going to, you know, sanction anyone on the other side, you know, going off with my kids. So that's, I think, a new reality we're in in the Trump world. The piece is online now for the new special issue of The Atlantic. Staff writer Mark Leibovich, as always, thank you so much for coming on the show this morning. And still ahead on Morning

Joe, Hunter Biden is indicted by a California grand jury. We'll go over the new legal trouble faced by the president's son. Plus, the latest out of Donald Trump's civil fraud trial after the former president voluntarily spent his day in court while complaining about being forced off the campaign trail when he didn't have to be there. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. It's 26 past the hour. A beautiful shot of the Christmas tree at Rockefeller Center and staying in New York City. Former President Trump was in the courtroom yesterday as his defense team presented in the New York $250 million civil fraud trial. His lawyers interviewed an accounting expert who said the case against the Trump organization was baseless. The New York attorney general accuses Trump's namesake company of filing false financial statements in order to receive

favorable bank deals. Judge Arthur N. Gorin, who is presiding over the case, has already ruled that the Trump organization committed fraud and dissolved some of Trump's businesses as a result. Yesterday, a panel of state appellate division judges paused that decision. That means the stay the attorney general's office previously agreed on would remain in place until the full court hears and rules on Trump's appeal. That likely won't come until next year after the fraud trial is over. Trump is scheduled to testify for his defense on Monday. Really joining us now, former litigator, MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin. Lisa was in the courtroom yesterday. Lisa, great to see you. So we're going to hear from the defendant himself on Monday with some testimony.

But tell us about what you saw yesterday. The Trump team bringing in an expert, a tax attorney who said effectively, as defense teams will find someone to say for them from time to time, what he did wasn't so bad, actually. Yeah. Ali Bartok, who's an accounting professor at NYU Stern School of Business, came in yesterday and he gave all the testimony that Trump could have dreamed of. He essentially said there was nothing wrong with the financial statements in reviewing them for every year between 2011 and 2021. He found no indicia of fraud, no gap violations. Those are the accounting standards that govern how the financial statements have to be presented. He also said that they contained a warning to anybody reading them to do your own diligence.

And he compared it to the Surgeon General's warning on a box of cigarettes. If I were the Trump organization, for example, I might not want to be compared to a health hazard. But they seem to welcome that comparison. And then he said that Deutsche Bank, in fact, did do its due diligence. And he went through their credit reports and showed where they had data that wouldn't have been evident to them through the financial statements alone. And drew from that the fact that Deutsche Bank must have asked for and got more information from the Trump organization that allowed them to come to the conclusion that he was credit worthy. There's so much legal trouble surrounding Donald Trump that people tend to lose track of it all. You are eyes inside the courtroom. So as he takes the stand on Monday,

what does this case look like? How's it going for him right now? I don't think it's going particularly well. Let me resist your question to one extent. I'm not positive Donald Trump is going to testify. I can tell you looking at you'm not positive Donald Trump is going to testify. I can tell you, looking at you here, I know Donald Trump wants to testify, but his lawyers desperately wanted to lift the gag order that's still in place. They weren't able to do so. They asked Judge Angoron to pause the trial. He would not do so. And they told me to my face the day before they weren't going to ask him that because they knew how it was going to go. That signals to me they are afraid of having their client on the stand and inches away from that principal law clerk he can't talk about when he testifies. I will tell you also, he didn't answer any questions yesterday in the hallway. He speechified.

He never does, by the way. No, he doesn't. No, but he usually actually takes a little bit here or there. And our folks who are in the hallway who follow him on the campaign trail said he was unusually disciplined in the sense that while he attacked and gave his usual Trumpian talking points, he would not engage with any of the press corps assembled in the hallway. So all this is to say, I'll believe he takes a stand when he does. Lisa, let's turn to another Trump legal matter, the appeal that his team filed in Washington on the federal January 6th case, election interference case, clearly an effort to stall, suggesting that it's an appeal that could find its way all the way to the Supreme Court. But in the interim, they're

asking, hey, all the deadlines on this case should freeze until we get a resolution there. So give us your assessment of that tactic. And do you think it could be successful? I think it's a really interesting application and more interesting today than it was last week. That's because a D.C. circuit panel last week decided in a different January 6th constellation of cases, three civil cases brought by people injured on January 6th, that essentially those immunity issues have to be resolved before discovery in the case. Now, this is a criminal case, not a civil case. Donald Trump got all the discovery that the Department of Justice had for the most part on day one of that trial.

I'm sorry, day one of that case after indictment. And he's been taking advantage of it for several months now. So I'm not sure that that carries water. Indeed, the Department of Justice or the special counsel's office may say here, too little, too late. You could have asked to stay this case a long time ago.

You did. Judge Chutkin said, no, you didn't appeal that. Then we're going to go forward. All right. A lot going on with Donald Trump. Meanwhile, Hunter Biden is facing a major new legal challenge this morning after he was indicted on nine tax related charges. The new 56 page indictment was filed late yesterday by special counsel David Weiss in federal court in Los Angeles and includes three felony counts. It alleges the president's son failed to pay taxes, failed to file, evaded an assessment and filed a fraudulent form stating, quote, rather than pay his taxes, the defendant spent millions of dollars on an extravagant lifestyle. Hunter Biden's attorney responded with a statement saying in part, quote, based on the facts and the law, if Hunter's last name was anything other than Biden, the charges in Delaware and now California would not have been brought. He added that Hunter Biden

paid his taxes in full more than two years ago. If convicted, Hunter Biden could face a maximum of 17 years in prison. So there's a lot of detail in this filing, Lisa, about what Hunter Biden did spend the money on, a lavish lifestyle, indeed, often funded by other people. First, let's establish the taxes were repaid, correct? They were. Maybe not by him specifically, maybe got some help, but they were repaid. Correct. And not necessarily in a timely manner either, right? It took several years for them to be paid. But as far as I understand, all Hunter's tax liability has now been cleared. And this is comes after five months after that deal fell apart. Hunter Biden thought he was going to cut a deal and avoid prosecution. That deal falls apart. And now here we are. How serious are these charges? How much trouble is

he in? They're very serious charges. And, you know, Willie, you know that in the district of Delaware, he's also facing those three charges on the gun. So we've got 12 counts against him. Calculations by our NBC News colleagues are that he could serve a maximum of 17 years in prison on these charges alone. These are extremely serious charges. I should also add that plea deal. At the time he cut the plea deal, Tom Winter and I sat at this table and said to the person anchoring, hey, other people would never have even been prosecuted for this. So as to reach a plea deal. So the fact that we're at a place that post plea deal, he's facing even more serious charges, shows me that there maybe is a two tiered system of justice. It just doesn't go the way that Donald Trump thinks it does. So let's go back to the Delaware case and the negotiation.

So it collapsed at the very last moment. Yeah. OK, so if it's me in the Delaware court, is the deal made in Delaware? That's an interesting question, because now you've got two places to have to resolve it. I'm very wary of saying that it will get resolved in Delaware without a resolution at the same time in California. If I'm Hunter Biden's lawyers and I really do want to cut a deal, I'm going to try and cut for a global resolution that involves some sort of approval at the Department of Justice overall. So on the political side of this, I want to ask you about the politics because you give us your legal insights. But Republicans in the House want to make this about Joe Biden. So my question

legally to you is, is there anything in this filing, anything in these charges that show a insights. But Republicans in the House want to make this about Joe Biden. So my question legally to you is, is there anything in this filing, anything in these charges that show a connection between Hunter Biden and President Joe Biden? I'm not familiar with the nitty gritty of this filing yet, particularly since I spent most of the day yesterday and tired after that day in civil court. Listening to accounting testimony is exhausting. But as far as I understand it, no. The question also is, could the president be asked to testify here? I don't think he could be compelled

to testify in this trial. So even if there is allegations against him, query whether they just sit out there in the court of public opinion rather than get resolved through this process. And John, there'll be a conflation here by Republicans. See, Hunter Biden committed crimes, Joe Biden, the Biden crime family, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But again, there has not been, that link has not been drawn yet. No, it hasn't. There's yet to be any evidence that President

Biden had anything to do with the criminal charges his son now faces. But it's also, it's not a coincidence that what's happening next week, House Republicans are moving forward with the impeachment inquiry. They're going to get that formal vote. And we heard from Speaker Johnson yesterday believing that it will pass, that he has enough votes to bring this forward. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean impeachment, but it means that it will could certainly head that way. And this is all about establishing an equivalency, a false equivalency between what people by the last name of Trump have done and what people have the last name of Biden have done. Hunter Biden himself is not running for office. Hunter Biden himself has never held a government position. There is yet to be any evidence that

President Biden has done any wrongdoing. Donald Trump, of course, is running for office and now has 91 counts and four indictments facing him. But this really is, but this is their play here. They're trying to simply muddy the waters. It's very clear that Trump is trying to allege misdoings by Hunter Biden and also to not be the only president impeached running for office next year. You know, full stop for all of us to take a pause and think about this for just a second, that the United States House of Representatives is on the verge of perhaps shutting down the government, has not passed an appropriation bill, a massive appropriation bill that would provide assistance for Ukraine

and Israel and Taiwan, all three nations in peril. And yet they are going to go forward with filing an impeachment order on the president of the United States with no evidence whatsoever. That's where we are. And Mika, let's say again, we've been saying for how long now? A year? More than a year? That if Hunter Biden committed a crime, he ought to be prosecuted. That's what's happening here. And if there's a connection to Joe Biden, let's see it. We have not seen it. But to John's point, the equivalence that they're drawing between the son of the president not paying his taxes and the former president of the United States working to overturn the presidential election, bringing classified

documents to his beach club and storing them there. Ninety one felony counts. They really want us to think those two things are the same. Yeah, they do. And they keep trying even when there is absolutely no there is no parallel at all. It's the president's son versus many crimes by a former president alleged and some that he completely admits to out in the open. Lisa, I've got one more story for you. In Texas, a judge has granted a rare emergency order to a woman requesting an abortion that her doctor says is medically necessary. Let's first get the details from NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett. Kate Cox was running out of time after learning at 20 weeks that the baby she's expecting has a fetal abnormality. The 31 year old mom of two filed a lawsuit in Texas seeking an emergency

abortion. A judge agreed. I never thought I would ever need or want an abortion. If Cox carried the pregnancy to term, doctors warned she would be at risk for serious complications that could affect her ability to have more children. There's no outcome here that I take home my healthy baby girl. Texas bans most abortions as soon as the baby has a heartbeat. There are medical exceptions, but critics say the language is vague, leaving doctors fearful of getting sued for performing one without a court order. The judge siding with Cox saying the idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be a parent and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice. The Texas attorney general pushing back strongly, arguing Cox has failed to show she qualifies for a medical exception.

The AG is sending a letter to Cox's hospital warning prosecutions are still possible if they allow her doctor to perform an unlawful abortion, despite the ruling. The rule of law doesn't mean anything to the attorney general of Texas. The decision applies only to Cox, but separate challenges to the laws in Texas filed by other women are still ongoing. Meanwhile, Cox still dreams of expanding her family one day. I want the opportunity to get the health care I need and heal and then try again. And this is exactly why we need politicians and lawyers and men like the Texas Attorney General to stay out of doctor's offices and out of women's right and choices to get health care. This is an abomination and this has happened

repeatedly across the country where women have put their lives in jeopardy, their ability to have children again in jeopardy, their ability to have a healthy birth or to deal with a fetal abnormality that could impact not only the life of their potential baby, but themselves. It's crazy. Lisa, what happened here that this poor woman was put through so much agony when she should have gotten the health care she needed pronto. End of story. I think, Mika, what happened is, as Laura explained, the law allows for exceptions, but they're so ambiguously worded. And in the meantime, you've got folks like Ken Paxton trying to intimidate people out of applying those exceptions

such that Kate Cox had to go to court. Very fortunately, there was some press coverage about one of the other lawsuits in Texas last week. She saw that press coverage. That's how she got in touch with her current attorneys. Were it not for other women's bravery in coming forward and challenging Texas's law, Kate Cox might not even have been in a position to get that TRO. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of other Kate Cox's all throughout the nation, and they deserve relief from these draconian laws. Former litigator Lisa Rubin covering a lot of ground for us this morning. Thank you very much. We'll be talking about this again very soon. And coming up, the Ukrainian minister of foreign

affairs is our guest this morning. as negotiations continue in the Senate on an aid package that includes critical funding for the war-torn country. Meanwhile, House Republicans are one step closer to a vote on an impeachment inquiry into President Biden. We'll discuss that and much more with Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna.ning Joe is coming right back. Let's get away from the underground. If you could see it, then we'd understand. Bipartisan talks resumed in the Senate yesterday about a possible deal to increase southern border funding. A Democratic source familiar with negotiations tells NBC News that although, quote, there is still a lot of daylight between the two sides. They are back at the table. The bill being discussed would include funding for the border as well as Israel and Ukraine. Last week's negotiations broke down after Democrats accused Republicans of insisting on, quote, extreme policies at the border. But in remarks on Wednesday, President Biden urged both sides to keep talking, a message that was well received by the lead Republican negotiator.

I am willing to make significant compromises on the border. We need to fix the broken border system. It is broken. Were the president's comments yesterday helpful to negotiations? Sure. Yeah. I mean, the president made it very clear, obviously, that, you know, he sees the problem at the border. He wants to be able to do it. The White House made a very clear statement. Hey, let's actually get something resolved. Ukraine's too important not to be able to do this. So I did think it was helpful for him to be able to make that statement. And I reciprocated back to the White House. I hear you. Let's bring in Democratic member of the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Ro Khanna of California. A lot to talk with you about. And I know these negotiations right now are happening over in the Senate.

But overall, what is the hope for funding for aid to Israel and Ukraine getting through? Well, we hope the Senate sends us something. Unfortunately, in the House, we're busy debating and voting on trivial matters as opposed to what the American people want. I mean, yesterday we voted on whether to censure Jamal Bowman for pulling a fire alarm, where the American people want us to get aid to Ukraine, to vote on Israel, to vote on Taiwan. They want us to make sure we have a budget. And that's just not the agenda of the House Republicans. It's unserious. And certainly we heard yesterday, I got some new reporting in Congressman about how senators from both sides of the aisle are really calling for the White House to take a more active

role in these negotiations. Since that first few months of the president's time in office, they've largely taken a hands-off approach, letting Congress sort it out. But now there's a hope here the president will come in and act as a closer, as you mentioned. The clock is really ticking towards the end of the year, and then also government funding expiring. But I wanted to ask you in particular, there have been a lot of Democrats, progressive Democrats, really reluctant to put in a lot of these measures at the border, fearful that they evoke some of the policies even put in place by Donald Trump. What do you think is an acceptable amount of border security? Is

what they're talking about too far? Well, we absolutely need border security, but the biggest thing we need is more border agents and immigration judges and processing folks on the border. Here's what the Republicans are talking about. They want to eliminate parole. Now, parole is what the president used to have Ukrainian refugees come into the United States. Parole is what he has used to have Afghani refugees who helped our troops in Afghanistan come to the United States. Parole is something every president has used. To take that away is to undermine our fundamental values. So they are so extreme and it's actually not going to solve the issues at the border. Congressman, good morning. So a lot of what Republicans want

to this to be tied to is foreign aid, as you just said, including for Ukraine. There is real concern. We've heard from the Biden administration. We've heard from the Pentagon that without this one hundred six billion dollar new package of aid to Ukraine, that Vladimir Putin could roll through Ukraine and get his wish that he's playing the long game, that he's hoping that the West has worn down, that America will lose its will to support Ukraine. Are you confident that somehow, some way that aid will get to Ukraine soon? I can't say I'm confident given the Republican position. And here's what I don't understand. I mean, I've supported the president's policy from day one.

I really admire the Ukrainian people and standing up to Putin. But even if you had doubts, you're now a year, over a year into the war. Why would you now, given all of the resistance, suddenly want to give Putin a blank check to just march into Kiev and stop supporting Ukraine? Wouldn't you want to, even if you want the war to end, wouldn't you want Ukraine to be fighting and holding on to their sovereignty while you're calling for negotiations? It makes no sense. And the other thing that makes no sense is trying to tie it to border security. We had a rebellion in the House for, quote, unquote, single subject

bills. They wanted to vote on one issue at the time. Why can't we have an up and down vote on Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan? Why are we linking that to comprehensive immigration reform? They're two different issues. All right. Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California, thank you very much for being on this morning. So next week, a key summit of EU nations will take place where decision is expected to be made regarding Ukraine's attempt to enter the union. Last night in Paris, French President Emmanuel Macron hosted Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, in a bid to bring him on board in support of Ukraine's membership. Orban has previously voiced concerns about Ukraine joining the EU.

Joining us now from Kiev is the Ukrainian minister of foreign affairs, Dmytro Kuleba. It is very good to have you with us this morning. I guess, first of all, what's your response to Viktor Orban having concerns about Ukraine joining the EU? Well, Ukraine's membership in the European Union is in the best interest of Hungary, because I doubt Prime Minister Orban would like to see Russia as its or Russia-controlled country as its neighbor. Membership of Ukraine in the EU means more prosperity and more safety for entire Europe and for entire democratic community in the world. And Hungary must be interested in that. Yeah. And that Russian neighbor, President Putin, has just announced

that he's seeking to extend his power into the next few years, extend his presidential term. He's already been in power for two decades. Can you talk a little bit about the situation on the battlefield, how Ukrainian troops are doing against this Russian invasion so far right now? Well, after securing a major victory in the Black Sea, where Ukraine succeeded in pushing back Russian Black Sea fleet to the eastern coast of Russia, and that allowed us to restore our export corridors and export grain and other critical materials to the world market. All eyes are on the land front line. And the situation there is different depending on the spot that we are looking at. In some places, Ukrainian forces

advance. In other places, like near the city of Avdiivka, Russia is trying to occupy this city. They're throwing thousands of people into the battle. We successfully defend the city. And we understand that Russia is trying to secure a propaganda victory for itself at any cost. They don't care about their own human lives. They care only for the success for Putin to report to the people of Russia at the cost of the lives of the people of Russia. This is more or less the situation. And of course, air raid attacks continue. Drones, Iranian drones, Russian missiles. We had one air—we had another attack this morning, actually.

But our air defense system is repelling these attacks. And I would like to thank the American people and the United States for providing us with necessary air defense systems and interceptors. Minister Kuleba, good morning. On that very question we just spoke, and maybe you could hear, or the United States congressman who supports a continued effort and support of Ukraine from the United States side, but is worried that Republicans may be holding it up. Can you make the case to the American people who, after almost two years now, may be wavering a bit and saying, OK, we've spent an awful lot of our taxpayer money on Ukraine? Make the case why you need America's support going forward and why Congress needs to work this out.

Well, the best way to ensure prosperity and safety of America and American people is for America to project strengths abroad and help other democracies defend themselves against authoritarian rulers. Because if Putin succeeds in Ukraine, it will be a clear message of motivation to other dictators and authoritarian rulers across the world to attack their neighbors, to push back democracies. And the price of defeating them will be much higher. The price tag will be much higher. The price tag will be much higher. So what is happening, what the United States are giving Ukraine today is not a charity. It's an investment in global security, in the security and prosperity of the American people.

And it's the cheapest, as big as it is, it's the cheapest you can get. Because I would like to remind that Ukraine is one of the very few countries in history who has not requested American boots on the ground. We are paying the highest price with the lives and sacrifice of our people. All we ask other countries to do, and the United States are leading this coalition, is to give us what we need to fight and to defend what is in the interest of all of us. Ukraine's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dmytro Kuleba, thank you so much for being on this morning, and we will talk to you again soon. Thank you.