Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/29/24

Episode Date: January 29, 2024

The Morning Joe panel discusses the latest in U.S. and world news, politics, sports and culture.

Trump did have a slight stumble this week while talking about banks, and he introduced an interesting new term called debank. We're also going to place strong protections to stop banks and regulators from trying to debank you. They want to debank you, and we're going to debank. I don't know what the hell debank means, but he might have to take deambulance to see the doctor. Good morning, and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, January 29th, and we have a lot to get

to this morning, including the massive payout Donald Trump now owes E. Jean Carroll. Talking about being debanked. After a jury the writer eighty three million dollars in defamation damages. We'll get expert legal analysis on that, as well as the looming case that could further impact Donald Trump's bank account. You know, and that's the big lot. You look at the now you look at the fraud case. He's already found guilty. This is all just damages stage. Yeah. And I don't think he helped himself in this defamation case, although you haven't heard from him for the first time. Has he defamed E.G. Carroll since this came down on Friday? I don't think I haven't. I haven't heard it yet.

He came close on stage. So the jury tried to do. But yeah, we shall see. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, a bipartisan group of senators appear to be close to a deal for border security and foreign aid. But the package still faces threats from lawmakers who are loyal to Trump. Plus heartbreak for the Motor City. were stunned in the second half last night, losing to the San Francisco 49ers despite a 17-point lead at halftime. Yeah. Jonathan O'Meara, heartbreak, yeah, for the Mudder City. But what an extraordinary story. Can't believe they got as far as they did.

Nobody could believe they got as far as they did. And that's a game that they can go through the offseason going, we should have won. We need to do a better job next year. Yeah, it's certainly a team on the rise. That's what Lions fans are telling themselves this morning, and they do have young talent. They should be back in this situation, but we can't overstate how devastating this was. They're only the fourth playoff team ever to blow a 17-point lead at halftime and lose the game.

They could do no wrong in the first half. And in the second half, a costly fumble, some terrible drops from wide receivers, some pretty suspect coaching decisions to turn down seemingly pretty makeable field goals to go for it on fourth down. And I know they're an aggressive team. That's what they've done all year. But you needed points. You needed to slow the 49ers' momentum.

And, of course, there was that amazing catch. Lucky break. The 49ers got the ball that bounced off of the Lions' defender's helmet, so credit to the Niners. They played strong. They came back, but such heartbreak for these long-suffering Lions fans. No, such heartbreak. I agreed. What an

extraordinary run, but now it's going to be Mika, of course. You saw the Chiefs. Chiefs weren't playing around. Now we've got the Niners and the Chiefs replaying Super Bowl back, I think, in 2020. Yeah. OK. Also with us this morning, U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kay. And we begin this morning with the deaths of three U.S. service members in northeast Jordan. It happened yesterday at a logistics support base for the U.S. military near Jordan's border with Syria. A drone packed with explosives struck near a shelter where American troops were sleeping, killing three and injuring more than 30. President Biden released

a statement shortly after reading in part, quote, While we are still gathering the facts of this attack, we know it was carried out by radical Iran backed militant groups operating in Syria and Iraq. We will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner of our choosing. Let's bring right now U.S. with us, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Trevides. He's chief international analyst for NBC News. Admiral, thank you so much for being with us last week. I brought up a very simple metaphor about a guy who sends people from that house across the street coming over and constantly, you know, stealing things from your house or breaking windows in your house. And we said, well, what do you do? You go take you go take out the house across the street, tell them you're going to call the cops or something. In this case, I just I wonder how

much longer is the United States going to allow its troops to be shot at by people who are being funded by Iran? At what point do we not just go to the source of the problem, which has been the source of the problem since 1979, and go to Iran? If Iran wants to continue killing Americans or trying to kill Americans, should we not at least sink one of their ships? Should we not at least blow up their air force? Should we not at least blow up their oil fields? Pick one of the three. I don't care. When this occurred, after the blow to my heart of learning that we lost three of our best and 25 to 30 wounded, 10 evacuated, meaning they're at risk of life-threatening wounds. This is attack

number of 160 or so. So, Joe, I am one who is always, let's try the diplomacy. Let's try the incremental steps here. I think we are at the point where what is necessary is a hammer blow against the proxies. I'll expand on that in one moment. If that doesn't have the intended effect, then yes, it's time to go after Iran. So I think what the Pentagon is doing, I don't think, I know what the Pentagon is doing, is building options for the president that will include increasing the intelligence collection, using cyber to go after both the proxies, probably Iran, CIA stepping up its game inside Iran. Iran's using their proxies. Maybe we could use a few proxies operating against the mullahs, against the Revolutionary Guard.

And the military strike packages speak for themselves. I think you'll see the president order another aircraft carrier, 80 combat aircraft, back to the region to prepare in case we have to go after Iran directly. And by the way, if I were going to pick something, I would go after the ship at sea scenario. We've done that before. It's a very effective way and a very direct demonstration of American power. Well, they're certainly going after our ship. So what is the what is the logic of the Iranians? Do they really do they really want to fight a war with the United States? Do they really want to go up against our military might? That will be over in a couple of weeks. What is the logic? Their logic is threefold. One is to demonstrate globally, demonstrate to their partners. They're

very close with the Iranians. They want to impress the Chinese. They want to show that they can maneuver through this vast land battle space of the Middle East, the old Persian empire. Number two, they want to take advantage of the fact that Israel is completely occupied with what's happening in Gaza. Normally, Israel can be part of these kind of responses. They are very tied down. That looks to Iran like an opportunity. And number three, all politics are local. The Iranians are trying to distract their internal population from growing resistance within the country of Iran, much of it led, by the way, by women and girls. This becomes something going outside to slay monsters like the United States that the mullahs feel can distract that internal population.

But bottom line, Joe, no, they don't want an all out fight with the United States. I don't think it'll end up there. Next step, we're going to have to have a campaign of days, if not weeks, to really denude these proxies. We need in our back pocket the strike plan for Iran. OK, let's bring in NBC News national security and military correspondent Courtney Kuby. Courtney, what are you hearing from military leaders? So this was a one-way attack drone. It landed at a place called Tower 22, which a lot of our viewers have probably never heard of.

And frankly, a lot of people in the military just don't talk about. It's a small outpost in northeastern Jordan. It's just on the other side of Syria. And it functions as a base where they train and advise the Jordanian military. But it's also really a logistical hub or support facility for the U.S. military garrison that's just on the other side in Syria called Al-Tanf. There's a small number of U.S. troops there. It's about 350, mainly soldiers and airmen who are performing this function. So this one-way attack drone, it got through the air defenses of this base and was able to land and explode right near a shelter where troops were sleeping. That's why we saw such a high casualty number here. Three killed, U.S. soldiers killed, and now we're up to about three dozen injured. And Mika, that's everything from minor cuts and bruises. There

are a number of traumatic brain injuries. We expect that number could rise. But there were also a number of U.S. service members who were injured badly enough in this attack that they had to be medevaced out. So we expect to hear more today. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin returns to the Pentagon today after being gone for his emergency hospitalization with the complications surrounding his prostate cancer surgery. He's supposed to be back in the building today. And we do expect to hear from him where we hope that we will hear a little bit more about this today. But this is the first time, as we've been saying, that U.S. troops have been killed by one of these Iranian proxy groups

since this uptick in attacks back in mid-October by these groups. We've seen more than 160 attacks against bases in Iraq and Syria, many of them drones like the one that we saw at Tower 22. But there have also been pretty advanced ballistic missiles. There have been rockets, mortars that have been launched. This is not the first time we've had Americans wounded in these attacks. We have had dozens, frankly, who've been wounded, mainly traumatic brain injuries. But this is the first time that any have been killed. So we're expecting to hear more from the Pentagon about it today. But a pretty tragic event. And the real question now is, does this have a real impact on the potential escalation for what's already an extremely

tense situation in the Middle East, Mika? That is the question. NBC News national security and military correspondent Courtney Kuby. Thank you very much for your reporting this morning. So, Jonathan O'Meara, this seems pretty simple to most Americans. If the Iranians are funding one group after another, after another. They keep injuring or killing U.S. servicemen and women. Most Americans would say, you know, you can keep shooting at the three or four different groups that the Iranians are funding or you can go straight to the source. Is the White House considering going straight to the source? So this is House considering going straight to the source? So this is the day the White House has dreaded since October 7th and since the escalation of violence in the Middle East. They don't want a widening war. They didn't want to be brought to this moment. Well, they have. They have. It has one because, you know, the thing is, the Iranians

keep killing Americans. The Iranians keep wounding Americans. The Iranians keep trying to get other people to kill Americans. The war has arrived. The regional war is here. And if we don't take it to Iran, Americans are going to keep getting killed. But let me ask you, does the White House understand that? Yeah, let me bring you in White House thinking right now that to this point, up until yesterday, the White House has been very selective, deliberate in how they responded, largely attacks that were not successful, that Americans military was able to intercept and knock down. The White House kind of ignored. And only those, the Houthis attacks that led to a result, an attack on a ship, let's say, that was successful, they responded to. We have seen a number of strikes in recent

weeks from the U.S., sometimes with our help, help from our U.K. partners, in response to these Iranian-backed splinter groups. But this is different now. American troops are dead. And I'm told White House advisors in a secure video conference with President Biden, who spent the weekend in South Carolina campaigning, they're mulling over their options. No decision yet made, but one of the options is striking within Iran itself. Unclear what the target would be. These are things that will be worked out in the days ahead, as President Biden himself said, in the manner and time of their choosing. And that's been the Biden approach throughout his presidency, is that they make the choice. They're not going to be

rushed into it. They're going to consider what to do. But there's no doubt, Joe, no doubt, a line was crossed yesterday. These are American troops who were killed, and therefore it's going to require a different sort of response. So, Cady, let's talk about what they could do and what the ramifications might be, because they could, yes, hit these militant groups even harder to try to permanently cripple them as best they can. They could go within Iran itself. But that latter choice, which a lot of Republicans are really pushing for this administration to do, could further inflame the situation, widen the war that just more. What's the latest that you're hearing? So the reason that we've got those two aircraft carriers there in the Mediterranean is to try to prevent the widening of this war. And when it comes to Hezbollah, there seems to have been a certain amount of success. It does seem to have acted as a deterrent.

Then you've had the Americans striking down in Yemen against the Houthis. And so far, whilst the Houthis have carried on wielding their attacks, they haven't been as deadly as this one. Now you have this drone attack. And as you say, the implication is that there has to be some kind of different level of response. But you calibrate that against striking inside Iran and what that would lead to. So what are the ramifications of that?

And Admiral, let me bring you in here. You're the military man. If we were to take that option out of your back pocket and the White House were to put it on the table, obviously, whenever you strike inside a country that has an advanced weapon system of its own, And we've seen the precision, I think, with some surprise of Iranian missile attacks against Pakistan recently, perhaps surprising some of the observers who didn't realize quite how precise some of the Iranian weapon systems were and effective the Iranian weapon systems were. What are the

implications for the White House? What are they weighing here? Because it's a big move to go and strike inside Iran. What are the possible ramifications of that? It is. They'll start by not striking inside Iran on land, but I believe firmly they'll go after maritime assets. That's extremely proportional to the Houthi attacks. That's why ships at sea become pretty attractive targets. Next level, closer to Iran, Cadi, would be oil and gas platforms, which the Iranians use as intelligence gathering sites. These are all over the Arabian Gulf, all over the coast of the North Arabian Sea. Those are pretty attractive targets as well. Number three, you'd probably go after coastal targets. Again, keeping with that maritime theme, take out dockyards,

fuel stocks, command and control networks, all of this accompanied by cyber, which you would go inside Iran, but with cyber. Your last resort, but highly controversial and potentially really dragging you into war, would be to do cruise missile strikes. I really don't think you want manned aircraft over Iran. You don't need to. Cruise missile strikes to go after, for example, armaments, where the Iranians are building drone systems, where they are building all of the ballistic missiles they're supplying to these individuals. To take Joe's analogy one more time, if that difficult neighbor shows up with a baseball bat or a gun, you go after the factory where the gun is made, where the baseball bat is made. I think that's

your inside Iran target. You could put together the whole package. We certainly have the capability to do that. I think that detailed plan is in development, and I can assure you there are already rough drafts of it flying around. All right. Retired four-star Emerald James Tavridis. Thank you very much. And everyone stand by in just one minute. Eighty three point three million dollars. We're going to talk about the price Donald Trump has to pay for defaming writer E. Jean Carroll. Yet again, we'll talk about the implications of this massive judgment. We'll be right back. And what is unique about this case is that the jury has now ruled they have found him liable of sexual abuse.

Do you not trust the jury and their findings, Ambassador? I absolutely trust the jury, and I think that they made their decision based on the evidence. I just don't think that should take him off the ballot. I think the American people will take him off the jury. And I think that they made their decision based on the evidence. I just don't think that should take him off the ballot. I think the American people will take him off the ballot. I think that's the best way to go forward is not let him play the victim, let him play the loser. That's what we want him to do at the end of the day. You know, it's interesting she talked about him being the loser. She also was was tough talking about how he was in mental decline. Yes, sharpening her attacks for sure. Nikki Haley on Meet the Press reacting to the $83.3 million in damages. A federal jury says former President Donald Trump must pay writer E. Jean Carroll for repeatedly defaming her.

The nine-person jury reached a verdict in just under three hours on Friday. Afterwards, Judge Lewis Kaplan told a jury, whose names and details were kept anonymous throughout the trial, that while they are now free to speak publicly, he did not advise it. The decision came after a day of contentious closing arguments that included Trump storming out of the courtroom at one point. He returned for his attorney's closing arguments that included Trump storming out of the courtroom at one point. He returned for his attorney's closing arguments, but left the courthouse before the verdict was read. The jury awarded Carroll just over $7 million in compensatory damages, another $11 million for damages to her reputation, followed by a whopping $65 million in punitive damages.

After the verdict, Trump called the decision ridiculous and vowed to appeal. Carroll's attorney said afterwards that the verdict, quote, proves that the law applies to everyone in our country. Last year, a jury found that Trump sexually abused and defamed Carroll. This trial was to determine the amount of damages Carroll would receive. What did you think? Well, I was, well, it's good to see an actual consequence playing out with Donald Trump. I think a lot of people have questions as to how long he could drag out an appeal, not to have to pay the money. And then, of course, we're looking ahead to the weeks to come for the civil fraud

trial against him that could cost him a lot of money. This could undermine the former president in ways that perhaps on the political side of things people didn't expect. You do get the sense with this, especially over the week, the relative silence regarding E. Jean Carroll. Yeah. Trump to her. You do get the sense that the jury's goal was to put a punitive damages number that would stop the egregious behavior, stop the defamation. And they may have succeeded at that. And they may have succeeded at that because so many people have said, he's eventually going to have to pay this.

And he's going to have to pay a lot up front just to post the bond. I just don't know why he didn't know this before. Like what it's well, isn't it interesting, though, again, we talk lawyers, we talk about how over the past several years, it was almost like the laws of gravity were suspended and people could say whatever they wanted as it pertained to speech. And you see the Infowar guys bankrupted by lying about the Sandy Hook parents, because when he did that, you're like, who? Wait, people can do that in America? But they can't do that in America. When Rudy Giuliani lied about two black women who were trying to help Georgia and be public servants.

He lied about him, just just made up a lie about him. You have to go, wait a second. Can you do that in America? Is that I didn't think you could do that. Ended up you couldn't. He's going bankrupt now. And then you have the same thing with Donald Trump. I mean, Donald Trump. Well, and yeah, and Fox and Fox News because of former hosts on Fox News. And then Donald Trump thinking, well, I can I can defame a woman. I can keep defaming a woman. I can be found guilty of sexually abusing her. I can still lie about her. I can still defame her. I can still say terrible things about her because I'm Donald Trump. And the jury finally, finally came in and said, yeah, you're Donald Trump and you're going to owe E. Jean Carroll $83 million. And so we see one,

you know, one idiot at a time. I've just got to say it one idiot at a time. Do they not know that there are defamation laws in the United States of America? One idiot at a time. Whether you're talking to the Infowars guy or Rudy Giuliani or now Donald Trump. You know, they screwed around and they found out what happens when you defame people over and over again. But the thing is that he was found liable for defamation. What we were waiting for was the outcome of how much he had to pay. And he kept doing it, like making the cost higher and higher.

So let's find out how it works, though, moving forward. Joining us now, former litigator and MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin and founder of the conservative website The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes. Lisa, let me ask you the question Mika has been asking me. Well, everyone has different answers. All weekend. You're a lawyer. You should know. You're a lawyer. You should know. Mika wants to know, first of all, how much money will Donald Trump have to pay to postpone to do his appeal? All right. That's a one. But number two, she wants to know, like a lot of people, when E. Jean Carroll is actually going to get her money. So, Mika, I pass it to Lisa.

And if you say, oh, it could take years. She doesn't want to hear that. That's not an acceptable answer. OK, so what's the word, Lisa? So let me give you the satisfying part first. Someone is going to have to post a bond in 100% plus of the verdict tier. The bigger question is who that is. Many defendants in situations like this will find a company that will post a surety for them. And then you pay, as Donald Trump did, for example, in the Fulton County case, you pay a percentage of that verdict to the person who posts the bond. In New York, the last time E.J. Carroll won against Donald Trump, he wasn't able to secure that. And he ended up putting $5.6 million in an escrow account directly with the court.

So it will be interesting to see if any surety is willing to put themselves out there for Donald Trump in exchange for 10 to 20 percent plus collateral. My guess is he will be harder pressed to find that person in New York than he was, for example, in Georgia when he faced that Fulton County indictment. With respect to how long it's going to take, Mika, here's the unsatisfying part of our answer. I don't know. Donald Trump certainly will take an appeal here. He is also appealing the underlying verdict from last May that found him liable for defamation and sexual assault in the first instance. But here's the good news or the silver lining. You can't campaign

a defamation verdict away. It's a civil liability, not a criminal one. And being president doesn't afford you any special rights to wipe the slate clean, as Donald Trump would like to do with respect to this case or the New York attorney general's case, where we're waiting for Judge Arthur N. Goran to deliver an opinion and where the New York attorney general's case where we're waiting for Judge Arthur N. Goran to deliver an opinion and where the New York attorney general has asked for $370 million in disgorgement in addition to a number of other really tough penalties, Mika. Just really quickly, can a family member put up the money? Because certainly he has family members who's received a lot of money from different places. And on the other, the civil trial, what's the timeline on a result? Well, let's start with the family member.

Can a family member put up money? I suppose a family member could put up that money. However, with respect to his two adult sons, who are also defendants in that New York attorney general's case, there was already a preliminary injunction in place in that case and a monitor, former federal judge Barbara Jones and the existing pieces of that preliminary injunction prevent the Trumps from transferring large sums of money back and forth between themselves without advanced notice to the monitor and to Judge Angoran. So, yes, it's technically possible, but it's not as if they can move $83.3 million

out of the Trump organization or out of one of their personal bank accounts without having to notify authorities as it is. In terms of the timing for Judge Angoran, Judge Angoran made a promise to the parties that he would try to render a decision by January 31st. But there's nothing saying he has to do that. Indeed, he got a letter late last week from Judge Jones, where over 12 pages she details ways in which the Trump organization's financial reporting is still fundamentally flawed and places where she didn't get documentation of financial transactions where she would have expected to find it. Chief among those, she said that a $48 million loan that Donald Trump made to his own companies in respect to the Trump Chicago property, she couldn't find any documentation of

that. In essence, that loan, which Donald Trump has been talking about for years apparently doesn't exist. So stay tuned, Mika. Wow. What a surprise. Charlie Sykes, I just got to say with the backdrop of this trial and all the details and the judge having to explain the type of sexual assault Donald Trump committed. Here we have just we've just passed Iowa, where the majority of evangelicals that went out in sub sub zero temperatures to vote for their Christlike figure and their eyes is a guy that now, I mean, let's just line it up. paid illegal hush money payments to a porn star, did so to a Playboy bunny. We had the Access Hollywood confessions where he admitted sexually abusing women, said they let you do it. We have this jury verdict. We have the judge and the jury saying what Donald Trump did is rape. And now we have an eighty three million dollar defamation payout that I don't think Donald Trump will be able to afford. He certainly won't be able to afford the two hundred and fifty to three hundred million dollar fraud payments. And so you're

going to this is this is who are evangelical brothers and sisters in our former party. This is who they're supporting. Well, happy Monday to you, too. Yeah, this is a decision that they made a few years ago. And they're all in. This all adds up, doesn't it? I mean, it all adds up. There's a cumulative weight of this. I mean, you can measure it.

You know, you were walking through all of the defamation settlements and everything, you know, the price of lies. You add up all of the baggage that Donald Trump is bringing into this campaign. It is one of those extraordinary moments in American political history, but also the amount of damage that this man has done to the American culture, just leaving aside the politics, what it has done to the evangelical church, what it has done to our sense of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. We're talking about a case here, an $83 million case about defamation. But fundamentally, at the bottom, it is about the fact that the former

president of the United States raped a woman, and despite that, is the leading candidate for the presidential nomination this this year. So, you know, strap in. This is what 2024 is going to be like for the rest of us. But but as Nikki Haley is pointing out to Republicans and Republicans, are you paying attention to what you are about to buy into? Look, Nikki Haley has said she's going to endorse Donald Trump, even if he's if he's criminally convicted that she would pardon him. But she's clearly not campaigning for vice president anymore because she is trying to say before you buy in, at least let's notice the character, the ability of the man that you are about to put put on the presidential ticket again. Yeah, it's pretty clear that Haley has realized she has no future in a Trump Republican Party. So why not? She's going to go down, go down swinging. But Lisa, let's back

to the legal aspects of this for a moment. We we got the defamation verdict on Friday. We could get the civil fraud verdict any day now. There's another thing that's been looming. People are waiting for. And that's the federal appeals court in Washington about ruling on Trump's claim to have total immunity, presidential immunity. There was expectations we were going to get that decision a couple of weeks ago. It still hasn't happened. What's your sense of the delay and when and what might we see? I think we're going to see a decision that in some way, shape or form says that Trump is not immune from prosecution in that federal election interference case. How broad or narrow that ruling is, is likely what's taking some time here. These are three judges who also know that their decision is going to be reviewed by the

Supreme Court in all likelihood. And so they are trying to make that decision, I would imagine, as bulletproof as possible. But I think the biggest holdup, John, is getting all three of them to agree exactly on the rationale for denying him immunity. Because a decision of three judges that is unsigned by any one of them, what we call a per curiam decision, would have much greater public persuasive force than a decision, for example, where two judges give an opinion and another judge concurs, but maybe on slightly different reasoning. They want a unified frontier and they're going to try to get it as best they can. That's my own prediction of what's happening. Of course, I have no insight into that. All right. Former litigator and MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin, we will see you again very soon. Thank you very much. Now to the bipartisan group of senators continuing to inch closer to a deal on border security and foreign aid after months of negotiations.

But House Republican leadership and former President Trump the power to act without this proposed legislation. That is his new excuse to stab Ukraine in the back and let fentanyl flood across the border. Take a listen to what Senator James Lankford, the lead Republican negotiator, had to say about the package, followed by what President Trump said on the campaign trail. This bill focuses on getting us to zero illegal crossings a day. There's no amnesty. It increases the number of Border Patrol agents, increases asylum officers, it increases detention beds so we can quickly detain and then deport individuals. It ends catch and release. It focuses on additional deportation flights out. It changes our asylum process so that people get a fast asylum screening at a higher standard and then get returned back to their home country.

In the House, as you know, the speaker who's, by the way, I think he's going to prove to be a very good speaker. It's tough when you have a very small majority. Very tough. Mike Johnson, speaker. He just said it's dead on arrival in the House. It's dead on arrival. We want either a strong bill or no bill. And whatever happens, happens. But this is the single greatest threat to our country right now. Well, it's Jonathan O'Meara. That's what Republicans have been saying, the border crossings. And yet Donald Trump is saying, keep the border open.

Keep it open for another year. Don't do any deal. And there you heard James Langford go down item after item after item after item, proving this is the toughest border security deal ever. And yet Trump is opposing the conservative deal, just like he hopes the economy crashes, as he said, because he wants there to be a depression before he's president. It is some of the most nakedly cynical politics we've ever seen, that Donald Trump is actively rooting against

the country, rooting against the country for his own political benefit, whether it be about the economy and certainly here at the border. And as you know, Senator Lankford is about as conservative as they come. And we heard him and other Republicans in recent days all say the same thing from the Senate. Lindsey Graham, John Thune, others say this is a really tough deal. We're not going to get a better deal, even if we win back the majorities and the White House next year. So we should take this deal. But at least for now, much of the House and some of the Senate seem cowed by Donald Trump. And let's bring in congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alame, to give us an

update on negotiations. But Jackie, I mean, you're so plugged in. But what I heard over the weekend is just that there's a lot of pessimism right now that we might see the draft text. We might see the Senate bill in coming days. But there's real concerns that it won't get through the upper chamber necessarily and forget about the House. That's exactly right, John. We're going to see this text that lawmakers in the Senate chamber have been working on for months now, along with Department of Homeland Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. But there might not be a vote that will materialize due to concerns over taking a tough vote that's ultimately set up for failure

in the House. I mean, I talked to one House Republican who's involved with these conversations between Trump land, the Trump campaign and House Republicans who said that if it were up to Trump in several months, the government would be shut down and no border deal would be done and that Trump's catchphrase would be Joe Biden opened the government, shut down the border, and he'd repeat it over and over and over again. What you're seeing is raw politics at play here. Trump not wanting this border to go through, and Republicans worried that it's going to ultimately cause them their seat and electoral demise if they go against the de facto nominee of the Republican Party, who's so vehemently campaigning against this

deal right now. Democrats, of course, see a bit of an opening here. While it's very politically tenuous for them and tricky for some of those, for some more liberal Republicans, Democrats, people who represent border states to support some of these, as you noted, very tough provisions, they also realize that it's going to be hard for Republicans to campaign against the message that Republicans are against catch and release, shutting down the border if there's over 5,000 illegal migrations a day, that it's more difficult to get asylum, there's increased detention facilities. These are all things that Democrats envision could be excellent campaign talking points against Republicans if this deal ultimately fails, which right now, if you're listening to House Speaker Johnson, it seems what it's destined for. Yeah, what I don't get about Speaker Johnson, Joe, is that like you give the list.

Right. We all do the list. Nikki Haley even does the list now of all the losses Donald Trump has brought to the Republican Party. Yeah. Loss after loss after loss. Do we now need to make a long list of losers who have basically bended to Trump's every whim only to find that he'll turn around and kick you in the face a day later if he feels like it? I don't understand it. What does he think he's getting? I don't get it because, yeah, he ends up throwing everybody overboard. By the way, here's Nikki Haley.

Yeah. On the deal. My message to Republicans is do not leave D.C. until you finish the job. And Donald Trump, the last thing he needs to do is tell them to wait to pass a border deal until the election. We can't wait one more day, but they do need to get this right. So Nikki Haley's telling the truth. Yeah. Nikki Haley's telling the truth there, Charlie. They need to pass the deal that Langford and the other conservatives like John Thune call the toughest border security bill ever. But Nikki Haley over the weekend also talked about Trump being in decline. And, you know, we've seen his middle decline. She talked about how, you know, the verdict. She's talking about a lot of things. Finally, we have a Republican candidate that's actually talking about the person they're running against. We do. And I'm mildly surprised that Nikki Haley has chosen that lane since she's chosen so many others in in in the past.

But but to your point and what Jonathan Lemire described as the naked cynicism of this of the border politics is really extraordinary. And I'm so glad that you played Senator Lankford's soundbite because, you know, it is a conservative Republican dream. I mean, this bill gives them one of the biggest wins they've ever had. And they're about to tank their own agenda. And, you know, listen, listen to what they are saying. They are saying that the border is an existential crisis that has to be dealt with right now. And what are they doing? They're basically saying we're going to do absolutely nothing because Donald Trump is telling us to do nothing. We're going to abandon Ukraine. We are going to do we're going to leave the border open at the moment of at the moment of international crisis. We are going to

turn our backs on any possibility of bipartisan compromise. It is really an extraordinary moment just in terms of the raw cynicism. And again, the bill is a win for Republicans by, you know, in their own terms. You listen to Senator Lankford running down that list of what's doing. And you have to ask, what is it that you don't want other than to tick off Donald Trump? And there's really no answer to it. So, Jackie, I'm hearing kind of. Sorry, I was just going to ask Jackie. I was hearing, you know, bubbles of optimism from Democrats, particularly around the prospects of winning back the House. And they're looking if they can campaign better in New York, if they can campaign better in California, they can mitigate some of those losses that they suffered in 2022. What are you hearing from Republicans on the House about the kind of impact that not passing a bill like this could have on them in December in terms of managing to keep hold of the House?

Yeah, Katie, well, the House was pretty quiet last week as they were on recess. So we're going to be getting more incoming on that this week, especially after Trump's, you know, trouncing of Nikki Haley in Iowa and then his victory in New Hampshire, where he is becoming a bigger and bigger voice that Republicans can't can't really ignore and are starting to be or will expect to be punished by Trump if they start to speak out against him and go against some of the things that he's advocating for. But there are the same concerns that we saw in 2022 after the after the disappointing red wave, as everyone had expected, that ultimately didn't materialize. And now Speaker Johnson has essentially a two-vote majority where it's nearly impossible to get anything through, especially if Trump touches it and advises members not to vote for it. So I think that, you know, Republicans understand that they're headed for another potential electoral bloodbath. But it's it's this inevitable thing that they've sort of

come to accept so long as Trump is the leader of the party. And that's why you're seeing retirements, people just sort of taking a bow and these nods of resignation. I mean, we went through a laundry list of members who last week came out forcefully against Trump after the January 6th attack. People like Nancy Mace, who wanted to be the face of the Republican Party by the new Republican Party, by escaping from her office and getting punched by a rioter. And now two years later is endorsing Trump and wants to rally for him in South Carolina in the primary in a few weeks. So, you know, there are concerns, but I don't I don't see anyone doing anything about it. Now, it's pathetic.

The Washington Post, Jackie Alemany and the bulwarks, Charlie Sykes. Thank you both for being with us. I really's it's pathetic. The Washington Post, Jackie Alemany and the Borgs, Charlie Sykes. Thank you both for being with us. I really appreciate it. Hey, Jonathan O'Meara and Katty Kay, both of you jump into this breaking news from The Wall Street Journal. At least 12 U.N. Palestinian refugee agency workers have ties to the October 7th terrorist slaughter in Israel, and about 10 percent of its Gaza staff have links to militant groups. Jonathan, that's obviously going to complicate the U.N. mission. That's an understatement, isn't it? Ten of their agencies connected to the October 7th slaughter. Yeah, a significant development here. The Israelis have been suggesting this for some time.

They thought there was some help with inside those organizations to Hamas. And it comes as, of course, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza just grows by the day. We know the death toll there. But this is certainly going to complicate, Katty, how the U.N. can help. And it's going to give some ammunition, perhaps, to those within Israel who say, look, we can't be cutting deals right now. We need to forge forward with our offensive. So the U.N.'s response to this has been that we terminated the contracts of those who are under investigation right at very shortly after October the 7th. So the UN itself has ties. Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, Katty. I'm sorry. I thought my microphone was off. Go

ahead. Yeah. So the UN is saying that that's OK. Your microphone's never off, Joe. Never. Yeah. You're always on with us all day for the full 25 hours. I mean, they say they cancelled the contracts early on. The UN asked for this external investigation and that the need of the people and the need of the people in Gaza has to be weighed against the kinds of measures. It says that it took immediately after October the 7th to cut ties with these people. And if the UN is not doing the work in Gaza at the moment, the question is going to be who can replace them, who can backfill, because there is clearly a humanitarian need and nobody wants to see Gazans die of starvation because they're not getting the aid there. Of course,

the Israelis have long said that UNRWA is in cahoots or has been had sympathies with some of them, the militant Palestinian groups. And they will this kind of information coming that's just dropped on The Wall Street Journal will corroborate what they're saying. Yeah, it looks that way. We'll be following it. And our mics on. Yeah. Yeah. It's OK. Coming up, the Super Bowl matchup is set. The team that Taylor Swift made famous will face the San Francisco 49ers. We have all the highlights from yesterday's conference championships next on Morning Joe. So take a look what you've done Cause baby, now we got heaven Now we got problems And I don't think we can solve them

You made a really deep cut And baby, now we got heaven Gardner Johnson in for Joseph Who leaves, here's Purdy With a lot of time Steps into one Watching deep. Going for Brandon Ivek.

It is. Oh, he caught it off the ricochet. God, that's just such a nightmare. And that cue to the San Francisco comeback. After trailing Detroit Lions by 17 points at halftime, a 51-yard pass deflected off a defender's face mask into the hands of the 49er receiver, which provided the spark the Niners needed.

They'd gone to score 17 non-answered points in an eight-minute span. I can't even read this. No. This is so heartbreaking. Let's just bring in Pablo. Pablo. Pablo. Too heartbreaking for us to even take people through this.

Why don't you do it for us? Yeah, Joe, I've been thinking about you. Well, I was thinking about you in the second half of this game where the Cinderella run that is the Detroit Lions comes to a halt in a way that makes them cry out to a divine creator for mercy. Like this was not just a game that they took into the half at 24 to 7. And look, this is how it goes. The Lions look great. Everybody was saying it's happening, Joe. The Super Bowl is happening. This is what everybody has been waiting for in that city, in that state, forever, literally. And what happens instead is you saw the ball off the face mask being caught by Brandon

Aiyuk, the 49ers receiver. Right after that is the fumble by the Lions. And then they, the Lions, cannot stop the Niners to the point where they score 27 straight. So this second half was like watching someone have a panic attack for two hours. It was watching the Detroit Lions be unable to stop a team that offensively we knew was going to outmatch them.

But the way it happened, man, it was, I feel for Detroit because this is just one of those things that makes you feel like, oh, it's never, ever, ever going to happen for us. Well, I mean, it's actually how Jonathan Lemire, I'm serious, how Jonathan Lemire and I and the rest of New England felt in 2003 after the Red Sox gave up a home run to Aaron Boone. We realized at that point the Sox would never, ever win a World Series, which they did the next year, which let's hope the Lions – Yeah, that's the spin. There's the spin, yeah.

We do need to talk about the field goal that wasn't. I have this debate with Jack. Not really a debate, Jack. Jack agreeing with me here that, you know, everybody loves to go for it on fourth down. I've heard Nick Saban talk about that, too. He goes, everybody loves to go for it on fourth down. He goes, I've got the numbers.

You go for it on fourth down. The numbers are horrible. They are horrible. They work against you in every way. But it's hard to, you know, this is how Dan got there, right? Yes. It was, look, was he hoisted on his own petard? Sure. Right. What I find humorous about this entire conversation today is that Dan Campbell has become the face of mathematics in America. The guy who said he was going to gnaw on someone's kneecap, the most meatheaded guy.

And I say that lovingly because Dan Campbell has been, again, the face of this sweetheart Cinderella run has now become the guy who is consumed. His brain has been eaten by math, by the analytics. And I don't quibble with that decision, Joe. I understand that in retrospect, in retrospect, yes, should they have kicked the field goal? It's a lot easier to say now, but man, you're talking Pablo, you're talking to an old man here. You're talking to an old man. I know. Put points, put points on the board, put points on the board and never take points off the board. I mean, that's, you know, that's the old line approach, but I don't know. Has that, Has that worked through the year for every team?

It's been the odds have favored him. That was not the wrong call, given the way the team has played, given what the math is actually saying. So, look, we can shake our fists at clouds. I would like to shake my fist at the defense that gave up 27 straight. And the other receivers who dropped a couple of key passes there. I mean, I'm with you, Joe. I get the math, and I thought Cale made the right call at the end of the first half

to kick three to go up three scores. But there, the Niners were on such an avalanche. Their momentum was so big. Three points to kick the field goal, tie the game, slow the game down, change the game. I think that was the right play yesterday. I know it's in Campbell's DNA to go for it, but I think he's rightly being second-guessed.

But the drops and the fumble were just – No, it was an avalanche. It was an avalanche. The best defense of the anti-math argument is it was 27 straight. Could you at least stop them somehow? Yes, get points. And it didn't work out. The gamble did not pay off, despite it paying off until this game all season.

Well, you know, and Pablo, you bring up such a great point. Everybody always likes to look at the ball off the face mask, the fumble, the this, the that. You know what? Let's just look at the defense that gave up 27 points. It's just like Alabama. Everybody's looking at the center, being a terrible center, looking at this, looking at that. Now, you know what? The defense just collapsed in the second half.

Right, Joe. When that happens, you lose. We liked in sports, and I'm guilty of this, right? We gas bags. We like to pick a moment, a protagonist, a character, and take the narrative through that lens and establish it and tell the story. But to me, watching this game, watching this game with people who are rooting for the Lions, it was the helplessness. And by the way, I want to give a shout out to Brock Purdy, the guy we're watching on screen. Joe, we laughed about him, but this guy was Mr. Irrelevant, okay?

The last pick in the draft. Literally, that's the nickname that we give to the guy who was picked last in the NFL draft, which he was in 2022. And what he has done, what he did in the second half, Brock Purdy running the football, three big first downs on the ground. He ran for 49 yards. He had the Niners offense, as he always does, just humming and piloted by a steadier hand than you'd assume from a guy who was that young.

And so that's the team that's going to be in the Super Bowl, helmed by that Brock Purdy. That guy who was nobody and now is a polarizing figure because people are now wondering, well, how good is he really? Is he Joe Montana now? How about you just take the fact that he brought you here as the last pick in the draft and say everything else is gravy. And that was a game covered in gravy for the 49ers. Yeah, you know, the thing is also we're talking about the Lions' defense as if they were running against local 832 in Big Fletch, New York. Actually, when you have Brock Purdy, who has been a great point guard this year,

call him what you will, he's been a great point guard. He's moved the ball around. You've got Debo, who's extraordinary. Kettle, who's extraordinary. McCaffrey. Kettle. And then you've got McCaffrey, who I think should be the MVP. The guy's just extraordinary.

Yeah. Yeah. Valid argument. So let's bring in Claire right now, though. We're not going to let her talk yet because, you know what? Pablo will be dead. You and I never talk. So we're going to get some highlights,

and then we're going to our special guest who has every reason to be thrilled, the Chiefs, yesterday in the Jags. I mean, I still say today that the Jags, you know, not the Jags. I say the Jags. The Ravens. the Ravens, best team. I'm sorry. For some reason, my watch was going off. There was an alarm on it. So just telling you way too much. But, you know, the Ravens, if you look through the year, you look at who they played, the amount they won by. This is the best team in the NFL.

The Chiefs played the best. I felt like I was watching the best team in the NFL against the hottest team in the NFL. And, man, the Chiefs just blew through them. Yeah. I mean, I defer to Senator McCaskill, I think. I defer to the good Congresswoman. But, Joe, this team, let's just establish what the Kansas City Chiefs are now.

They have been in the Super Bowl four of the last five years. This is the closest thing we have to the Patriots dynasty. This and Andy Reid and Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelsey are a team that we just need to circle them every season at the start of the year and assume they're going to be there at the end because Lamar Jackson, who we're watching being very sad on this television, was the MVP of the league. This was a team that could only eke out 10 points. That Chiefs defense held them to 10 points, three points in the second half. Yes, this is what is important to remember. You had in the Ravens a team that destroyed the best teams across the NFL. And yesterday, the Chiefs just looked extraordinary.

So, Senator, let's go to you. Is this where the irresistible force meets the immovable object and actually cuts right through that immovable object? Well, as I said the last couple of weeks on Morning Show, I like it when we're the underdog. We do very well when we're the underdog. And I think it's really not right to talk about the Chiefs in terms of Andy Reid, Mahomes, and Kelsey without saying the word Spagnola. Our defense, I remember last year going to the Super Bowl, how nervous we were about our secondary. Very young, very green. They're dominant now, Joe.

Snead had an amazing game yesterday. He shut down. And, I mean, Lamar yesterday. He shut down. And, I mean, Lamar Jackson really got shut down by this defense. And I'm tired of everybody talking about everybody else's defense and everybody else's running game. Pacheco is something else. And I've got to just correct Mika. This is a team that predates

Tay-Tay and you know, I'm now beginning to feel what Patriots fans felt for years. You know, haters are gonna hate, hate, hate. But this is really, really

fun and one last thing. As a Chiefs fan, I just want to express my gratitude because it is so much fun to be a fan of this team. And I think we forget to realize how spoiled we are and to thank the Chiefs organization for giving us this much pleasure concentrated in so few years. Well, you know, that's what we Falcons fans all – well, actually, we never say that.

So, Pablo, you know, I want to call out another name here because the first half of the season, the Chiefs just looked lost. I mean, they were either – you know, Mahomes was either throwing to Kelsey or he wasn't throwing to anybody. They just did not have the tools needed to be good. Let's talk about Rice. Number four. Talk about how, I mean,

that guy has most people, you know, they're looking at Kelsey. They're looking at Taylor. They're not thinking about Rice. They're looking at Mahomes. They're looking at the defense. But you saw the second half of the season, actually Mahomes' offense

open up because he also had Rice to dish it off to. I think if we were to inject Senator McCaskill with truth serum, I would imagine that she might confess that during this regular season, she may have grown a little frustrated

with her receivers, Joe. It was the story of drops. It was the story of how can we let Patrick Mahomes, a campaign from him like this, go to waste because he doesn't have the supporting talent at the receiver position who can catch these footballs. And you're right. Rice, Marquez Valdez-Scantling is another name. OK, Marquez Valdez-Scantling is another name, OK? Marquez Valdez-Scantling was dropping everything during the regular season. And then against the Bills, he has two huge catches for 30 yards or more. In this game, he's falling to his back and he catches that deep ball from Mahomes. And so when you add that with Travis Kelsey, and I have these newspapers in front of me,

and there is this dynamic, Joe, where Travis Kelsey is America's prom king. OK, like this is America's prom king. I want to establish I get it. I get the Taylor Swift industrial complex. It is on the nose cinema, romantic comedy stuff. But that guy being hugged and Jonathan Lemire hates when I say this is the greatest tight end I have ever seen. Apologies to Rob Gronkowski, Tony Gonzalez, but that guy had the game of his life, 11 catches, 100-plus yards, touchdowns. He was the security blanket that Patrick Mahomes has had every single round of these playoffs in his whole career, and it's because he is that good that they're here as well.

Well, you know, I mean, obviously. is that good that they're here as well. Well, you know, I mean, obviously. Now we all know about him because of Taylor. Obviously, Pablo is a 1989 fan, a huge 1989 fan, if he's going to declare Kelsey number one. So, Jonathan Lemire, though, let's be honest. Let's be honest here. I love Kelsey. I did even before the whole Taylor connection. Jack Rupert Jacket,

the Kelsey jersey a couple of years ago for Christmas. Big, big, big Kelsey fans. That said, number one, I don't know. I think you got it. I think you got it. But Kelsey, Gronk and Tony Gonzalez, top three sorted out later. Yeah, I think that's fine. The difference between Rob Gronkowski and Travis Kelsey is a key part of being a tight end is that you can block. And Rob Gronkowski blocked and was one of the best run blockers on the team. Kelsey lines up wide every time. He's a big wide receiver. He's great.

He's great. And he was marvelous yesterday. But he's not the tight end that Rob Gronkowski was. That said, we also should just note real quick here, the Chiefs deserve all the credit. The Ravens imploded. Lamar Jackson was terrible in this game, and their play calling was, too. They got away from the run. They were the best rushing team in football. The Chiefs struggled

against the run all season long. They got away from it way too early. So, yes, the Chiefs won this game, but the Ravens lost it, too. I know we've got to go to the news, but Pablo, he brings up such a great point. What is it? Third and one in a tough situation. It's a drop back pass for Lamar. There were about five different times where they needed

to do a run pass option. By the way, if people at home are going, well, if you were so smart, come on, everybody's calling it out. A run pass option, Lamar going left or right, that's going to get you what you need. Some of the craziest calls. I did not understand what Harbaugh was thinking yesterday. That one pass into the end zone, the interception. I mean, the funniest part about that play in specific was his receiver throws his hand up, and he's the only person in the stadium who wants that play in specific was his receiver throws his hand up and he's the only

person in the stadium who wants that play to happen it was triple coverage as john said and lamar jackson look this is the thing that's going to dog him right because yes he's the mvp of the league and that's a regular season award and it's deserved and he is a real quarterback there's no question but when it comes to the postseason jo, the thing about this time of year that Patrick Mahomes excels at, clearly, when the pressure is on, you get better. Like, that's the play. That's the interception where everybody throws their hands in the air and they say to themselves, has he learned nothing?

And look, sports are meant to be hard, right? Sports are meant to make you want to throw your helmet into the ground, and it's meant to drive you crazy and to make you cry as you're watching that fan do exactly that. But the guys who don't make that mistake, right? Don't listen to your receiver when he's demanding the ball in triple coverage. That's the one he wants back. That's the one the entire city of Baltimore would like back. And that is the difference. That is the difference between every other quarterback and quarterbacks like Mahomes, Brady, and a guy we saw on the stands last night who I consider, sorry, sorry, John, I consider the greatest of all time, Joe Montana.

You're wrong, too. Everybody's wrong today. Sorry, John. We're celebrating other kids. ESPN's Pablo Torre. Thank you so much. You can listen to more of Pablo through his podcast. Pablo Torre finds out on Metal Ark Media. It's almost like if you don't end every sentence with Brady. Yeah. Lumiere gets upset. He just melts

down. Yeah. It's all right. He's the best. Look, I'm just being true to myself.