Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/3/24

Episode Date: January 3, 2024

Independents not buying Trump’s stolen election claims

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, January 3rd, and we have so much to get to this morning, including a key senior Hamas leader killed in an attack in Beirut. We'll go live to Israel for what this now means for the country's war against Hamas as fears of a potential escalation in the region intensifies. Plus, Russia pounds Ukraine's two biggest cities in a new wave of attacks. The assaults are now likely to strain Ukraine's defenses as the country continues to plead for more military assistance from the U.S. And Donald Trump is appealing the landmark ruling from Maine that disqualified him from the state's primary ballot. Later in the program, we'll be joined by Maine's secretary of state to talk about her decision there.

And Charlie Sykes is standing by with his new piece that asks, is disqualifying Trump anti-democratic? We'll get the answer along with Willie and me. We have the host of Way Too Early, White House beer chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, U.S. special correspondent to BBC News, Katty Kaye, and founder of the conservative website, The Bulwark, Charlie Sykes is with us. And Willie, we actually are going to start with some political snapshots of where the race stands, and then we'll get to all the big major news breaking overnight. Yeah, we've got a lot to get to this morning. Fascinating new poll,

though, showing exactly how loyal Republicans remain, even increasingly so to Donald Trump as we approach Iowa here. Nearly three years after the January 6th insurrection, new polling suggests the Capitol attack may still be a liability for Donald Trump in the next election, but not with his base or in this primary. In the latest Washington Post University of Maryland survey, 50 percent of adults say the protesters who stormed the Capitol were, quote, mostly violent. While that overall number is down from a December 2021 poll, that's largely because fewer Republicans now believe that to be true. When asked if Trump bears responsibility for the attack on the Capitol, 14 percent of Americans say yes. Excuse me, of Republicans, only 14 percent of Republicans. That's down 13 points since 2021. Still, 56 percent of independents say Trump is to blame for the events of January 6th.

And though Trump appears to have had some success falsely convincing Americans, the last election was stolen from him. 62 percent overall and 66 percent of independents still say Joe Biden was legitimately elected in 2020. So, Charlie, that's just a few of the numbers there from a sprawling Washington Post poll here that kind of tells us what we know to be true, that Donald Trump's support among the base, among Republicans, has only strengthened and that his rewriting of the history of January 6th, whose third anniversary, by the way, is coming up this weekend, has taken hold and has become the truth to a lot of, I guess, Trump Republicans, if you want to call them that. But if Donald Trump does come out of that Republican primary field and get to a general election, this question of democracy and what happened around the last election of January 6th will be a liability to him. It will. It will be. Look, it's an old story that Republicans are loyal to Donald Trump, that he is. This is Donald Trump's party.

But what is really striking is that poll, which shows his ability to rewrite history, as you mentioned. I mean, this is a post-reality world that we live in here because we saw January 6th with our own eyes. We watched it. It's on videotape. In the wake of January 6th, people like Mitch McConnell, even Kevin McCarthy, came out and said, yes, Donald Trump was responsible for all of this. The evidence is voluminous. But we live in a world in which tens of millions of people will deny the evidence of their own eyes, will deny the testimony of people who were there and in fact will ignore, you know, members, leaders of their own party. So this is part of the the new reality, the post reality reality that we live in.

And Donald Trump has proven rather remarkably successful in being able to push this revisionist story. So 2024 will be about whether or not people can push back. And obviously, people like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger are out there as vigorously as possible. We will have a trial of this will be relitigated again, I hope. But we see the level of the challenge in that poll. And Jonathan Lemire, you wrote the book, The Big Lie, of course, on everything that happened around the 2020 election in January 6th. And what you see as well is a sympathy among Trump supporters, among Republicans for the people in jail right now.

He's sort of recast them as hostages. He's called them the J6 hostages. There's the J6 choir. All of that turned them into martyrs. And some people among his supporters, many of them are buying that argument. But again, the question remains, it may be good for him in Iowa coming up in a couple of weeks. It may work for him even in New Hampshire as he goes through this primary season. But if you look at this Washington Post poll, it fits with what we've seen previously, which is that independents, obviously Democrats, but independents believe he bears some responsibility for what they see as a terrible day in American history. Yeah, within the Republican Party, the big lie has become

doctrine. And those poll numbers reflect it, that so many in the GOP don't think Joe Biden was duly elected president, that the RNC changed some of the language in their platform, that downplayed the violence that we saw on January 6, 2021, saying it was normal, peaceful protests. So certainly, as we see, as Trump barrels into Iowa with a commanding lead and seemingly New Hampshire after that, it's not hurting the Republican Party. But this poll is illuminating that it may hurt him with independence. And right now, President Biden certainly has a base problem. His aides know that, that they need to reenergize those core Democratic values, young voters, progressives, voters of color. But they feel pretty good about

where they are among independents, in part because independents, particularly next year, when presented with that binary choice, Trump, Biden, that they feel like they simply won't be able to break for Trump again. And January 6th is part of that. And more than that, it is this idea that he remains a threat to democracy. And the Biden campaign is really leaning into that. In fact, brand new this morning, we know that he will be giving a speech this Saturday, President Biden, in Philadelphia, outside Philadelphia, at Valley Forge, of course, a place of historic significance, a place so fundamental to this country's founding. And he will speak on the January 6th anniversary there and warn about the ongoing threats to democracy. The latest in a series of speeches he has done there.

And then on Monday, he'll head to South Carolina, Mother Emanuel Church there in Charleston, the site of that racist mass shooting some years ago. And he will again say that the extreme forces that have been unleashed by the far right fueled that shooting, too. And that is what is at stake in this year's election. So the truth set stake. And there are a lot of Americans who aren't seeing the truth clearly. And we can talk about all the reasons for that, Katty Kay. But I don't know if we have video of January 6th and I hate to turn up the shock opera, but it is again, once again, shocking that the hat, you have to do a poll like this. Okay. Asking about January six, asking whether or not Donald Trump won the election or lost the election fairly. And that 50% of adults, I guess,

Republicans say the protesters who stormed the Capitol were quote, mostly violent. These are people who defecated in the halls of the Capitol, who broke windows. You see them there. We see them with our eyes. There are people dead. There are people who had heart attacks in light of this. There are people, there are Capitol Police officers who went through multiple surgeries and are still dealing with the injuries that they sustained that day from being beaten almost to death with American flags. And we're asking this question of our Republican Party. Katty.

Yeah, I mean, I think what surprises me most, Mika, about those numbers is actually the independence and how low that figure is for those who believe that Donald Trump was responsible for January the 6th or bears responsibility for January the 6th. And I think if I were advising the Biden campaign, I know what you mean by shock, opera and drama. But I would be playing these pictures again and again and again over the course of this anniversary, because it's a question of reminding people of what they saw on that day. The further we get from that day, the more they start thinking about inflation and the prices of gas

and maybe the war in Ukraine or the war in Gaza, the more they forget about this. But actually, when you see those images, they are so powerful and such a powerful reminder of what the country went through. Those were the images that led senior Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy to say,

and Lindsey Graham to say, I'm done with Donald Trump. So play these images again. If you're on the Biden camp, it can't hurt. I think the fact that he's giving a speech now on January 6th for the anniversary is the kind of thing that they need to be doing. Yeah. And Donald Trump, of course, what he does is he just actually goes there instead of cowers from things. So you have him lauding his January 6th choir, talking about the people who were put in jail for the crimes they committed on January 6th as hostages. And former President Donald Trump is now formally appealing the decision made by Maine's secretary of state to remove him from the primary ballot there. In Maine, election challenges are first ruled upon by the state's top election

official. Last week, Secretary Shana Bellows ruled Trump was ineligible to appear on the state's primary ballot based on the 14th Amendment, the same statute that Colorado's Supreme Court used. Now that her decision has been appealed, it will be heard by the state's superior court. A new filing from the Trump legal team accuses Bellows of prejudice in her decision. Quote, the secretary was a biased decision maker who should have recused herself and otherwise failed to provide lawful due process. The Secretary of State responded in a statement writing, I have confidence in my decision and in the rule of law. Everyone who serves in government has a duty and obligation

to uphold the Constitution first above all. The court has until Sunday to decide whether to overturn Bellows ruling. That decision can be appealed all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. We do have timing issues with that as well. We're going to speak with Secretary of State Bellows when she joins us later today on Morning Joe. But what's so interesting, Willie, is, again, this is the question about January 6th. Was it violent? Was it an insurrection?

Of course it was an insurrection. We can go through all the details as to what was happening there, who was injured, who died, what weapons were used, who was in jail for now years of their lives for participating in it. And all the 14th Amendment is looking at is whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. They're not asking if he started it, if he ended it, if he was planning it. Just was he a part of it? That's a pretty simple question. And that then brings us to eligibility.

Like people who are under a certain age are not eligible to be on a ballot. It's a simple question whether or not he is eligible. It's not a political question. Well, and the argument from Trump's camp and from his supporters and some constitutional lawyers is, well, he hasn't been convicted of insurrection, to which the Maine secretary of state and others have said, well, we've seen plenty of evidence from the January 6th committee. We've seen evidence in all these cases, media reporting that he is did, in fact, engage in it. And the secretary of state in Maine made that decision for her state. We'll talk to her coming up in a couple of hours. Charlie Sykes, you've got a new piece is is disqualifying Trump

anti-democratic. And by that, you mean is a lone secretary of state stepping forward and saying this candidate cannot be on the ballot. Is that anti-democratic? Where do you land on that question? Well, first of all, I mean, I'm very, very sympathetic to the argument that the 14th Amendment disqualifies Donald Trump. I'm skeptical about how it's going to play out politically. I think there is a potential for a backlash. But the bumper sticker, the bumper sticker punditry here is that we are defending democracy by undermining democracy by taking Donald Trump off the ballot. And so I tried to address a very, very narrow question, which is that we talk a lot about democracy and justifiably

so. But I also think we need to be precise that this country is not actually a democracy. It is a liberal constitutional representative democracy. And all of those terms mean something. Democracy is just not about elections. It's also about the rule of law. And the Constitution means something. And so there are a lot of things that the majority does not get to do in the United States. The United the Constitution lists many things that even a supermajority can't do. It can't repeal the Bill of Rights. It can't do things that, in fact, are prohibited by the Constitution. You cannot be you know, if you're 32 years old and you're a citizen of Norway, you cannot run for president. That is just that is just unconstitutional. But and so those things are undemocratic, but they are not necessarily anti-democratic.

They don't undermine democracy. The liberal constitutionalism of our system says that we are a nation of laws, not of men. And I think that, you know, in some ways, the Trump folks are about to do this flip where they are saying, look, the people who claim to be defending democracy are undermining democracy. This is a plausible argument, which is why we need to push back and say, OK, we are a democracy, but it's more it is we are something else as well. And our founders understood that deeply. They were very, very skeptical. And they created all of the separations of power and the checks and balances to basically say, yes, we are a democracy, but we are also a nation of laws. And I think that's a point that we need to make, because, look, we're about to see Donald Trump wrap himself in the cloak of a defender of democracy. Don't be surprised when he manages that particular flip. And that's why time is

of the essence here for the Supreme Court to make some kind of decision. Will he be on the ballot or will he not? Let's bring in former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg and state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg. Guys, good morning to you both. Chuck, I'll start with you. So Donald Trump's lawyers have asked the Superior Court in Maine to vacate this decision by the secretary of state. They're saying, again, it's undemocratic that she doesn't have standing to do this on her own. How do you see this playing out with, of course, the United States Supreme Court and its decision looming as well? If you just want to focus on Maine, Willie, under Maine law, the superior court has to move quickly and to hear the case. But of course, if the United States

Supreme Court comes along and stays all of the various state proceedings, and you still have unresolved state proceedings in almost 20 different states, then Maine will put its litigation on hold. And I hope and I expect that we're going to get a single ruling from the United States Supreme Court. So right now we're talking about Colorado and Maine and what Michigan and Minnesota have done, and they've done different things. But if the United States Supreme Court steps in, as I think they ought to, you're going to have, I hope, one ruling that sets the standard across the country. The danger here, whether you loathe Mr. Trump or love Mr. Trump, is that you have or might have proceedings in 50 states with different rulings from each.

And that's really untenable. So I expect Maine will move quickly until and unless the Supreme Court tells them to stop because the Supreme Court intends to take the case and to issue a single ruling. So, Dave Ehrenberg, whether it's the Superior Court or the Supreme Court intends to take the case and to issue a single ruling. So, Dave Ehrenberg, whether it's a superior court or a supreme court, Charlie Seitz was talking about backlash. And, you know, there could be a backlash. And that's something that might need to be considered, some might say. Is a Supreme Court justice or a superior court judge looking at backlash or are they supposed to? What's the job? I mean, I bring

it down to if you discipline a child for getting into a fight, do you go, hmm, maybe I won't discipline the child because other kids might get mad. I mean, is the job to worry about backlash or is the job to decide whether or not President Donald Trump, former President Trump, engaged in insurrection and therefore is not qualified to be on the ballot. Good morning, Mika. It's not supposed to be considered the political backlash. I mean, that's why you give federal judges and justices lifetime appointments. They're not supposed to put their finger up to the wind, see which way it's going. Now, state judges may get elected, but they too are not supposed

to take into account the political consequences or the polls. And I know that some are saying, as you discussed, that this is undemocratic to take the matter away from voters. But as Charlie said, this constitution of ours has to mean something, right? I mean, I think it's undemocratic to allow people to run for office who aren't qualified to do so. If Barack Obama announced he was running for president this year, Republicans would like their hair on fire, right? And they'd have a point. The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution says you have a maximum of two terms. He does not qualify to run, even though the voters may want him. And Trump, ironically, built his political brand on saying

that Obama didn't qualify to run because he wasn't a natural born citizen. Of course he was. But you can't say that the natural born citizen clause applies, but the insurrectionist clause does not. They are all qualifications to run for president. You can't ignore one of them because you're worried about angering MAGA voters. Mika, the alligator is always hungry and you're never going to satisfy these folks. So stop trying to appease them. So, Chuck, this is obviously these cases are about former president's potential role in an insurrection. And January 6th, of course, is a shorthand for one of the cases he faces, the federal election interference case, one that also may be going before the Supreme Court

sooner than later in terms of timing. So give us an update as to where you see what you see in that trial, in particular, when you think it might happen. Because I know so many political observers have thought that this would be the one case sort of built for speed that would happen and likely conclude with a verdict before voters go to the polls next November. Do you think that's still likely? Yeah, I think it's a good way to describe it, Jonathan. I, too, thought it was the case built for speed. It was a one defendant case and only four charges that were leveled against Mr. Trump. The trial date was still is, by the way, March 4th. I don't know that that date is doomed. It's certainly endangered. It's endangered for a couple of reasons. One, just generally, trial dates often slide as both parties get involved with discovery and various motions are heard and decided by the judge. This March 4th trial has an issue before the Supreme Court, which is whether or not—well, I'm sorry, let me be clear.

It has an issue which is before the appellate courts, which may also, factually and legally, Mr. Trump was not acting in his official capacity, and therefore he is not immune from criminal prosecution. I think that's the inevitable conclusion. I think that's the right conclusion. The problem is that so far, we don't have that determination either by an appellate court or by the Supreme Court. So do we get this whole thing done before March 4th, enabling the trial to go forward? Again, I think it's endangered, perhaps not doomed yet, but certainly endangered. So, Dave, Charlie's been talking there about that January the 6th case and the chances for that coming to trial and perhaps being resolved before the election. We're right at the beginning of the year.

Can you give us, as we start this year, some kind of crystal ball gaze forward about where we're going to be on all of these legal cases on November the 5th, Election Day of 2024? Do you think any of them will have started? Will any of them concluded? Will any of them have resulted in any kind of sentencing? What sort of stage do you think any of them started? Would any of them concluded? Will any of them have resulted in any kind of sentencing? What sort of stage do you think any of them will be at that could be pertinent to the election?

Yes, Katty, I think two of the criminal cases could go before the election. The New York case, which we often forget about, the Stormy Daniels hush money payments could go. But more importantly, the stronger case, the one that Donald Trump is most scared of, is indeed the case in Washington, D.C. over election interference. That case was built for speed. Jack Smith intentionally excluded any other co-defendants. He only put forth four

counts to the grand jury. It is a indictment that was meant to go before the election. And Judge Tuckin is the right judge for that trial. The only question I have is how long will it take the Supreme Court to rule on the presidential immunity? I think what's going to happen is the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeal, which is expediting the question, will rule. It will not be anywhere close. It will be unanimous, clear-cut ruling. And the U.S. Supreme Court is going to defer, is going to deny even hearing this matter and defer to the lower court. And then it's game on. And I think that's the case that represents the greatest existential threat to Trump's future freedom.

He knows it. That's why his whole strategy is to delay it past the election. Wow. OK. Stormy Daniels, civil fraud trial, Jack Smith, the documents, George. I mean, the list goes on. I've never seen somebody handling more accusations on legal fronts than Donald Trump. State Attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg, former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg. Thank you both. It would take us, Charlie Sykes, probably the whole show to go through each case. The Bulwarks, Charlie Sykes, thank you as well for coming on this morning. Still ahead on Morning Joe, Hamas blames Israel for the death of one of its senior leaders after an explosion in Beirut. We'll get a live report from the region.

And later, we'll talk to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas about the situation at the U.S. southern border. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Welcome back. Twenty seven past the hour. Hamas is now blaming Israel for the death of one of its leaders who was killed in an explosion in Lebanon yesterday. The drone strike happened in a densely populated stronghold of Hezbollah. The man who was killed was the second in command of Hamas's political office. Hamas claims six other leaders were also killed in the strike. Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attack, but says it is in a state of, quote, high readiness for any scenario. This as the leader of Hezbollah is vowing to strike back.

Meanwhile, one Israeli and two U.S. officials tell Axios that Israel was behind the strike. NBC News has not verified this report. Israel and Hezbollah have been exchanging fire almost daily since the war in Gaza began. Experts say yesterday's drone strike will likely be perceived as a warning to Iran, and any retaliation could lead to a broader conflict in the region, which, of course, everyone is worried about, Willie. Yeah. Meanwhile, Israel's war cabinet has canceled its meeting on post-war plans for now. Yesterday, government officials were expected to discuss what Gaza should look like once

Israel achieves its goal of eradicating Hamas. But after Hamas accused Israel of killing one of its leaders in Beirut, an Israeli official tells NBC News the war cabinet agreed still to meet, but not to discuss post-war plans. Joining us now from the West Bank, NBC News foreign correspondent Matt Bradley. Matt, what more can you tell us about the way Israel is thinking about life perhaps after Hamas if they achieve that goal? Well, I can tell you what now is happening right here in the West Bank among the Palestinians,

and that is a day of rage. And you can't really see that here, but it's sort of convening here in the central square of Ramallah. And this issue is one that could really spill over, because as you mentioned, this rage that we're seeing here, and the protest has now been walking around the city. That's why you're not actually seeing it behind me. It could spill over into the wider region and really engulf quite a few other countries, including, as you mentioned, Lebanon, which is dominated in part by Hezbollah, which, like Hamas, is backed by Iran.

Also, the Houthis in Yemen, they have been launching broadsides attacks against commercial shipping vessels in the Red Sea. And now we're seeing U.S. naval assets being deployed into the Red Sea in order to deter the Houthis. We're even seeing, on the other side, Iran deploying their own warships. This just a couple of days ago. And this looks like a major escalation. The whole thing looks like a major escalation. We could start to see because Israel launched an attack into a Hezbollah stronghold, that's the neighborhood of Dahia, south of Beirut, where I was just a couple of weeks ago, that Hezbollah could decide

to weigh into the war. Now, they've already been fighting. They've been launching attacks. Dozens of people, more than 100 Hezbollah fighters have been killed since October 7th when this whole thing began. But what we could see now is Hezbollah decide that they're going to weigh into the war in a full way, which is what they haven't so far. Both sides have been stepping back from the brink, kind of playing by the rules of engagement that have been in place since the war between Hezbollah and Israel all the way back in 2006. That could change at any time. And guys, we are expecting to hear from Hassan Nasrallah this evening. In just a couple of hours, he will be delivering a speech. And he's been relatively quiet over the past several weeks, despite what's been going on in the Gaza Strip.

This speech could set the tone for what Hezbollah is going to be doing from here on out. The Lebanese and a lot of other groups throughout the entire Middle East have said that this attack, if it was indeed Israel, and we have it on pretty good authority, it sounds like that it is, and we're not expecting the Israelis to fully acknowledge their responsibility, even if they did launch this assassination. But this speech could set the tone for whether or not Hezbollah reacts, because a lot of Lebanese government officials and others believe that this was a violation of Lebanese sovereignty. Now, you mentioned that comment from Mark Regev yesterday on MSNBC, who neither confirmed nor denied Israel's responsibility for that assassination. The fact is, is that he was very, very careful to say that this was an attack not against Hezbollah,

not against Lebanon, but against Hamas. And that's because, as we're seeing, Israel really doesn't want to go to war with Lebanon or with Hezbollah. And so far, most of the signs show that Hezbollah doesn't want to go to war with Israel either. Guys. Yeah, Matt, that'll be really interesting to watch because it doesn't look like the Israeli army is in much of a condition to try and fight a war on two fronts at the moment. Tell us a bit more about the latest thinking from the Israeli government on the plans for a kind of post-war Gaza and this idea of separating the strip into kind of bits run by different clans. Does that sound like something that's at all viable? Yeah, this is sorry. This is really his first question I neglected to answer. And, you know, this is something that's an interesting suggestion. The fact is, though, this has been tried,

tested and failed in the past. The Israelis have tried to find sort of proxy groups, families, clans, as this plan seems to mention. And this is all the reporting from my excellent colleague, Josh Letterman, who gathered this from Israeli officials yesterday. And, you know, this idea of putting clans in charge of various divisions of the Gaza Strip instead of Hamas, which Israel intends to destroy, and instead of the Palestinian Authority, which now governs the West Bank, where I am right now, that is another alternative. But again, one that has been done before and didn't really work out because a lot of those clans in the past that were used to govern this part of the West Bank, and this was decades ago, they were seen as collaborators. And that's kind of how the Palestinian Authority, which is now in government here, that they have been seen as collaborators with Israel as well.

That makes them inherently unpopular, especially as the opinion among the Palestinians swings well against any compromise with the Israelis. And Hamas has become increasingly popular, particularly outside of Gaza, where it has had dominion for the past 16 years. So whether or not this actually works, it just goes to show the fact that the Israelis are looking at a tried, tested, and

failed solution to this problem just goes to show how desperate they are to find any kind of solution to what's going to be happening in the Gaza Strip after they're done there. That has been the big missing question so far. Who will govern the Gaza Strip if and when Israel completes its goal of entirely dismantling Hamas? It's a big question and one the Americans have been continually putting to the Israelis. But right now, the Israelis are so filled with rage and a desire to dismantle Hamas that this question seems like almost a side question. And we've already heard from the government of Israel that this fight in the Gaza Strip could go on until the end of 2024, the end of this new year. So for many who governs the Gaza Strip is almost secondary to just the immediate goal of getting

rid of Hamas. Guys. My God. NBC News foreign correspondent Matt Bradley, thank you very much for your reporting and analysis this morning. We appreciate it. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll go live to Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the president of Harvard has resigned amid criticism over her testimony at a congressional hearing about anti-Semitism on campus, as well as growing accusations of plagiarism in her academic work. Plus, Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie won't be on the next primary debate stage. He'll join us live with what that means for his campaign. Morning Joe is coming We'll be right back. Davis, time winding down. Are they going to get the ball up in time? Clark for the win! She does it again. Just a casual step-back logo game-winning three from the great Caitlin Clark,

the Iowa superstar, hitting that impossible shot, not for her, but for the rest of us, at the buzzer, giving her 40 points for the game. Iowa women's basketball team wins 76-73 over Michigan State. Hawkeyes extend their winning streak to 11 games. She is one of the most exciting athletes in all of sports, men or women. Meanwhile, in Louisiana, wow, Grambling State got off to a historic start to the new year, beating the College of Biblical Studies 159 to 18 last night. Wow. 141 point win marks the largest margin of victory in Division One women's basketball history. Might be a down year for the College of

Biblical Studies as well. Maybe take your foot off the gas after you go up 100. Yeah. The final Rose Bowl of the four-team college football playoff was the most watched non-NFL sporting event since 2018. It was a great game, makes sense. According to ESPN, an average of 27 million viewers tuned in for Michigan's overtime win against Alabama on Monday, which hit a peak audience of nearly 33 million. It was the most watched CFP semifinal game since Alabama's loss to Ohio State in the Sugar Bowl after the 2014 season. In the NFL, during a radio interview yesterday, New England Patriots legendary head coach Bill Belichick addressed questions about his future in football. Amid reports, he will part ways with the franchise at the end of this season. Whatever success I have had, I've tried to go about my job the same way every week.

Win, lose, good years, bad years, whatever they are. Just each week, get ready to go for that week, do the best you can to help your team win. And after that game, move on to the next one. And at the end of the season, that's the end of the season. But on a week-to-week basis, I mean, I don't want to spend time or get caught up in, you know, what happened five years ago or what's going to happen two years from now

or, you know, I mean, a bunch of all that random stuff so just working on the jets i'm committed to the team that i'm coaching right now the players that are here they deserve my best every day and that's what i'm going to give them you know if i was going to do anything i'd put it out there on you know twitter and my face everybody could see it my face with one week remaining in the regular season the four and twelve patriots will miss the playoffs for just the sixth time in Belichick's 24 seasons in charge there. Mike Barnicle joins us this morning. So Mike,

what's the, what's the word up in Boston about Belichick? Is he going to go after this season? Does he hang around? Does he give up the GM title? There are a few different ways this could go. You know, nobody really knows.

I think other than Robert Kraft and Jonathan Kraft, who run the Patriots, and perhaps Bill Belichick. One thing is for sure, the players have not quit on him. They played a pretty good game last week. They won. They've had a terrible year. I think what might happen is at the conclusion of the year, the crafts sit down with the coach and tell him, if you'd like to stay, we're going to surround you with our general manager, our director of

player personnel, a whole new drafting group that you are not going to control. And if you want to stay under those auspices, you're welcome to stay. And he would leave. I think that's what might happen. He's certainly earned the right to go however he wants to. It's just hard to imagine the Patriots without Bill Belichick. We'll see what happens. Coming up next here, an appeals court rules Texas can ban emergency abortions in spite of federal guidance. We'll have details on that story.

Plus, we'll dig into some of the other non-presidential stories to watch in 2024. Morning Joe will be right back. A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that Texas can ban emergency abortions, even though the Biden administration says a federal statute takes priority over state laws prohibiting the procedure. The unanimous decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated the government cannot enforce the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, a federal law governing emergency rooms that would require ER doctors to perform abortions if necessary to stabilize ER patients to save lives. The Biden administration originally issued the federal guidance after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June of 2022. Texas, along with some anti-abortion organizations, then sued the government, accusing the administration of overstepping its authority. The court's decision comes a month after the Texas State Supreme Court ruled against

a woman seeking an emergency abortion of her non-viable pregnancy. That court is currently considering a separate lawsuit by 22 women regarding the scope of the emergency medical exception to Texas's abortion ban. Katty Kay, your thoughts? I think this is going to be a major player in the presidential election in terms of Americans' attitudes towards abortion being health care rather than some hot button issue that they're on one side of or the other. Yeah. My first thoughts go out to the women like Kate Cox, right, who was the woman in Texas who had to end up leaving the state in order to get the abortion she needed to protect their health. They're not going to be able to get the health care they need. And while Republicans initially told us that when Roe

was overturned, there would be exceptions and doctors would be able to perform abortions. There was no problem with the law. It actually turns out in the state of Texas, they don't want women to get even emergency abortions when there is life-threatening conditions and potential risks to their health. So it's very bad news for women in Texas who might need that kind of health care. They're just going to, if they can afford it, they're going to have to leave the state in order to get it. Politically, it is this kind of ruling that keeps abortion alive as a political issue and has Democrats right now as we begin the war, the ones at the beginning of the year, the ones I've spoken to saying this is the kind of ruling that is going to win us back the House. And they are pretty confident that they can still mobilize and referendum after referendum in conservative state after conservative state seems to suggest that both Democrats and Republican, both women and men will turn out in their states in order to try to protect abortion rights. So when abortion is on the ballot,

it is a motivator for the Democrats. Absolutely. Katty, thank you. A look now at some of the other stories on front pages across the country. The Dallas Morning News reports on the Justice Department's request for an emergency Supreme Court ruling to allow federal agents to cut razor wire installed by Texas along the U.S.-Mexico border. The department says the wire makes it difficult for Border Patrol agents to reach and apprehend migrants. Governor Greg Abbott responded to the request on X, quote, see you in court. In Pennsylvania, the standard speaker leads with a local water utility that was one of many in the U.S. recently targeted by Iranian-backed hackers. According to the FBI, the organizations were targeted because they

contain specific Israeli-made industrial control devices. U.S. security officials say the attack shows how urgently necessary it is to fortify cybersecurity in local municipalities. The Arkansas Democrat Gazette is highlighting a new study that shows a growing number of women are ordering abortion pills, especially in states where abortion access is threatened. Nationally, the study found the average number of daily requests for the pill surged almost tenfold from about 25 to 247 following the draft leak of the Supreme Court Dobbs decision. Rates of requests were highest in states where abortion bans were expected and even higher in states that already had bans. So you see the result of the overturning of Roe. And in California, the Los Angeles Times reports there are at least two Mickey Mouse inspired horror movies in the works. After the Steamboat Willie version of the beloved character entered the public domain, Disney's copyright of the short film officially expired on Monday.

The company still holds the copyrights on the characters' other depictions. Okay. And still ahead on Morning Show, many voters in counties that have played a crucial role in the past four presidential elections say they don't like what they see this year. We'll dig into the new reporting from The Wall Street Journal. Plus, former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko will be our guest this morning as Russia hammers Ukraine's two largest cities with massive missile strikes. You're watching Morning Joe.

We'll be right back.