Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/16/24

Episode Date: February 16, 2024

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny dies in prison

Donald Trump lost in 2018. He lost it for us in 2020. He lost it for us in 2022. But look at what happened last week. Last week, he loses his case on immunity. He's now going to be citizen Trump. He's got his first court case, March 25th, March and April. He's in one case court case, May and June. He's in another. He's already said he's going to spend most of this year in a courtroom, not on a campaign trail. That's not a way you win. But then you go and you look at the fact we lost a vote on Mayorkas. We lost a vote on Israel. The RNC chair lost her job and Trump had his fingerprints on all of it. Everything he touches, we lose.

Nikki Haley laying out all of the delay tactics from Trump's legal team. Meanwhile, Donald Trump is facing another ruling today that could cost him hundreds of millions of dollars and put an end to his business empire in New York. We'll get expert legal analysis on both of those cases as well as the fiery testimony yesterday from Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis. Her appearance on the witness stand came in a hearing connected to the Georgia election interference case. It was incredible. Plus, a key source for House Republicans and their investigation into President Biden and his family is now charged with lying to the FBI. We'll go through that significant development straight ahead. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, February 16th. And wow, Willie, what a Friday it is. There is so much to cover with us. We have the

host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist at The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. I will tell you, Willie, when Fannie Willis stood up, came into the room and said, I'm here, I'm going to take the stand. I thought, oh, boy, everybody, everybody sit back. This is going to be something. She was defiant. She was upset. She was angry. And many would say she was asked a lot of degrading questions. And the entire thing was a bit of a you know what show that she doesn't have time for, but she gave it to him. I'll tell you that. Yeah, it was an incredibly dramatic scene. As she said, she testified later, she'd been pacing back and forth in her office listening to the previous testimony, and she went

in, and remember, she was not supposed to appear. She wasn't going to appear for the subpoena, and she said, I'm ready. I want to do it. And just sat down in the witness stand. And it will continue this morning. She's not done yet. So Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis took the stand in Atlanta and delivered testimony in the evidentiary hearing regarding the misconduct allegations against her. This is an effort by Donald Trump and several of his co-defendants to have Willis disqualified and the election interference case dismissed. D.A. Willis, who initially tried to quash the subpoena for her testimony, withdrew that objection yesterday and accused the defense

of lying about her relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. Mr. Wade visits you at the place you laid your head. When has he ever visited you at the place you laid your head? So let's be clear, because you've lied in this. Let me tell you which one you lied in right here. I think you lied right here. No, no, no, no. This is the truth. It is a lie. It is a lie. D.A. Willis holding up three pleadings filed by the defense there last month. Trump co-defendant Michael Roman, a longtime Republican opposition researcher who worked in the Trump administration, accused Willis and Wade of having an improper personal relationship and claimed Wade was hired

for the job because of it. Willis did admit to the relationships, but she said it started after Wade was hired. Trump and several other co-defendants joined Roman's motion to try to remove Willis. When Roman's attorney, Ashley Merchant, accused Willis of not wanting to turn over records, Willis reminded her that she is not the one charged with a crime. I object to you getting records. You've been intrusive into people's personal lives. You're confused. You think I'm on trial.

These people are on trial. These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020. I'm not on trial, no matter how hard you try to put me on trial. Earlier, Mr. Wade took the stand and testified to the timeline of his relationship with Willis and how the pair split the costs of trips and their dates with Willis, he said, paying in cash. She confirmed that later. Before that, a former friend of D.A. Willis, who also worked paying in cash. She confirmed that later. Before that, a former friend of D.A. Willis, who also worked inside the D.A.'s office, her name's Robin Yerty, testified that Willis and Wade began dating in 2019, disputing the timeline the couple had given.

When pressed, it was revealed that Yerty had a falling out with Willis after she was forced out of the DA's office in 2022. OK, with all of that said, let's bring in former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance, former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Glenn Kirshner. He's an MSNBC legal analyst and former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin. OK, let's begin left to right. How about that? We've got so many great legal minds here. Joyce, I'll start with you. The conventional wisdom seemed to be after Mr. Wade's testimony. Some said that this case was dead because of inconsistencies in the way that they were describing the relationship because of the previous testimony of Miss Yurtee saying, no, actually, they were dating a long time before this. So, yes, maybe this was an improper relationship. Did D.A. Willis's testimony after Mr. Wade's do anything to change your mind about that? So, you know, it may have changed the public impression of the

hearing, but from the get go, this was about whether the defendant could prove a conflict of interest existed under Georgia law that warranted disqualification for Fannie Willis. And at least based on what we heard yesterday, maybe they'll have more today. But they came up short. They came up short in Wade's testimony. The witness, the friend who took the stand, was impeached. And this is the sort of thing that when you're presenting evidence, you don't want to have happen. But it turns out that this witness resigned in lieu of being fired from the district attorney's office. That through her testimony about the timeline of the relationship

into doubt. Ultimately, at the end of the day, yesterday, it was just a big nothing burger, Willie. There was nothing that showed that Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade had the sort of financial conflict of interest that Georgia law recognizes, something akin to a prosecutor who only gets paid if they win a case. That's the classic case at Georgia law where there's a conflict that results in disqualification. That just wasn't there yesterday in the courtroom. So, Glenn, Joyce is right. We got deep, deep in the weeds about how much cash did you pay for this dinner a couple of years ago? And D.A. Willis was saying, I don't remember. I don't keep receipts. She said she keeps large amounts of cash at homes and often pays her way in cash, splitting the bill with Mr. Wade and these dates.

So you kind of got mired in all these details. But to pull way back, what did you see yesterday? What were the stakes? And did you see anything that would get rid of this case that would push it down to someone else who may not take it up? You know, Willie, as is always the case, I agree with Joyce. This is going nowhere. It will very soon be yesterday's news because there is no conflict, financial or otherwise. There's nothing that I saw in the testimony thus far, recognizing additional witnesses will testify today and the hearing is expected to go into next week. But I've seen nothing that has inured to the detriment of any defendant in the case. So I don't think the defense will be able to carry the burden. What I what I do think is what we saw yesterday is a tribute to the value of cameras in the courtroom, because as you watch D.A. Willis testify,

I would be hard pressed to believe that anything she said was a misrepresentation, was inaccurate or was untruthful. She was angry and she had every right to be angry. She was holding up public court filings that she contended contained all sorts of lies. And once they go out into the public square, people are going to believe those lies. She was hot, but she had every right to be hot. She remained respectful, but forceful. And I don't think this hearing will win the defense any relief whatsoever. It's so interesting because you can you could definitely get from her testimony, Lisa, that she was angry for a number of reasons,

and many of them she didn't bring up. She obviously doesn't like being lied about. She obviously doesn't like having her personal life dragged out into the open and also lied about. She mentioned several times in her testimony that she's had to move a lot because of death threats, even before the election trial began because of other trials that she's presided over. I mean, this has been a tough job for her. And then to hear, you know, this sideshow happen to try and delay the election interference case. This is her point of view. She was just, you know what? Absolutely PO'd and got up on the

stand because she was like, damn it. I'm just going to have to tell my own story to these people. Let's talk about these people. The Trump attorneys seemed bumbling. They seemed unprepared. They seemed completely surprised that she took the stand and had absolutely nothing prepared for her. They kept asking her the same questions over and over again. And they would talk about her cash, the cash that she kept in her home through the course of her life. She said she had anywhere between $500 cash during hard times, up to $15,000 maybe in her apartment during really good times, maybe on average $6,000 to $9,000. But she never walked around with it except on vacation. At the most, she spent $2,500 cash when they went on a trip that was to pay him back for it. But most of the time, she didn't carry around

this cash, but she kept it where she lived. And let's talk about where she lived. She couldn't live in her home. She couldn't live in her home because this election interference trial has caused a danger to her life. So if you're wondering why she's angry, is that this has led to such an upheaval in her life in so many different ways to serve and to try and take this case to fruition. And then to have this happen, that would cause someone to be very, very angry. I know I'm going to get to a question, but I just want to point out, you know, it's bad when you turn on Fox News and they start talking about her demeanor, her behavior, her looks. I mean, it shows that there's probably a problem with the case that they think they have against her. I thought she was fiery. I thought she said important things. I think that she set herself up for a lot of criticism, but I think this is a woman who

doesn't give a damn about that. How do you think she did, Lisa, in the face of everything that came at her yesterday? Would you have adjusted anything? You know, it's really hard to say, Mika. It's really hard to criticize somebody's performance, given the accusations that have been thrown at her and Nathan Wade. If Fannie Willis were my client, I probably would have advised against two things. I would have advised against some of the shows of anger, and I would have advised her against some of the detail that she provided. There were times in which that detail was helpful and humanizing to her, and there were other times where it was just unnecessary explanation and almost gave the other attorneys more license to probe into her personal life.

But I'm glad that you put the focus on her safety and what she was going through at the time. And let me add an additional lens of COVID, because at the time that she moved into the safe house that became the subject of some of the questions yesterday, she reminded everybody who was watching that was peak COVID. That was a period of time where she was, as she put it, really lonely. And because she was living alone in the safe house, her father continued to live in her primary residence. And she just seemed in that moment, very human, but it's easy for me as a lawyer and litigator who watched this to criticize in retrospect, it's another thing to

have lived this. And I think to bring a different lens to it, one of the reasons that the attorneys on the Trump side seems so flummoxed by her is that they lack a certain cultural competency, depending on how you grew up, where you grew up, and even things like who your community was. The practices that Fonny Willis was talking about in terms of keeping cash in your home, those might resonate differently with you depending on your upbringing. And so a number of attorneys in that courtroom were completely stymied by it. That didn't seem to make sense to her. But when she explained how she was raised by her father and how important it was for him to see her grow up a independent and financially independent at that as a black woman, that made the difference for me and I think for others watching as well.

Jean, we really do have to take a step back here as we spent hours watching questions and discussion about whether D.A. Willis split the check for dinner on the trip to Belize or Mr. Wade paid for dinner on the cruise to the Bahamas. Let's take a step back. This is a case in which Donald Trump is on tape asking the secretary of state of Georgia to steal the election. So let's remember what we're really talking about here. And I understand this is a tactic that the Trump team is trying to get this case moved out, at least from D.A. Willis's office and maybe gotten rid of altogether. This is a case that scares Donald Trump, and that's why they're resorting to these tactics. He's on tape doing it. He's on tape doing it. And these are state charges, which if he were reelected president,

he couldn't attempt to pardon himself from. He would be if he were convicted. So this is serious for Trump. And as you said, there's evidence on tape. That's about as good as it gets. This was, you know, I think those Trump lawyers had no idea what was coming at them yesterday. I just don't think they anticipated that at all. I think they probably thought that she would. It sounded as if the judge might rule that she did not have to testify. And so I think that's what they were anticipating. And she shows up and she sits down without being instructed to do so. And she's like, come on, come on. You know, I'm here and we're going to we are going to do this. And so it seemed to be a pretty disastrous day for the Trump lawyers. I did not, a non-lawyer,

I did not hear any of the sort of conflict of interest that you would need, the financial conflict of interest you would need under Georgia law to actually have her bounced as a prosecutor. We will see what the judge does. But a question for Joyce Vance. So how much more of this does the judge intend to put up with or have to put up with? I heard at the very end he was asking each, how many more witnesses do you want to call? Is this going to go on and on and on? Or can he or should he just cut this off at some point?

Because one thinks that everybody has heard enough at this point. Right. We've heard far more about Fannie Willis's personal life than she should ever have been forced to divulge. And I think it's a great question for this reason. This is a judge who, although he's young, is savvy. He's a former federal prosecutor and he's building a record. He's giving the defense here. He's giving Michael Roman's lawyers every opportunity to put evidence into the record to show that there's a conflict of interest. And if they continue to fail to do that, if this judge rules, as I think we're expecting him to do, that although Fannie Willis may have shown some poor judgment in her personal life, dating someone she worked with, that nothing rises to the level of disqualification, then there will be an evidentiary record that will support the judge's decision if there's a conviction and the case goes on appeal.

And that's what trial judges think about. Am I creating a record that will get me affirmed on appeal? So as much as this is a painful spectacle in many ways, and certainly no one would hope, or at least no one who thinks about the criminal justice system in the way that I do would ever want to see a prosecutor essentially persecuted like Willis has been. This may well benefit the case in the long run. We'll see what happens today. We're going to talk about this a lot more. There's also a lot more other news to cover, especially in the legal realm. A major setback for House Republicans and the impeachment inquiry into President Biden. It has to do with Hunter. Huge news there. And also the trial was set for Donald Trump in the Stormy Daniels case. That will move forward. We'll have more on all of that in just one minute. Oh, beautiful shot as the sun just begins to come up over New York City at 619 on a Friday morning.

A judge in New York has denied Donald Trump's bid to dismiss the charges against him in his hush money trial, ordering jury selection to begin March 25th. Trump attorney Todd Blanch argued his legal team needed more time to prepare, citing Trump's other legal cases and claimed that date would be, quote, election interference because of the presidential primaries that month. With the former president seated at the defense table, the judge dismissed those arguments, saying the defense has had plenty of time to prepare. Trump faces 34 felony charges, which would center on allegations he falsified business records to cover up hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential election. Trump's legal team has argued no crime was committed. The trial

is expected to last six weeks. So, Lisa Rubin, you were in the courtroom yesterday. It sounds like the judge there rejected the idea that it was election interference because they had chosen this date. It's deeper into March. It's not around Super Tuesday. It's not a particularly busy time of the campaign season at the end of March there. What else did you hear from the judge there? I saw a judge who is much closer to Judge Luke Kaplan, who presided over the E.G. Carroll trials than, for example, Justice Arthur Ngoron of the New York Supreme Court, from whom we are expected to hear today, and gave the Trump attorneys a lot of latitude during the New York civil fraud trial that I attended, Willie. He was allowing Todd Blanche to make a record with respect to why he felt it was

unfair to go to trial. But at one point said, Mr. Blanche, I've heard this all before from you. Tell me something new. And when he didn't hear it, he told him, Mr. Blanche, sit down, don't interrupt me. So you have a judge who's definitely in command of his courtroom. And more importantly, Willie, you have a district attorney's team who's really well prepared with receipts. You know, yesterday was sort of the revenge of the receipt, so to speak, because you had these folks in Fannie Willis's case come in with all these receipts that they thought showed something. And they were actually receipts, right? Travel receipts that didn't amount to much. But here, the New York DA's case, they really had their evidence. They had a filing that Blanche had signed before Judge Aileen Cannon that they used to illustrate why the argument he was making to

Judge Marchand about a trial in the Florida case wasn't in good faith. They also had an email, as you referenced a little bit earlier, that Blanche sent them in May of 2023, where he proposed the March 25th date, saying that would cause minimal or minimized disruption to the primary schedule. It is true, as Blanche said, that between March 1st and March 25th, there are 42 primaries or caucuses. But as Mershon reminded him, you knew that there was going to be a trial in this case. I set a firm date for trial. And this date is partially of your own choosing. You don't have anyone to blame here, Mr. Blanche, other than yourself. And it is, of course, history. Donald Trump will be the first former president to sit in a trial criminally charged. He also, of course, is the Republican

frontrunner. And we heard from Nikki Haley at the top of our hour talking about that court date and suggesting that's the reason why she's staying in the race, sort of unspoken, just in case, just in case something happens. So, Glenn, let's bring you in on this discussion here, the matters in New York. First of all, do you think that March 25th date will stick, more or less? We know the Trump team has signaled they'll do their best to push it back. And then once the trial does commence, give us a sense as to what it would look like and how long it would last. So, first of all, Jonathan, I do think it will stick. Judge Marchand, as Lisa said, seems to be no nonsense. And he kind of ended the hearing as I read the reporting by telling Donald Trump's lawyer

when that lawyer launched into what sounded more like a Donald Trump 2 a.m. post saying things like nothing like this should ever go on in this country. He said, you know what? That's not a legal argument. I'll see you on March 25th, indicating Judge Marchand believes this case is is in the chute to go to trial. And the other thing, not to mix legal apples and oranges. I actually think the unabated string of losses in civil cases that Donald Trump has suffered, E.G. and Carol one, E.G. and Carol two, the New York civil fraud trial, which he lost on the merits. And we're now waiting to see how large the money judgment might be that's handed down by Judge N. Goran. And actually, another case that I think Donald Trump lost by proxy,

the Trump Organization criminal conviction. That's his namesake. His organization was convicted of a 15 year long criminal scheme to defraud in the first degree. I think all of those losses are important foreshadowing for what's about to hit Donald Trump in the criminal cases. When the rules of evidence and the rule of law applies, he will have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. So if you think the civil verdicts were dramatic that were entered against Donald Trump, I don't think you've seen anything yet. Just wait for these criminal trials to get underway. Well, speaking of the civil verdict, we should be hearing from Judge Nguyen today. I mean, word is that he perhaps could be paying

100, 200, maybe up to 300 million dollars, depending on what the judgment is. And it feels that that that could ultimately get to Trump as much as some of these federal counts have against him, because it could really, absolutely, completely stop his ability to do business and make money. So in that case, Lisa, what can we expect? Is there any possibility he will have a light judgment? No, I don't think there's a possibility of a light judgment. And Mika, even more so than the money, some of the injunctive relief that the attorney general's office is asking for will seem more draconian to Donald Trump, for example, if he's barred from being an officer or director of a New York corporation. But it matters a lot to him whether his sons are banned from that same activity, even if that ban is only for five years, as the attorney general has proposed. That's because Don and Eric are not just the nominal heads of the Trump organization now. If their testimony is to be believed from that civil fraud trial, they are in charge. And so if Don and Eric can't be officers and directors of New York

companies, query who is in charge of the Trump Organization. It can't be anybody with the last name Trump, because as we all know, Ivanka has moved to Florida, has distanced herself from the family business, political and financial. And that means the whole future of the Trump organization in terms of its governance by a family member is really at issue today. And I agree with Glenn. Not only are these civil cases a foreshadowing of what could be to come in the criminal cases, I think they have the potential to unhinge and upset Donald Trump more so than the prospect of jail time or conviction because they go to the heart of what matters to him, the money. Yeah. Yeah. And all these cases, it's women holding him accountable, which I think irks him in a big way.

Joyce Vance, your thoughts on that? And also, I'm just curious, watching the testimony yesterday in Atlanta, what did you make of the Trump attorneys? Did they seem prepared? Did they seem like talented attorneys? So I'll take the second part of that first, Mika. I mean, we saw a mixed bag yesterday. Donald Trump's lawyer, Steve Sadow, when he questioned witnesses, was in a little bit of a different vein than Michael Roman's lawyer. She was, as you pointed out earlier, very surprised when Fannie Willis took the witness stand. And, you know, prosecutors are usually supposed to have thick skin. They're supposed to be professional in a courtroom. Fannie Willis came in hot and the lawyers for Michael Roman

weren't prepared to deal with that situation. So in some ways, Willis's willingness to humanize herself and to jump out of her prosecutorial shoes a little bit and just to be a woman who had been wrongfully accused, I think showed some of the weaknesses in that defense team. And it'll be interesting to see how that plays out. There are a lot of different defense lawyers in this case. When it goes to trial, there's some possibility that they'll end up stepping on each other, that some of them will be weaker than others. As a prosecutor, that's something that you take into account as part of your strategic preparation for a case. Willis learned a lot yesterday about who she's up against.

You know, in the New York case, I think Glenn is very savvy when he points out that the cumulative effect of the civil cases has to begin to wear on Donald Trump. And what's really happening is they're breaking down this myth that he's invincible in court, that whether it's through delay or bluster or his insistence that cases go his way, that finally Donald Trump is meeting the rule of law. And it hasn't gone very well for him in the E. Jean Carroll case. It's very likely that New York Attorney General Letitia James will walk away victorious in the civil fraud case. And that sets Donald Trump up for the next act in his legal troubles, the four criminal cases.

It now looks likely that two of them may have a chance of going to trial before the election. And this is Donald Trump versus the rule of law in full force. Absolutely. And he has to show up for the stormy trial. He's got to be there every day. So that that she's not going to sit well with him. Joyce Vance, thank you very much. Lisa Rubin, thank you both very much for being on this morning. Glenn, stick around. We've got something to talk to you about here. The so-called informant who accused Joe Biden and his son Hunter of accepting bribes has been indicted on two counts of feeding the FBI false information. What that stunning development could mean for the Biden impeachment effort by House Republicans. Plus, The Washington Post's David Ignatius joins us from the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference in Germany,

where the wars in the Middle East and Eastern Europe are expected to dominate the conversation among world leaders. Morning Joe is back in a moment. Today, FBI officials confirmed that the unclassified FBI-generated record has not been disproven and is currently being used in an ongoing investigation. The confidential human source who provided information about then-Vice President Biden being involved in a criminal bribery scheme is a trusted, highly credible informant who has been used by the FBI for over 10 years and has been paid over six figures. These are facts and no amount of spin and frankly lies from the White House or congressional Democrats can change this information.

Oversight Committee Chair Republican James Comer, that was in June of last year, touting the testimony of an FBI informant. Now, in a major setback for House Republicans impeachment inquiry into President Biden and exactly to what he just said, that former FBI informant has been indicted by a Justice Department special counsel for allegedly lying to the bureau about President Biden and his son Hunter, their overseas business dealings. 43-year-old Alexander Smirnoff is facing two counts of allegedly feeding the FBI false and derogatory information about the president and his son during the 2020 presidential

campaign. Smirnoff is also facing one count of making a false statement to a government agent and falsification of records in a federal investigation. Smirnoff's account was critical to the Republicans impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Smirnov was arrested in Las Vegas after an overseas trip. A judge ordered him to remain in detention, pending a hearing in federal court set for next Tuesday in Las Vegas. A source familiar with the matter told NBC News that Hunter Biden does not know the individual who was charged and does not believe he ever met him. House Oversight Committee ranking member Democrat Jamie Raskin called for an end to the impeachment inquiry into President denying that Smirnov's testimony was integral, even though you heard him say that, to the committee's impeachment inquiry and claims that they have other evidence for their case. Glenn, I'm just curious. I think lying to the FBI, that's bad, right?

That is bad. Yes, that falls under the category of bad. Yeah. And Mika, so here's the thing. Anytime you're dealing with a source, the three most important words are corroboration, corroboration and corroboration. And the fact that the Republicans would rely on somebody like this who has now been criminally indicted for providing false information about the Hunter Bidens the question, you know, are they sort of irretrievably incompetent or do they just turn a blind eye to the credibility of the evidence that they're using in what the president of the United States. You know, it it just shows that the Republican Party or at least certain factions continue to circle the drain. And you have to wonder, is there anybody in the Republican Party that's willing to do the hard work of pulling them out from this nosedive? Because this is beyond embarrassing.

It is it's just it's not government's governance. It is, you know, it's inexcusable. John Lemire, this was as we just heard in that soundbite from James Comer, this guy, his testimony viewed as a smoking gun. Look, the president of the United States, Joe Biden, he took five million dollars in bribes and Hunter Biden was involved. And this is just the latest we should point out in star witnesses who have sort of been vaporized by actual evidence. There's the guy, Gal Luft. I don't know if they ever found him. Remember, he was a found out to be an agent of the Chinese government, also an arms dealer with Iran. He was the star witness. Now it was

Mr. Smirnoff. Now we find out he was actually making it all up. They've hung their hats in this investigation desperately on liars time and time again. Yeah, it's an all-star team of criminally indicted witnesses. You know, it is this it underscores just how shoddy this case has been from the beginning. This is happening because, look, Hunter Biden, by his own admission, made some deals that were perhaps unsavory while his father was vice president. But there's never been any evidence, none, that Joe Biden himself was involved. And Republicans have spent years trying to prove it. This was a central part of their attacks in the 2020 campaign. They didn't come up with it then. They haven't come up with it now. And and this impeachment inquiry is proceeding mostly because Donald Trump wants it to, because Trump doesn't want to be the only candidate this November to potentially have been impeached or to be in the middle of some sort of investigation.

We know Trump, of course, impeached twice and now has all these criminal probes, nothing criminal about what President Biden has done. And Republicans, even despite this devastating and embarrassing setback yesterday, say they're going to forge forward. And I will say this, from the White House perspective, a couple of senior aides I spoke to last night said, again, reiterated, no president wants to be impeached or even go through an impeachment inquiry. It is a bad use of time and resources. It will generate some undeniably bad headlines. But they also think this is really going to backfire, Mika. They think this is going to blow up in the Republican faces. We've already seen polling suggests that it wasn't helping them anyway. And now it'll probably just get worse for the GOP. Former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Glenn Kirshner,

thank you very much. We do want to turn now to breaking news out of Russia. We're getting reports that jailed opposition leader, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is now dead. That is according to the Russian prison service. He was 47 years old. He spent his final months behind bars as the Russian leader reshaped the country to rally behind his war in Ukraine. We have a lot more to talk about in terms of his life. This is a man who really dedicated his life to opposing Putin's reign. He rose to prominence as Russia's most outspoken Kremlin critic. He was poisoned at one point. He'd been imprisoned many times. He even tried to run against Vladimir Putin in 2018 in the presidential election, but was barred from entering the race. And they kept finding reasons to throw him in jail. Again, Alexei Navalny is dead.

Joining us from the Munich Security Conference is columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius, who can give us a lot more insight into this breaking story. David, tell us what you know about Navalny. And it appears that he just collapsed while he was in prison. They tried,

they say, to resuscitate him. So, Mika, the first thing to say, obviously, is that this is a terrible tragedy. Navalny was an extraordinarily courageous man. The Russian government tried to poison him. He barely survived, taken out of Russia on a plane to Germany. Recuperation was difficult. People really weren't sure he'd make it. And what did he do when he recovered? He went right back to Russia. He went right back to stare Vladimir Putin in the face. It was an act of really extraordinary bravery. I can remember pictures of him walking down the aisle of the plane as it flew into Moscow, getting off that plane, getting off to what he knew would be his arrest, his imprisonment, and perhaps he imagined his eventual death. So first of all, a remarkable man of our times who dared to challenge really the most despotic leader in the world, Vladimir Putin, and paid this terrible price.

Second thing that I'd say is that this event, as it's confirmed, I think is going to remind Americans in the world of what kind of regime Vladimir Putin's Russia is, that it would take a brave man like this, someone who fought for democracy, someone who mocked Putin's wealth. You go back and see Navalny's videos. They're funny to watch because he makes such fun of the thievery by Putin and Putin's gang of oligarchs and mistresses. So I think Americans will look at this news and realize Putin's regime is not just another foreign problem. It's something that Americans have an obligation with all free people to resist. I hope it will affect congressional debate on funding for Ukraine, which is bravely standing up to Putin, much as Navalny did. We've got Richard Engel joining us now. He is in Kiev covering the war there. Richard,

you have covered Alexei Navalny for a long time. You've covered Russia for a long time. What's your reaction to the news here? Well, I think it's going to be very difficult to verify the account of the prison authority. So Alexei Navalny was just relatively recently moved to this penal colony in Siberia where the prison authorities say he died. The prison authorities say that he went for a walk and that he immediately became unwell after this walk, that he lost consciousness, that medical staff at this penal colony, which is north of the Arctic Circle, about 2,000 miles away from the facility where he'd been previously held near Moscow, that he was given medical treatment, but that he, it was unsuccessful and that he died and that the prison authorities confirm his death.

There are going to be many people skeptical of this account, and it will be very hard to know what actually happened in a closed off Siberian penal colony that is known as the Arctic Wolf, a facility for about a thousand men in Siberia. All right, Richard Engel, I know you have to run. We'll check back with you in just a bit. David Ignatius, go back to you, to the point you were making, which I think is so important. We've heard even just this week,

United States senators praising Vladimir Putin around their objections to funding for Ukraine. We had Senator Tuberville saying, excuse me, that Vladimir Putin is, quote, on top of his game right now. You had Ron Johnson praising Vladimir Putin. Obviously, Donald Trump has a great affinity for Vladimir Putin as an authoritarian. But perhaps this moment, Alexei Navalny, as you say, we throw the word courage around a lot. He lived with real courage, standing up to a man who literally tried to kill him again and again and again. And as Richard points out, the idea that he went for a walk

at his gulag and suddenly dropped dead. Obviously, we can throw some some question to that as well. So I hope that the example of Navalny will inspire Russians, first of all, because he was a demonstration of the Russian spirit, that Russian yearning for something better than what they have, and the absolute determination to try to get it. I hope it will shame Americans who have said, as you just quoted, Willie, these extraordinary things seeming to support Vladimir Putin. I hope those comments stick in the throats of people who made them as they see this news of a brave, determined Russian fighter dying in prison. And I hope in this broad debate about American power, whether it's important for the United States to be involved in the world, this will be a reminder of the difference that our idea of freedom, which inspired Navalny, inspires the hundreds of people who are in prisons around the world today for fighting for decent values, for a free press. I hope it will remind Americans that what we say and do matters.

It keeps that flame alive. I don't mean to sound too corny about it, but it's literally there are so many Navalny's in so many prisons and they all look to Washington, look to the United States to make sure that we're still committed to supporting the kind of values that they espouse. Jonathan Lemire, I'll kick it to you. And as I do, Michael McFaul, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, a man with a long history with Vladimir Putin, a frequent guest on this show and others on MSNBC, just tweeted simply, quote, Putin is a cowardly bastard,

reacting to the news of the death of Alexei Navalny. Now, we have not heard yet from the White House on this death. It has just come over a few minutes ago. Russian prison officials saying it. It's not. And then new sources using them as the source. U.S. is not independently confirmed it. But I suspect we will hear from the White House at some point today. And I think it's clear here whether this was Putin actively killing Navalny today or simply

the system that Navalny has been in, this Russian prison system killing him. There's no doubt the blood here is on Putin's hands. And we should note this, that when President Biden met with Vladimir Putin, their first and only meeting was the summer of 2021 in Geneva, Switzerland. It stood in such stark contrast to when Trump and Putin met in Helsinki. And Biden said he stood up to Putin on a number of things, though unable to dissuade him from invading Ukraine months later, but pushed him on other things. And I actually asked President Biden, what would happen if Alexander Navalny died? What did he say would happen when he was meeting with Putin? And he said, quote, I made it clear to him that I believe the consequences of that would be devastating for Russia.

So that I think we will need to hear from the president later today. I'm sure we will in a matter of time. David Ignatius about this. What could those consequences be? Obviously, Russia has turned into a global pariah in the years following that Geneva summit. They've already been cut off by so much of the world because of their invasion in Ukraine. But what could escalate here? What could happen the United States do to Moscow in the wake of this death? So in terms of escalation, it's hard to see. We're already on such a mobilized state. I think the question, Jonathan, really is how the United

States can deliver on the promises it's already made. We have, in effect, promised the people of Ukraine that we'll stand by them in their fight against Russia's invasion. That question is now on the floor of our Congress, in effect. And it's crucial that Congress look at the world honestly and think about the consequences of letting the Ukrainians go. They are close to the point of breaking on some of their front lines. They need the weapons that we could send them desperately. They're running out of anti-aircraft missiles to defend their big cities. Their troops are exhausted.

So people need to see that in personal terms. For Russia, the country that poisoned, then jailed, imprisoned in these horrible conditions, Navalny, how he died exactly, we don't know yet. I think this is a reminder that sanctions against Russia have to be meaningful. They haven't hurt the Russian economy. Russia seems to be stronger than before the war. Its GDP is growing. It's found a way to deal with reduced oil sales and gas sales to Europe. So somehow those sanctions have to be toughened. There's a strong effort to take Russian money, central bank funds that were seized after the invasion of Ukraine, and give those to Ukraine. The United States now supports that. Europe is resisting.

I hope in the wake of Navalny's death, Europeans will say, that's it. That money, that $600 billion, that ought to go to Ukraine. That ought to be one obvious consequence of today's events. So, I mean, just when you look at the legacy of Alexei Navalny, the MAGA Republicans in Congress who are working for Donald Trump, taking orders from Donald Trump, I just hope they are reminded that Donald Trump is working for Vladimir Putin. Every move he makes is for Vladimir Putin. And I hope today, at least, they will read and learn about the legacy of Alexei Navalny as Russian opposition leader

and what his life means and meant. Here's more from Richard Engel. As Russia's leading opposition figure, Alexei Navalny piled pressure on the Kremlin and put a target on his back. Born in 1976 in what was then the Soviet Union, Navalny trained as a lawyer and rose to prominence as a political blogger. In 2011, he started the Anti-Corruption Foundation, which exposed the extravagant wealth of Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin. The biggest thing that Putin is afraid of is public discontent in Russia, and that is why it's so afraid of opposition leaders.

Navalny's and Putin's stars were intertwined. As Putin tightened his grip on power, Navalny became a leading figure at anti-government protests. We will force them to live by the law because we hold the power here, he shouted. He was arrested countless times and turned attacks to his advantage. In 2017, after announcing his intentions to run for president, Navalny was attacked with green dye. Twice. Maybe the Kremlin thinks that I will not record videos with a green face, he said, but now even more people will watch.

In 2019, as Navalny's anti-Corruption Foundation gained support nationally, police raided their offices and arrested several activists, including, of course, Navalny. But in 2020, his life was threatened like never before. On a plane traveling from Siberia to Moscow, Navalny became deathly ill. He fell into a coma and was put on a ventilator. While recovering in a German hospital, investigators revealed he had been poisoned with Novichok, a Soviet-era neurotoxin. Navalny blamed Putin for the attack, a claim the Kremlin denies. Miraculously, Navalny recovered and participated in the

investigation into his own poisoning, documenting the whole thing on social media. Despite the threats against his life, in January 2021, Navalny and his wife Yulia voluntarily returned to Moscow, where he was immediately arrested, ostensibly for violating the terms of a 2014 embezzlement case. Once in jail, he was tried and sentenced to more than nine years in a maximum security prison. Navalny said the charges were politically motivated. But even behind bars, he found ways to make his voice heard, using social media to protest the Ukraine war and needle those in power.

His legacy is one of defiance, a constant thorn in the side of the Kremlin. Richard Engel, NBC News. Gene, first, your thoughts on what you think the ramifications of the passing of Alexei Navalny will be. Well, first of all, Vladimir Putin killed Alexei Navalny after trying to do so for years. The poisoning, they threw him in prison. He wasn't dying, so they put him in the Siberian prison, probably one of the worst places they could think of, and they finally killed him. So let's be clear on who's responsible. And, you know, you said something really hopeful a minute ago,

that you hope that the mega Republicans read about Navalny's life and understand it and realize what this really is about, what Vladimir Putin is really about. And that's not going to happen. I mean, it is going to have absolutely no impact, I believe, on the Ron Johnsons and Tommy Tubervilles of the world, on the Marjorie Taylor's and the Matt Gaetz's. And they're going to be sitting there watching Putin fanboy Tucker Carlson, you know, sort of touring through Moscow grocery stores and talking about how great Russia is compared to the United States. Russia, where I believe the median income is something like $800 a month. Much, much poorer country than the United States with an economy about the size of that of Texas. So—but they're not going to listen.

They're not going to change. And so are there members of Congress who are on the margin who might be influenced by this? I sure hope so. And I sure hope it makes them release this money for Ukraine. But, David, how do you rate those chances? You followed the crusade for this badly needed and urgently needed Ukraine aid as it made its way through Congress and then got stalled and now seems to be nowhere. Do you think this is really going to help? So, Gina, I think it may. If you took a vote in Congress, a free vote, aid to Ukraine would pass by a very wide margin. I think there are many Republicans who understand the importance. of new Russian weapons capability in space that in the future could threaten American communications,

economic, military operations. So, you know, all these reminders of what a threat Russia poses. And I hope members of Congress, in part because they're afraid of what their constituents will say if they're seen to back down and walk away from people defying Putin and his regime, that they'll do the right thing and they'll vote for the same. But, you know, Gene, as you and everybody on the show know, it's hard to predict what Congress will do these days. The example of Navalny is extraordinary. And I hope that his death will haunt Vladimir Putin. This is a man who, as I said earlier, mocked Putin in every word, every gesture. He made fun of it. He made Russians laugh when he did his TV specials

about Putin's wealth. He was just so mordant, got a great kind of Russian sense of humor, and he made Putin squirm. You could see it. And Putin was determined to get him, tried to kill him. He came back, imprisoned him. Now he's dead. But the memory of his defiance is something every Russian knows about, will appreciate. I hope it'll make a difference as Russians think about their country, what kind of country they want to build, hopefully with support from the United States. Jonathan Lemire, as Richard Engel pointed out in that piece, Navalny voluntarily returned to Russia, knowing likely how this story was going to end. And this was the last stop here to that Siberian gulag, effectively the worst prison in Russia, where he the Russian

prison service says he died. We're working to confirm that news. But it should be pointed out also that this Alexei Navalny, he was this opposition leader, also had a family, had two kids. He's got a daughter who's in college here in the United States. He's got a teenage son. And there was an award, a great Oscar winning documentary last year about Navalny in which his daughter said, we've known since I was 13 years old that he could die, that we don't talk about it a lot. I hope that day doesn't come. But he has said that this is too important, that I need to speak out against Vladimir Putin. So this is a man with a family who, it appears, died in a Russian gulag today. Yeah. And his wife, certainly instrumental also to his activism.

Extraordinary display of bravery from Navalny here, as David recounted, after already being poisoned, returning to Russia, knowing what his fate would be, imprisonment and almost certainly death. Opponents of Vladimir Putin inherently are on borrowed time if they still remain within Russia. We have seen, you know, over the last few years, those who have opposed his war in Ukraine end up falling out a window or down a flight of stairs or they're poisoned. And Navalny now, whether he was actively killed today or just the circumstances of his imprisonment led to his death, that will be reigned to be seen. But there's no question that Vladimir Putin killed Alexei Navalny, who was a hero to so many Russians, but also a symbol around the world of democracy. If someone's standing up to Russia, we've heard President Zelensky has cited Navalny as a figure there that he looked up to as Ukraine girded itself against Putin's invasion there.

I tend to agree with Eugene. Sadly, I don't think this will move many Republican votes. I think that the fate of the aid package to Ukraine still is very, very much in doubt unless Speaker Johnson has an unexpected change of heart. But I do think we will hear from President Biden at some point today once this is confirmed by the U.S. talking about not only what Navalny stood for, but again, making the case that Putin must be opposed at any cost. Mika, just to add in here, a spokesperson for Alexei Navalny just put out a statement saying, we've heard the news. It's Russian state media. So we want to confirm it for ourselves.

They can't confirm it yet, but said one of his attorneys is on his way to the prison to see with his own eyes. All right. It's two minutes past the top of the hour. The breaking news right now, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has died in prison. This is according to Russian state media. This ends his decades long defiance against corruption and the Kremlin, which tried to kill him many times. It is widely reported that Vladimir Putin wanted him dead. They tried to poison him. He was put in a coma. He has died, nearly died several times. Navalny spent his final months behind bars. He was in a Russian penal colony. He was rallying around the war in Ukraine, even from behind bars.

They say he felt unwell after a walk and almost immediately lost consciousness. This is a Nugent said news agency, Interfax reporting. This will work on confirmation as more information comes out. They say they tried to revive him. It was not possible. But again, this man lived his life knowing every day that he might die, that he might be killed. He knew that Vladimir Putin was trying to kill him every minute of every day of his life. And yet he was defiant, wanting to show the Russian people, wanting to show the world the corruption and the lies and the evil that comes from the regime of Vladimir Putin.