Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/19/24

Episode Date: February 19, 2024

Biden blames Putin for Alexei Navalny's death

Today, justice has been served. Today, we prove that no one is above the law. No matter how rich, powerful, or politically connected you are, everyone must play by the same rules. This decision is a massive victory for every American who believes in that simple but fundamental pillar of our democracy, that the rule of law applies to all of us equally, fairly, and justly. That was New York Attorney General Letitia James speaking Friday after the financially devastating civil fraud ruling against Donald Trump. We'll explain that judgment and what it means for Trump's finances. Also ahead, we'll bring you the latest fallout following the death of Alexei Navalny as Russia cracks down on any show of support for the now deceased opposition leader. Plus, the Israeli government is rejecting any recognition of a potential Palestinian state while its forces move forward with an offensive near the city of Rafah, the last refuge for Palestinians in Gaza.

We'll go through all of those major developments out of the Middle East. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, February 19th, President's Day. I'm Jonathan Lemire, along with U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kay. We're in for Joe, Mika and Willie on this holiday. And with us here in Washington, we have former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg, as well as columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius. And Chuck, we'll come to you in a moment about all of these legal developments. But David, let's begin here. You were on our air. You were on with us speaking on Friday when word broke that Alexei Navalny had died in the Siberian prison, a longtime opposition leader to Vladimir Putin and his regime. And you were in Munich at this global security conference, a conference rocked by this news.

Give us your impressions. You were there for a few days coming back to join us here in Washington. How did this what is the reaction on the world stage as to what we've seen? Jonathan, I think the death of Navalny and also the defeat of Ukrainian troops in Adyvka on Saturday cast a real, I'm going to say, shadow over the conference. I went there expecting that this would be about European angst about the possible election of Donald Trump, Trump's threats to pull back from NATO, that whole chorus of European concerns. In the end, it wasn't. It was about the very vivid, new demonstration of the threat that Vladimir Putin poses to Ukraine, but also to Europe. And over and over, people talked about standing firm against Putin. Putin just hung over the stage there in Munich as a figure of menace for everybody who was there. There was talk in a much more serious way about how to fight back. Zelensky came to the conference,

Vladimir Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, came to the conference on Saturday and gave a powerful speech. I was struck by how much he'd aged in the two years since this war began. I remember him on the eve of war, this sort of fresh-faced young comedian taking control. You know, he looked just pounded by his experience as a wartime leader. And he was very frank. Unless you give us what we need, we're in terrible trouble now. Russians have broken through in this city of Adyvka, threat of moving much, much faster. Two conclusions from all of this. First, I think there is an understanding that Ukraine desperately needs new weapons. They're running out of ammunition.

That's one reason they lost this battle. They need the ammunition next week, right now. And they need long-range missiles. And there's a lot of talk about giving them things that NATO has held back. The United States in particular has held back missiles, the so-called ATACMS, that could strike much deeper. And then secondly, the question of the U.S. arms package. This was a bipartisan group of U.S. senators and congressmen in Munich. And I heard over and over again, to my surprise from Republicans as much as Democrats, we are going to find a way to do this. I don't mean to be making a legislative prediction because

I don't know enough. All I can say is that I heard over and over again, Americans tell Zelensky, Europeans, this is going to happen. We're going to find a way. They've got some new legislative strategies to get it through. So that was the sum of it. It was it was much more a fight back conversation than, oh, my gosh, here comes Trump. I mean, of course, the people that you were in Munich with are a self-selected group, right? They are the ones that want national security and they want America to lead that security. They weren't Speaker Johnson, who is the one that doesn't want to put this on the floor. Let me ask you about the European side of this, because my understanding it over the weekend is you've got this trifecta of things. You've got Trump saying that if you're not paying your dues to NATO, go ahead to any enemies that might want to have them.

You've got the loss that Ukraine had over the course of the weekend. And then you've got Navalny's death. And Europeans are left thinking, hold on a second. Are we seriously looking at a real shift in which we now have to step up for our own security without the prospect of American leadership. And what would that mean? What does that mean for the world? My sense is we may be at a turning point. I mean, and yes, Europeans are stepping up with their own defense spending. And we're seeing the Czechs and the Danes say, right, OK, Ukraine, you can have whatever we have. We're handing over the stocks as much as we can. But what would that mean if American leadership really goes from Europe now, whilst Putin seems to be in this moment of ascendancy to some extent, certainly

at home? I mean, we're looking at a real shift in the world order, aren't we, David, at the moment? Potentially. So an American stepping back from Ukraine would be an abdication of our responsibility. It's shocking for me to think about it. But what I heard from Europeans is whatever America does, we're threatened by a Putin whose menace to his own country and to us is greater even than we imagined. So we have no choice. This was stated by Germans, by Norwegians, by people across Europe, that this really is Europe's fight. America has been our crucial leader.

America was trying to reassure we're going to find a way to do this. But even if that package fails, Europeans were talking about ways to augment their own weapons production shipments. The Ukrainians are creating a company to build their own drones, a company to do their own electronic warfare. I mean, they're they people were not in a mood to give in to a Putin whose menace was so obvious. That's a takeaway. Despite that optimism in Munich, though, there's still real doubts as to whether those votes exist among Republicans to pass that package, even in a moment when we see Russia at the forefront of the conversation, including the threat from space that was discussed here that sent Washington to a frenzy last week. And we heard from President Biden, President Biden declared that Putin is responsible one way or another for Navalny's death. We'll certainly have much more on this

story as the show goes on. Yeah. Happy President's Day, everybody, by the weekend. What a great way to start the show is changing the world order. Chester A. Arthur never had to face such a crisis when he was in charge. OK. On Friday, we also got the judge's ruling, as John was just saying, in the civil fraud trial against Donald Trump ruling the former president must pay a $355 million penalty and be barred from serving in executive roles at any New York company for three years. In his decision, Judge N'Goran also ordered the continued appointment of an independent monitor for the company, writing in part, quote, their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. New York Attorney General Letitia James called the ruling a tremendous victory.

For years, Donald Trump engaged in deceptive business practices and tremendous fraud. Donald Trump falsely, knowingly inflated his net worth by billions of dollars to unjustly enrich himself, his family and to cheat the system. Donald Trump may have authored the art of the deal, but he perfected the art of the steal. Because the scale and the scope of Donald Trump's fraud is staggering. And so too is his ego and his belief that the rules do not apply to him. Today, we are holding Donald Trump accountable. We are holding him accountable for lying, cheating, and a lack of contrition, and for flouting the rules that all of us must play by, because there cannot be different rules for different people in this country, and former presidents are no exception. Attorney General James says the judgment against Trump totals over $450 million, once you've included interest,

an amount, she says, will continue to increase every single day until it is paid. Trump made several false claims about the ruling Friday night outside of Mar-a-Lago. He also said he would be appealing the judgment. So, Chuck Rosenberg, what happens now with this case? Is that done and dusted? He ends up paying and then we move on to the other cases? Or are we still got news from this one to get through if he's going to appeal? Well, if he is going to appeal, Katty, he has to either put up the money that would cover the judgment against

him. That's a lot of money. Or find someone to help him postpone. One way or the other, the law is written such that he can't just dissipate his assets, right? He can't try and hide stuff if he wants to appeal. Can't put them in a sneaker somewhere in Philadelphia, for example. For example, can't put them in a sneaker. If he wants to appeal, and I'm sure he does, he's going to have to put up the money backing the judgment. That's a lot, right? Remember, $355 million in New York State, plus another perhaps $100 million in interest there. And then two federal judgments against him totaling about $90 million. You add that all up, and I wasn't a math major, but it's over half a billion dollars

that he could be on the hook for. And then, of course, he also owes E. Jean Carroll another $83 odd million as well. So he's going to have to come up with some cash. And Donald Trump apparently is coming up with some creative ways to do so. One day after finding out he was on the hook for more than $350 million, the former president unveiled a new Trump-themed product to a less than receptive crowd. That's the real deal. That's the real deal. I just want to thank you very much for being here. It's an honor.

It's an honor. You're all sneakerheads. You're sneakerheads, right? Wow. A lot of emotion. There's a lot of emotion in this room. Thank you. Thank you.

First of all, let's know, that's the first time Trump has faced a hostile audience in a long time. And it was clear he didn't quite know what to do with those booze. By the way, I'm a little disappointed you're not wearing them, John. I was sort of hoping you'd crack them out for Christmas Day. There's a reason why the camera is only from the waist up here. No footwear reveals this morning. But that was Trump at SneakerCon for some reason, which was held in Philadelphia over the weekend. And he did roll out a new line of shoes selling for a cool

$399 a pair. Trump also announced a new fragrance line priced at $99 a bottle, where each scent symbolizes, quote, victory and strength. We'll leave you to decide what that actually smells like. Let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Lisa, you, of course, were following every step of the way this trial in New York that concluded Friday with this judgment of the payment that Donald Trump will have to provide in some way, partially funded by sneaker sales. Give us your overall takeaways as what you saw on Friday. Any surprises to you?

And just as Chuck suggested, I mean, Trump, even if appealing, he's got to come up with that cash. And soon, is there any suggestion that he can? Well, let's start first, John, with what I thought about the ruling, because I was really blown away by the size of the disgorgement that is what Judge Ngoan decided that the Trump parties had to give back from their fraudulent scheme. The attorney general had asked for around $370 million broken up into four different components. She basically said these are four different ways in which they have profited from their fraud. And as you know, from the ruling, they got almost everything that they wanted in that respect. What they didn't get, on the other hand, was a lifetime ban on Trump's participation in the New York commercial real

estate industry or a lifetime ban on him serving as an officer or director of a New York company. And I think that's because Judge Anguan determined the real way to hurt Donald Trump here was by making him pay and then by imposing supervision on him. He's now going to have not only a continuation of this monitorship that's been in place since 2022 run by retired federal judge Barbara Jones, but now they're going to have to appoint an internal but independent compliance monitor as well. And so I think that the babysitting component of this, plus the gargantuan financial penalties, is what really has some bite here. In terms of whether Trump has the money to put up for appeal, in New York State, it's not just

the entirety of the judgment. You actually have to put up 120% in the ordinary course to appeal, and you usually have to do that within 30 days. Whether Trump has that cash is really a question mark over my head and many others, in part because the last time that Trump himself spoke about his net worth under oath, he said he roughly had $400 million in cash. As you well know, the judgment in the E. Jean Carroll case, plus the judgment in this most recent case, far exceeds that $400 million number. And whether he has it remains to be seen. And whether he'd have to perhaps sell some of his prized assets to cover up the rest,

also an open question. Chuck, let's quickly touch on another legal matter. We saw it play out in Fulton County at the end of last week. The district attorney there, Fonny Willis, giving pretty impassioned defense on Thursday. And then the state decided not to call her. She did not appear on the stand again on Friday. What's your read as to how that went at the end of on Friday and where things could go next in that case. Yeah. So through a couple of different prisms, Jonathan, legally, the defendants have to show that there was some improper financial arrangement that makes out a conflict of interest. If the defendants can show a conflict of interest, a financial one by Ms. Willis hiring Mr. Wade when they had a romantic relationship

and that she somehow benefited from the money that was being paid to him. That could be a conflict. They could be disqualified from the case. That's the legal part. And I don't think the defendants have succeeded yet. I mean, it's messy, it's ugly. If you've watched any of it, you probably have sort of that icky feeling when you see it. But I don't know that they've made out the disqualification grounds yet.

Politically, it's a mess because there's a bunch of things that happened at the hearing that showed sort of it's gotten into personal relationships between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. There was some contention about when that relationship started. There was a witness who might have been very important on that fact, but he didn't testify fully because Mr. Wade was invoking a privilege to preclude him from doing that. Briefly, does any of that really matter for the substance of the Georgia case, though? Maybe. So if the romantic relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis began before he was hired by her in Fulton County, then the affidavit that he submitted might be false. And not only would that affidavit be false, Katty, Ms. Willis propounded that affidavit, provided that affidavit to the court in support of her contention that the relationship started subsequently.

By the way, at any point, and I was a prosecutor for a long time, if a supervisor is having a relationship with a subordinate, regardless of when it starts, that's reason for the subordinate or the supervisor to step away from the case. So in some ways, to me, it doesn't really matter when it started, but if it started before she hired him, you might have false affidavits in this case. And that, if I may, Katty, raises a separate point. Even if the defendants fail to show an actual conflict of interest, and they may very well fail, an appearance of a conflict of an interest is also a problem. And as prosecutors, you have to be sensitive to the appearance. So even if the legal motion fails and the judge doesn't disqualify Ms. Willis or Mr. Wade from the case, you still have an appearance, and that's messy.

There certainly all means that we're talking about this rather than the substance of the Georgia case as well at the moment. We've looked, Lisa, at the—so we've had the financial ruling in the fraud case. We've talked about the Georgia case this morning. Let's talk about the Jack Smith case. What are you looking at over the next week or two that might give us an indication of when the January the 6th case could possibly come to trial? And are you still thinking, I think we spoke a couple of months ago and you thought it could come to trial before this summer. Do you still think this summer

is a reasonable timeframe, depending on the Supreme Court? I think this summer is the earliest that we'll see this trial begin, Katty, depending on what the Supreme Court does. The Supreme Court had a conference on Friday. That's essentially when the justices sit around and decide not only which cases to take, but they often will discuss pending applications that are short of asking full full Supreme Court review, such as Donald Trump's motion to stay all lower court proceedings while he appeals the D.C. Circuit opinion on immunity. I think it's really possible that we'll see some determination on that motion tomorrow when the court is back in session. We know that the court is going to release what's called an orders list at 9.30 tomorrow. We also know that there might be some opinions tomorrow or later in the week. So I think it could be a big week in terms of that case. How that cuts, I'm not really sure. I do think, and I know that other people share this view,

that the fact that we didn't hear from the court before week's end could mean that folks are writing a dissent from whatever the determination is, whether to grant the stay or to not grant the stay. They granted colleagues on the other side of the prevailing vote an opportunity to write and say why they disagree. But again, it's not clear to me which way that cuts. The other thing that I'm looking for this week is in the Florida Jack Smith case before Judge Aileen Cannon, where Trump has all of his pretrial motions due. To the extent that Trump is going to ask Judge Cannon to throw out that indictment, those motions are due on Thursday of this week. They've signaled that they are going to move in that case on presidential immunity as well. But recall, all the events in that indictment post-date his presidency.

So he would be asking for presidential immunity for acts that he took after leaving the White House. Constitutionally, I'm not sure how that shores up even on Donald Trump's best legal day. And I'll be interested to see how his folks explain that on Thursday. He's certainly had a number of bad legal days of late and just a tidal wave of news. And we're so grateful that former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Ruhman, as well as former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg, were here to provide us their expert analysis. Thanks to you both. Still ahead here in just one minute, there's been an outpouring of grief following the death of Alexei Navalny, even in Russia.

But we'll take a look at how Moscow is cracking down on any show of support for the late opposition leader. Plus, we've got new reporting on Donald Trump privately expressing support for a 16-week abortion ban, how Democrats and the White House are looking to seize that moment. And also ahead, there's yet another government shutdown looming, and House lawmakers are out of office all week. What that means for the fight to keep the federal government running, you're watching Morning Joe, and we're back in just 60 seconds.

Donald Trump, as you pointed out, said just a few days ago that he had told a NATO ally that he would encourage Putin to do whatever he needed to do, whatever he wanted to do. He's basically made clear that under a Trump administration, the United States is unlikely to keep its NATO commitments. And I think that Republicans who understand the importance of the national security situation, who continue to support him, are similarly going to be held to account. You know, when you think about Donald Trump, for example, pledging retribution, what Vladimir

Putin did to Navalny is what retribution looks like in a country where the leader is not subject to the rule of law. And I think that we have to take Donald Trump very seriously. We have to take seriously the extent to which, you know, you've now got a Putin wing of the Republican Party. I believe the issue this election cycle is making sure the Putin wing of the Republican Party does not take over the West Wing of the White House. Donald Trump is siding with a thug who kills his political opponents. He's siding with someone who has made no bones about wanting to destroy America. He's siding with someone who has made no bones about wanting to destroy America. He's siding with someone who arrests American journalists and holds them

hostage. And he's siding with a dictator instead of siding with our allies who stood with us at 9-11. Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley and before that, former Republican Congresswoman Liz Cheney. Those comments come as former President Donald Trump has remained noticeably silent on the death of Alexei Navalny. It's notable considering his comments from more than a week ago when he said he would encourage Russia to invade NATO countries if they didn't pay enough. When asked for a comment over the weekend on Navalny's death, a Trump campaign spokesperson deflected and referred NBC News to a social media post by the former president attacking President Biden while claiming Trump himself is the only person who can, quote, bring peace, prosperity and stability to the world. Trump's last public comment about Navalny appears to have

been back in September of 2020, when he was asked about Navalny being poisoned and nearly losing his life. At the time, Trump responded back then saying, quote, we'll talk about that at another time, or rather, we won't talk about it another time, even when he's just been killed. Joining us now is NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitali. I mean, Ali, a lack of sort of information still coming out because the family haven't seen the body. They went up to the morgue where they were told it was. It wasn't there. There was some reporting over the weekend that Navalny had been pushed while he was in prison. Have you heard anything more on how he actually died?

I have not heard anything more. But if I look at the way that on a domestic political front, this is being received, you have the White House clear in their statements about the way that this looks on the world stage, of course, condemning Russia and Putin. You have Nikki Haley, a former UN ambassador, out on the campaign trail doing the same thing. I think it's striking.

And I really do think we can't underscore enough the fact that Trump is silent yet again. I'm so glad that we included the fact that when this happened, when Navalny was initially poisoned during Trump's administration, Trump said nothing. We'll talk about that at another time. You and I, all of us know this is a man who weighs in on everything pretty liberally. The fact that he's not talking about this is notable. It comes back to what Congresswoman Liz Cheney is saying about the pro-Putin wing of the Republican Party. The one thing I question is

she says that they will be held to account. Who and when? I mean, this is a part of the party that is on the rise. You not just have Donald Trump on the campaign trail not condemning Putin for what happened to Navalny. You have on the Hill a large contingent of people who do not want to continue to send aid to Ukraine. All of this is connected. And you have Donald Trump as the continued front runner and the standard bearer of the party who could be back in power in the White House. I mean, this is all critically important together. Trump's silence, David, notable, but not at all surprising. We know that Donald Trump does not stand up to Vladimir Putin. He does not say anything that could be remotely critical of Putin. He didn't while he was in office. He didn't while standing next to him in Helsinki.

He hasn't done it since leaving office as he's trying to get back into power. Talk to us about how that, the idea of Trump return, potentially imminent, how that loomed over the gathering in Munich, how those world leaders reeling from this news of Navalny's death, Putin on the rise, as you mentioned earlier in the show, and the idea that someone who is cozying up to Putin every chance he gets might soon mentioned earlier in the show, and the idea that someone who is cozying up to Putin every chance he gets might soon be back in the West Wing. So it sends a chill down the spines of many European leaders, obviously. They feel as never before the threat from Putin and the idea that America's next president might be somebody who will seek to do a deal with Putin that's advantageous to Putin at Europe's expense, I think, is just, you know, they dread that.

So they're trying to push back. They're trying to rally their own spirits. You know, Ali, I wonder if Republicans really can carry Putin on their backs in effect. You know, I noted in comments on shows over the weekend, the Republican line seemed to be implausibly it's Trump who can be tough on this issue. You know, that Biden has been weak. Biden hasn't stood up to Putin in Ukraine. That was seen to be Tim Scott's line. Just curious, I come from Munich where the Republicans who are most enthusiastic about working with Democrats to provide aid for Ukraine were gathered. What's your sense of Republican sentiment overall? I came away from Munich

thinking maybe, maybe a version of this supplemental aid package will pass. What do you think? I mean, a version of it may still pass. I do think that the Senate has always been the place, and this has always been true, but certainly in the last few years, it's always been the place where there's the possibility of bipartisan action. It's the House and the House Republicans, the way that we are watching these hardliners. And it's not always the same people. It's not like we're looking to the same lineup of House Republicans every single twist of this policy conversation who are saying, OK, well, we need border security. Well, we need more cuts on domestic funding. I do think that the folks that you were with in Munich are probably the ones that

we would look to for bipartisan action. And that pressure will be there. I thought it was striking, though. And maybe this is nothing and maybe I'm looking too much into it. But the fact that Lindsey Graham chose to go to the border instead of going to Munich, someone who had for many years prided himself on being such a pro-small-D democracy hawk on the world stage, being so vehemently anti-Russia, anti-Putin, towing that line for so long and then saying, no, I'm going to go to the border and play domestic politics as opposed to going to Munich and standing in somewhat of a bipartisan fashion. I thought that was pretty striking. And I don't know what that says about the supplemental,

but I do think the fact that Donald Trump is now putting people like Tim Scott, who very much wants to be a VP, in the position of having to defend this really murky position on Russia, that is really going to be problematic for the Republican Party post-Trump, which I don't know that we'll ever get there, but I mean, eventually. And President Biden on Friday, Kat, he was forceful in denouncing Navalny's death and used the moment in his public remarks from the White House to call on Republicans, get this passed. Ukraine needs our aid. This is how we can stand up to Putin so he can't keep doing things like this. I spoke to some White House aides over the weekend, though.

They're not sure any, not one, a single vote will change. I mean, the process will play out weeks ahead. Maybe some momentum will build from Munich or elsewhere. But there's still real pessimism as to getting this done. Yeah, I mean, Chairman Turner on Meet the Press sounded pretty confident that something would happen. And actually on the point about Trump was kind of saying, well, what Trump says at rallies isn't necessarily how Trump governs. And that's what, from the Europeans I hear, too, that's what they're clinging to. Maybe what he says out on the campaign trail is not what he's actually going to do. And he could be, if we have him,

we're just going to have to deal with him in some way. We're going to have to find a way. Still ahead, a new poll of historians ranks Joe Biden as one of the best presidents in American history. We'll tell you what they say is Biden's biggest accomplishment and where his predecessor, Donald Trump, lands on that list. Morning Joe, coming right back. Dave Dollin. Uh-oh. What? Oh, wow. That was multiple flat tires.

That was the motor speedway flat tire. Oh, my goodness. You all see this? Damien, let's go, baby! You all see this? So the NBA's midseason showcase simply did not feature any defense. The Eastern Conference set the all-time scoring record in last night's All-Star game, becoming the first team to surpass, wait for it, 200 points,

on the way to a 211-186 win over the Western Conference. You can see the effort level there. Guys jogging, no one playing defense. So, after months of stressing the importance of delivering a competitive product, the high-scoring affair left Commissioner Adam Silver appearing rather unenthused while presenting the All-Star Game trophy. First of all, to the city of Indianapolis, thank you for the fantastic hospitality. To Herb Simon, he's owned this team for 41 years, the longest-standing governor in NBA

history. Thank you very much. And to your son, Steve, as well. And to the Eastern Conference All-Stars, you scored the most points. Well, congratulations. Even the biggest NBA fans I know think that the All-Star weekend is disaster and should be blown up. Seems like the commissioner might be among them now. Just what is the point of that? Let's turn to college hoops now, Katty. I'm so glad Ali's here. Maybe she can help because I'm just useless to you at this point. No, no, we're glad for you here, but we'll do college hoops now.

He did not. That was plain to anybody. So Ohio State stunned number two Purdue last night, beating the Boilermakers 73 to 69 in the debut of the Buckeyes' new interim head coach So Ohio State stunned number two Purdue last night, beating the Boilermakers 73 to 69 in the debut of the Buckeyes' new interim head coach. Ohio State had lost nine of its last 11 games and then fired its longtime head coach on Wednesday, but then rallied and ended the tough week with an upset of the early favorite to be the top seed in next month's NCAA tournament. Cue the fans storming the court. But a less happy scene in New York City. Hopes for a March Madness bid are dwindling for St. John's, which coughed up a 19-point lead last night in its eighth defeat in its past 10 games. This 68-62 loss to Seton Hall

sinks the Red Storm to 14-12 overall, now sliding to ninth place in the Big East with just five games left in the regular season. Hall of Fame coach Rick Pitino, in his first year with St. John's, did not hold back his disappointment after the game. We just lack toughness. We just don't move our feet on defense. We are so non-athletic that we can't guard anybody without fouling. And really, it's not about losing.

Because even in winning, when we watch the film, I see unathletic plays. I see people that don't handle the ball, that's just interested in taking quick shots. So it's been a disappointing year. I think I've enjoyed, even the Celtics when we lost, I've enjoyed every minute being a Boston Celtic coach. Didn't like the fact that we lost in that following year, but this has been the most unenjoyable experience I've had since I've been coaching. Look, I'm disappointed. I don't want to say the wrong things, but I'm really disappointed in my team. Now tell us how you really think.

As a Boston Celtics fan, I'll tell you, I did not enjoy Rick Pitino's time coaching our team. And he is throwing his players under the bunch, under the bus. And I'm sure that'll really help with recruiting next year. Rick Pitino taking no blame himself, Katty, for what's been a disappointing season. Yes. OK. Still ahead here on Morning Joe, NBC's Andrea Mitchell will join us live on the heels of her exclusive interview with Vice President Kamala Harris at the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. Plus, ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Gregory Meeks of New York, will also be a guest.

Morning Joe, we'll be right back. 6.45, beautiful shot in New York City. Look, the days are getting longer. It's light up there already. Time now for a look at the morning papers. The Daily Advertiser is reporting on the rising number of states passing sex ed restrictions for minors. Last year, eight different states enacted laws restricting or banning sexual education in early elementary grades, often targeting LGBTQ discussions. It marks an 800 percent spike in restrictive legislation compared to the previous

year. Many point to Florida as the law's trendsetter after the state banned classroom discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity at all grade levels. The Times Union is taking a look at the shrinking number of dairy farms across New York state and what it could mean for the industry across America. According to new data from the USDA, half of New York's dairy farms from a decade ago no longer exist, whether from rising production costs, national market changes, or both. The shuttered farms highlight a trend in the dairy industry's struggle to stay afloat amid labor and production costs soaring 50% since 2017.

Drink your milk, everybody. The Houston Chronicle is covering a federal judge's skepticism on a new Texas law that would give state authorities power to arrest migrants. Governor Greg Abbott and Republican lawmakers call the record number of border crossings an invasion. Judge David Ezra pushed back on the argument last week, saying he has not seen evidence of any type of military invasion in the state. The law is set to take effect on March the 5th

and would make it a crime to enter Texas from Mexico without permission, allowing law enforcement officers to arrest anyone who they suspect entered the state illegally. Watch that border. And in Tennessee, the Chattanooga Free Press is spotlighting the record number of organ donations across the U.S., marking an 8.7 percent increase in transplants performed last year. Despite the increase, the waiting list for transplant recipients, well, that remains long. Some people may reach the top, but still have to wait for a compatible donor.

The Health Resources and Services Administration continues to encourage people to sign up for the organ donor registry. And coming up, quote, the right goes gaga. And no, we don't mean the pop star. The Washington bureau chief at The Economist will join us with his cover story on the so-called global anti-globalist alliance. Morning Joe, coming right back with that. David, you've been busy because before you went to Munich to report on that, your recent column from mid last week is titled Three Crises Give Biden a Chance to Prove His Doubters Wrong.

What are they? So everyone is pondering this question. Is Joe Biden too old to run to be president? And has he got the stuff to be a strong leader? He does have three crises ahead that can show the country that he is strong and tough in dealing with issues. The three, obviously, are the Gaza war. This has come down to really a showdown between him and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who wants to keep fighting, wants the war to continue. It's up to Biden to challenge him to say no. The interests of the United States, the interests of Israel require a different course.

Will he do that? Second, obviously, the war in Ukraine. It's now in a desperate situation with the death of Navalny. We've been talking about with these advances of Russian forces on the ground. Biden must find a way to get that aid package to Ukraine. Otherwise, they're just, they're in terrible trouble. They're on the verge of giving up more ground. Can he do it?

Can he find the resources as leader? Can he fight? Not pat himself on the back for how well he's done in the past, fight now. And the final thing, obviously, is the border. Let's be honest, the Democrats have not responded to that issue adequately in Biden's three years. The time has come to do something. Congress won't do anything.

Biden needs to take that issue away from them and act unilaterally with executive orders. The White House is thinking right now, what are the things we can do without congressional authority that will show the country we're acting? Some of them may get bounced by the courts, but I'd be surprised in the next couple of weeks if there aren't actions taken by Biden that will surprise people. People will say this is like Trump and that's Biden's way of showing I take this issue seriously. So we'll see, as we say in tennis, it's on his racket. Can he hit the ball? Yeah, we'll certainly have more on those crises later in the show today. But David, let's circle back to Navalny in particular. One of the more powerful things, I think, frankly, any of us have seen in a while is his widow, newly widowed, spoke there at Munich moments

after learning her husband had died. Tell us about that. And also, you know, the leading American representative there was the vice president, Kamala Harris. Tell us what you thought of what she said in that important moment. So that was surely the most moving part of this of this conference. The news broke on all of us broke in my ear on this on the show on the floor of the conference hall, Vice President Harris got up. News was still partly unconfirmed. She gave a statement right at the outset of her speech that spoke to this terrible tragedy, but she didn't have the details, and she said,

We'll get back to you with more details as they become available. It wasn't a strong, decisive speech, but at least she spoke to it. And I think in general, this was a pretty good performance by her. And then this electrifying moment where the widow of the man who's just died, her face to my eyes still so puffy from tears of sadness for her husband, addressing this audience and saying, I try to think, should I go back and be with my children in this moment when I heard the news, or should I be with you here, and saying, I know what my husband would have done, he would have been here. So that was electrifying for the audience. And as I said earlier in the show, I think it really shaped the whole three days of the

conference that her voice echoed in people's ears. And of course, her decision to be there reminiscent in some ways of her husband deciding to go back to Russia when he knew incarceration and likely death awaited him. And that is indeed what happened. The Washington Post's David Ignatius, thank you so much for joining us this morning. We really appreciate it.