Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/29/24

Episode Date: February 29, 2024

Supreme Court's immunity hearing leaves prospect of pre-election Trump Jan. 6 trial in doubt

We'll put a fine, you know, sort of finish on this. Comer is the chairman of this House Oversight Committee looking at Hunter Biden's business dealings. This went on for the better part of six hours, as you said, Issa. Now, there's a lot of stuff they have on Hunter, and they've been trying to connect a lot of that stuff to dad. Now, I wasn't attending this, you know, behind closed doors meeting, and obviously neither were you, although your sources are far better. I'm wondering if there is stuff that they connected to dad because Comer's remarks were very, very, very short. And if he had found anything that was, he certainly would have left at the chance to say it. You would think that he would have led the entire commentary just a few moments ago with whatever he seems to have found. That was Fox News host Neil Cavuto not buying what James Comer was trying to sell on Capitol Hill yesterday. We're going to go through Hunter Biden's closed door testimony to the House

Oversight Committee later in the show here. Plus the end of an era for Senate Republicans. The party's longest serving leader in the upper chamber is stepping down at the end of the year. We'll take a look at Mitch McConnell's legacy and who might replace him. And of course, we're going to talk about the shocking news we all heard yesterday, the death of beloved comedian and actor Richard Lewis. We'll talk about that and play for you some of Joe's interview with him, which happened just several weeks ago. So good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, February 29th. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early and White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire,

and former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Departments, Elise Jordan. Willie, there is so much going on this morning. But of course, we start with that shocking news from the Supreme Court, although some may say this could be the Supreme Court making sure it's doing its due diligence, given the gravity of everything that is at stake. Certainly not the end of the story here, but a delay at the very least. The Supreme Court has agreed now to consider former President Trump's claim of presidential immunity in his federal election interference case. The conservative court's decision to hear the case will further delay a potential trial. The high court has scheduled arguments for April 22nd, and a final ruling might not come until months later

at the end of the term in June. If the court rules in favor of Trump, the special counsel's charges would be dismissed. The U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled Trump does not have absolute immunity, but if the Supreme Court does affirm that, the delay still would push the start of the trial probably into the fall. Let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin, and former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst, Joyce Vance.

Good morning to you both. So Lisa, let's pause for a moment. I think this was shocking news to a lot of people, but let's talk about what this decision is and what it is not. It does not mean that the Supreme Court agrees that Donald Trump has presidential immunity. It means that they're going to hear the case, possibly that he does have immunity and at least knock this down into the fall. That's right. And Willie, the way in which the order yesterday was phrased is also a little bit telling. The question that the Supreme Court has agreed to resolve is a narrow one. It's whether and if so, to what extent

a former president has immunity for his official acts and or his official acts as alleged. And one of the things that's really, I think, concerning about the way that the question is presented is alleged according to whom. Because if you ask Jack Smith, the way that the indictment is framed, none of the acts for which they are trying to hold former President Trump criminally accountable were in fact official, that a president plays no official role in the administration of federal presidential elections. And so the way that this is phrased is slightly troubling, even for those who might push back and say, this is the Supreme Court trying to button up an important issue that is percolating in at least two federal courts right now and is likely to recur in the Georgia case should the Fulton County RICO case continue beyond this existing motion about Fannie Willis's

disqualification. Joyce fans, a lot of concern and reaction to this. What's going on? Another delay tactic. But when you look down the pike and you look at how this is going to be seen in history. I mean, I don't see a reality. Maybe you can correct me in which the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the decision that has already been made that a president somehow has immunity and can have SEAL Team 6 take out people that he wants to take out. I don't think they're going to go that way. But in the history books, they will be able to show that every stone was unturned every step of the way in this. Having said that, there is such concern about losing time and this going beyond the election. What are your thoughts? Right. So I think it's an interesting observation, Mika. And I'm reminded that Bill Barr, who was one of Donald Trump's attorney generals, used to say that history is written by the winners. And I think that's the concern here, whether the Supreme Court has given Trump such a big win by adding two more months of delay onto this case, that it makes it more difficult for Donald Trump to be portrayed as the criminal that many people who have looked at this evidence believe he should be portrayed as.

I agree that the Supreme Court is extremely unlikely to reach any conclusion other than Donald Trump specifically. And they don't need to talk about all presidents here. That's unnecessary. They can look at Donald Trump and say, this individual, this former president is not entitled to any form of immunity for his effort to interfere with an election. They don't need to talk about all potential crimes a president could commit. They don't need to talk whether or not a president's official acts might be cloaked in immunity. For instance, when he's making time pressured decisions on the battlefield, that's something that Jack Smith has argued in the past doesn't need to be a part of this case. But for the court to look at Donald Trump's

conduct here and reach any conclusion other than the fact that he can be prosecuted in the criminal justice system would be tantamount to saying that presidents are, in fact, above the law, that Donald Trump is above the law. And that, you know, not to be dramatic about it, would be the end of one of the most cherished principles of democracy, that no man is above the law. No, I don't think you're being dramatic at all. That's what's at stake here. And Jonathan Lemire, you cannot separate this. Yes, it's a legal question from the politics. The idea for Donald Trump and his legal team has been to delay, delay, delay. If he can get himself reelected in November, he becomes president. He controls effectively the Justice Department. He can make all of this go away. And as you look at the calendar, the Supreme Court rulings come out in June, sometime in mid-June. A trial we're hearing may not start until September, October.

I know Joyce is skeptical it could even get underway before the election begins. This does in many ways help Donald Trump's cause as he looks to have this stuff just go away. Yeah, so many Democrats reached out to me yesterday. I was just like, I can't believe he's going to get away with it again. There's this sense of frustration that Trump always seems to escape, to slip the hook. A few things here. Yes, that's the legal analysis. And it's probably right in some ways Supreme Court should take the case, even if we do expect they will rule, they agree with the lower court. But let's talk about the presidential campaign and the timelines here of the four

cases. We know that the Georgia case has become a bit of a mess. There's a suggestion. It's also sprawling to begin with. That one always is perceived to probably not start until 2025. The classified documents case in Mar-a-Lago, there's some real reasons for delay there because the census materials, but also Trump pulled a friendly judge who seems to be willing to go along with the delay tactics. This case now may not happen until the fall or perhaps after the election. If Trump wins, he can wave his hand and make his attorney general make this go away. So that just simply leaves the New York case, which is scheduled to start in a few weeks, but is perceived by most, at least as the weakest case, one that might not even carry prison time were he to be convicted. So I think when we come to the end of this,

it's what Biden campaign aides have been saying all along. We can't bank on the courts to bail us out. It's becoming very clear that's the case. They're simply going to have to going to come in the courts. And I completely agree. And while I think, you know, for many reasons, it's unfortunate that Trump always seems to escape justice. At the same time, we don't want our judges and our rule of law being dictated by a political timetable. And likely, I talked to a Supreme Court insider yesterday who told me that it seems likely that the Colorado ruling that that case that Trump will win probably at the court. In this case, Trump will lose and that very likely both could be almost unanimous and the court could be pretty unified in these decisions. And so if that happens, it is a good show of strength for the rule of law in America, just that the process has gone through the steps. Yeah, I think that's clearly right. So, Lisa, let's set aside the politics now and just go back to the legal merits. Walk us through what should we expect? You know, they've agreed to

hear this now in April. What does that look like? And that what sort of timeline should we anticipate for a decision? And if you if you will, if assuming El Elise is right and that they rule against Trump in this case and the trial does proceed, Judge Chutkan has said she's going to give the parties time to prepare. What's your best guess as to when that could come to trial? Let's start, John, with the math that's remaining. When Donald Trump's case was paused to allow for further consideration of the immunity issue, there were 88 days left to trial. Judge Chutkan has publicly committed herself to giving Donald Trump around seven months to prepare for trial. So we have to assume that she takes that 88-day remainder

fairly seriously. She has also said, including through a pre-questionnaire that went out to prospective jurors in the Washington area, that this is a trial that will take around three months. So you have to build into the calendar that 88 days plus 90 days to try the case if you think that this is going to happen before the election. And that's why folks like me are asking the Supreme Court, why didn't you write like you're running out of time? Because time is quickly elapsing here. There are folks who believe that the Supreme Court could rule quickly after the April 22nd oral argument. Our friend Neal Kachow, for example, is one who believes that the court will render a ruling by sometime in early May. On the other hand, if you believe that the

court is likely to push this decision until the end of the term in June, which usually ends at the very end of June or July 1st, like our friend Judge Michael Ludig, then you're really in a crunch with respect to the calendar and if and when a trial can begin. There is also finally the question of Department of Justice policy. I've heard a number of folks on our air and other places say, well, wait a second, the Department of Justice prohibits taking steps in a case like this 60 to 90 days before an election. That's not my understanding of DOJ policy, which prohibits overt investigative steps, not the trying of a case. But more importantly, the

Department of Justice won't be in control of when this case is tried. That will be up to Judge Tanya Chetkin if and when the case is returned to her. And in that instance, I believe that Judge Chetkin would proceed even if we are well into general election territory at that point. John. Lisa, by the way, I did catch the Hamilton reference in there nonstop. Very nice. Joyce Vance, let me ask you. You said yesterday you think it's unlikely that we see this trial before the election for all the reasons that Lisa just laid out here. What kind of a timeline, given your experience in the courts, is realistic for people to expect here. Right. I mean, it's possible that there could be an aggressive timeline where the sun and the moon and the stars line up and this case gets to trial.

But I'll tell you, Willie, 25 years of trying cases at DOJ, these things don't run like clockwork. For one thing, there's some administrative time that it takes after the Supreme Court issues its ruling to get the mandate back down to the district court so that Judge Chutkan can get back to work. And it would be a mistake for her, and I don't think we'll see her, give Trump any less time to prepare for trial than she had initially said he would get. That's the 88 days or so that's left on his trial prep clock for the amount of time that this case has been stayed while the appeal has been underway. The reason you don't want to shorten that time is, of course, that gives Trump the ability to argue if he's convicted and the case goes on appeal that he was denied his due process rights. And what we really don't want to see

is this case get reversed on appeal if there is a conviction. You know, beyond that, there are all sorts of things that get in the way. Witnesses can get sick. The judge may have some other events on her calendar once this case comes back. We suspect she'll make every effort to give this case priority, but there are some realities. And of course, there's early voting lurking in the background of all of this. Not everyone will vote on November 5th. Voting in some of the key states will start 30, 40 days in advance of that. So the possibility that this case could have a jury struck, get all the way through the evidence, give the jury time to render a verdict and have all of that accomplished before people begin voting is pretty unlikely at this point. OK, Elise mentioned Colorado, Joyce, a judge in Illinois has now ruled that former President Trump's name should be removed from the upcoming state GOP primary ballot, but put her order on hold until tomorrow

in anticipation of a likely appeal. Following decisions, of course, in both Colorado and Maine, the judge based her ruling on the 14th Amendment ban on insurrectionists holding office. Here we go again. The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the Colorado decision. A Trump campaign spokesman blasted the ruling, calling it unconstitutional and said they will quickly appeal. The Illinois Republican Party is set to primary is set to take place on March 19th. So this is a case choice for the Supreme Court does need to give some clarity to, because at this point, Colorado is not the only state trying this. That's right. And it's likely that more states will add to this list as time goes on.

But look, Mika, we all listen to oral argument in the Supreme Court. I'm not one who usually likes to read the tea leaves, but I heard eight votes there for Colorado to lose and for Donald Trump to stay on the ballot. You know, to Elisa's point, I think the Supreme Court is sending a very clear message to the country. And that message is voters were going to put the decision in this election in your hands. Wow. All right, Joyce, thank you very much. This is obviously not the only issue that Donald Trump is facing. He has a lot of money to pay up in his civil fraud trial, and there's some issues that he has to deal with on that because he plans to appeal. Joyce Vance and Lisa Rubin, thank you both. And still ahead on Morning Joe,

we're going to go through the big stories coming out of Capitol Hill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stepping down at the end of the year. We'll show you what he had to say about that and who could be the next leader of the GOP. Plus, we'll go through Hunter Biden's testimony as House Republicans fail to produce any substantial evidence against President Biden. We're back in one minute. I think it is extremely disturbing to see the lack of professionalism, the lack of grounding and the abuse of public resources and abuse of public power in order to pursue something that truly whose points at this juncture is very unclear. This whole thing really has been a tremendous waste of our legislative time and the people's resources. I cannot believe that they have found a new low. It is so embarrassing to sit in the room for an hour

while they try to weave conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory that only embarrasses them further. It's very clear that there's no there there. Democrats on the Oversight Committee reacting to yesterday's closed door deposition by Hunter Biden, who struck a defiant and emotional tone during his testimony as part of the GOP led impeachment inquiry into his father, President Biden. Hunter condemned the investigation as a partisan political pursuit that was based on a false premise and fueled by lies and reiterated his stance that he never involved his father in any of his business dealings, while also acknowledging mistakes he had made, pointing to his battle with addiction. We're told during the nearly seven-hour-long closed-door deposition, there were what's being described as heated moments between Republicans and Democrats regarding interruptions during lines of questioning. After his testimony, Hunter said his deposition went great. So far, Republicans have yet to turn up any evidence in their impeachment investigation.

Joining us now, congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany and senior political columnist for Politico, Jonathan Martin. Good to have you both with us this morning. Jackie, I'll start with you. Is there anything that Republicans came up with of substance? And at what point are people going to say this is taking away from other incredibly important issues of our time, like foreign aid and government shutdowns and actual real needs of the American people? Yeah, Mika. Well, I think if anything, Republicans are going to have to reckon with the fact that I've been told by several sources who were in the room for that extended hearing yesterday that Hunter Biden happened to be one of the most prepared, disciplined and on message witnesses that they've had appear before the committee yet, who spoke very eloquently about a broad swath of evidence, some of it unsubstantiated, some of it, you know, presented in sort of dribs and drabs, context-less text messages and communications that James Comer and Republicans have cherry-picked

from the mountain of records that they have obtained so far, and that there has been still no there there. For anyone who thought this was going to be the smoking gun, the star witness, it's certainly disappointed. And Hunter Biden instead spoke of a lot of instances that Republicans have pointed to as wrongdoing, as examples of him under the spell of addiction, being drunk or high at the time of those communications. And quite frankly, as someone in the room told me in a readout, that he was lying about some of the times where he said his father was present to certain business people, like this one text messages that has often been referenced where he was in communications with a Chinese associate that he was doing business with and texted him in a WhatsApp message that he was with his father right now. He said during that

that deposition that that was actually a lie and that he was under the influence. I think this all goes back to the really bigger story about Hunter Biden right now, which is that he is determined to stay sober and has viewed this as key to his father's reelection and as key to batting down these accusations, all of which so far are unsubstantiated, that his father was directly involved with any of his business dealings with foreign associates. So, Jackie, you would think after a series of humiliating setbacks for this committee, the latest being the arrest of Mr. Smirnoff, who at one time was a star witness at the FBI and Justice Department now say was making everything up, claims of bribes that Joe Biden received that he did not receive. You'd think this committee might walk away, but Chairman Comer made it clear that his self-described smoke but no fire yet investigation, he said, well, we heard some contradictory things in Hunter Biden's testimony that need further review, suggesting we're just

going to kind of keep this ball in the air with insinuations and suggestions, but no evidence that there was wrongdoing here. Is that the goal here, just to keep this alive through the election? That is really a typical Comerian tactic to continue to muddy the waters and lob allegations across cable news and conservative media that have been proven unsubstantiated time and time again. I imagine we are going to continue to see that, but perhaps to a lesser extent. I mean, even Fox News has quieted on several fronts of covering some of the accusations Comer's been making, and he has been facing criticism from his colleagues who have not been happy with his media process-centric approach, where he has put forward, again, this contextless, cherry-picked evidence, gone and spoken about it.

And then the evidence has, when you've looked into it a little bit further, fallen quite flat. But fortunately for him, we're all going to be turning to the Senate impeachment trial, which is a whole other discussion in terms of whether or not that is a substantiated. Those are substantiated articles of impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas. But it's certainly some counterprogramming to give a look to give Comer and the House Oversight and Judiciary Committee a bit of cover from an investigation that that in its totality so far has been a failure. Well, there was another piece of major news on Capitol Hill yesterday. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced he will be stepping down as the upper chamber's Republican leader this November and leaving the Senate at the end

of his term in 2026. The 82-year-old McConnell explained his decision on the Senate floor. One of life's most underappreciated talents is to know when it's time to move on to life's next chapter. So I stand before you today, Mr. President, and my colleagues to say this will be my last term as Republican leader of the Senate. I'm immensely proud of the accomplishments I've played some role in obtaining for the American people. I still have enough gas in my tank to thoroughly disappoint my critics. And I intend to do so with all the enthusiasm with which they've become accustomed.

First elected to the Senate from Kentucky in 1984, McConnell has led the GOP caucus since 2007, making him the longest serving party leader in the Senate's history. Jonathan Martin, you're writing about this. What's the reaction, first of all, to his announcement? And also, who are the contenders waiting in the wings potentially to replace him? Well, the reaction is not surprise on the news, but surprise on the timing. I think it was widely assumed, Mika, that he would step down from his leadership post after the elections this fall. But the fact that he revealed this in February, just two months into the new year, I think speaks to the political challenges that he's facing. And this has not been

a pleasant season for Mitch McConnell, somebody that he despises. Donald Trump is about to become his party's nominee for the third consecutive campaign. His party is drifting towards a sort of isolationism that he finds, frankly, revolting. And he is, perhaps most painfully of all, seeing his own power sort of ebbing in the Senate. And he has coveted being Senate leader for years and years. He finally got the job and he served, obviously, breaking the record as the longest-serving Senate leader, only to see his power really slow at the end as a handful of younger colleagues have challenged him. So, it's not been pleasant for him. And I think he's trying to get ahead of the jailer here, if you will. He's trying to go out on his own terms. He does not want to be forced out by either a doctor's orders or a rebellion of his colleagues. He's

trying to do it now and make the best of a tough situation. Look, there's three obvious figures who are looking at this in the current Senate. They're all named John, so it makes it kind of easy for us. John Barrasso of Wyoming, John Cornyn of Texas, and John Thune of South Dakota. I think it's more complicated than that. That's sort of the shorthand. I think that this is hugely contingent on who wins the presidential election. If Trump wins, this is still his party. I think he wants to have a say in who the next leader is. And he could find somebody beyond the three Johns. If Trump loses, and this is purely a choice of the senators, I think John Thune starts with an advantage. So, Jonathan, let's speak about Mitch McConnell's legacy here. You know, sort of a contentious relationship with Trump, but inconsistent. Let's remember, he didn't vote to convict Trump in that second impeachment trial.

Crucial, yeah. Which had he with votes there, maybe Donald Trump would not be running for office again right now. He's also said he'd probably endorse Trump again. His campus signaled that. But it seems to me, speak about his time, what he's meant to the upper chamber, but it really seems like his impact might have been on the judiciary. Yeah. If you look at the sort of sweep of his career in the Senate, there's no landmark piece of legislation that he's really connected to. He's going to be best known, I think, in history for how he shaped the Supreme Court. He sat on one nomination for almost a year and he moved to second within a matter of weeks. And I think getting that six to three conservative

majority on the court, I think, is central to his legacy. And that's the great irony, because the man he despises, he will go down in history linked to. They are the conjoined twins of the modern GOP, Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell, because those are the judges that, of course, Trump put forward and McConnell confirmed that have so shaped this court. And by the way, the same judges that overturned Roe versus Wade and probably ensured that McConnell would serve his final two years as leader in the minority. Jonathan, is it a done deal that McConnell still will endorse Trump? And how soon are you hearing that it will be? Or could this possibly, could he possibly keep it out there,

float it and hold off for a bit? I wrote my column today, a Politico, about this. He is going to support Trump. It's a matter of when, not if. Mitch McConnell is a man of the Senate, but he's also a party man. He is a partisan through and through. Politics for him is first, second, and third. And he's going to get on board with the nominee. I don't think he'll do so with any enthusiasm, but he wants to retake control of the Senate. And I think he recognizes a divided party is going to undermine his party's chances of taking back control of the Senate. And I think he recognizes a divided party is going to undermine his party's

chances of taking back control of the Senate. And so he wants to have the party singing with one voice about their nominee. And he's going to do that. Look, I think McConnell knows that what happened in 2016 with Trump created challenges for his party. And he wants to be, I think, on board with walking away from the leadership with a majority rather than a minority. So shortly after announcing his retirement, the House Freedom Caucus mocked McConnell, writing on social media, quote, Our thoughts are with our Democrat colleagues in the Senate on the retirement of their co-majority leader, Mitch McConnell. And then they put D Ukraine. No need to wait till November. Senate Republicans should immediately elect a Republican minority leader. My head hurts. Jackie Alimany.

I mean, come on. We've got a lot on on the table moving forward. They did avert a government shutdown. But speaking of whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, the Republicans don't look like Republicans now, at this point, at least in the House. I don't know who they are, but perhaps, you know, arms of Putin through Trump in some way, as we day by day watch Ukrainians die every day because they're not getting the much needed aid. A government shutdown slightly averted. What about foreign aid? Yeah, well, you know, Jonathan says that there was no rebellion that forced McConnell out per se, but I think there was a bit of a quiet, implicit rebellion at play here and a growing number of

senators who actually were starting to side and be a little bit more like their House counterparts. We've talked about this before. The Senate usually views themselves as the more disciplined and deliberative body. They try to steer clear of this partisan politics. But I think the last episode that we saw over the past two months over this border bill, a bill that was demanded by Republicans, crafted by James Lankford, and then shortly thereafter killed by House Republicans, hardliners, Donald Trump, and then, you know, a number of conservatives in the Senate who tagged along and suddenly did this very dramatic and shocking 180 on the bill was a rebellion in and of itself.

And I think that the writing was on the wall for McConnell, along with a number of other things that were going on. Someone yesterday, it was Senator Susan Collins, said that the death of his sister-in-law as well was potentially a contributing factor there. But it's sort of amazing to take a step back and think about how reviled McConnell has been by Democrats and now what is exactly in store with them, for them, in terms of who they're going to see next, that this is a big generational change that we're about to see happen with a likely MAGA disciple to head up the Senate, someone who is ultimately going to be a bit more sympathetic to the likely Republican frontrunner and presidential candidate. But the House Freedom

Caucus is, you know, that's the perfect example of the way that they have caused this utter intra-party chaos. And it is the perfect snapshot and a microcosm of what exactly is happening in the Republican Party right now. The Washington Post, Jackie Alimani, as always, thank you very much. And senior political columnist for Politico, Jonathan Martin, thank you as well. His piece is online now. Willie? A Los Angeles woman who was arrested in Russia is set to appear in court for the first time today. Ksenia Karolina was detained last week on suspicion of treason. Russian authorities say she was raising funds to support Ukraine's army. Karolina, a dual citizen, was in the country visiting family.

She was arrested in the same city as Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovitz. Meanwhile, in Moscow, President Vladimir Putin has just now wrapped up his state of the nation address. He began the speech praising citizens for their unity amid the war in Ukraine, saying Russia is, quote, defending its sovereignty and security and protecting our compatriots. Joining us now from London, he's been watching all of this, is NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons. Keir, what more can you tell us? Well, Willie, some news just first of all. You mentioned Ksenia Karelina there. We have now heard from that Russian court that she has lost her appeal. Honestly, that was to be expected, I guess, that she lost her appeal. She was looking to not be held before her trial.

She has not won that. She will now there will now be another hearing on the 6th of April. So, again, if Evan Gershkovich's case is anything to go by and they are two different kinds of cases. He's accused of espionage. She accused of treason. Then likely that 6th of April date will pass too without her being released. As you mentioned, an unnerving split screen today with President Putin giving his federal address more than two hours, again, threatening the West, even while the court was hearing Karolina's case. It was the first time that her case has been heard since she was charged with treason. Willie, she's accused of making a donation to a Ukrainian charity of less than $52. Meanwhile, just talking about President Putin's speech being shown on giant screens around Moscow, he's been highlighting those recent advances in Ukraine, although,

of course, the battlefield there does remain largely unchanged. He says in the speech that he bows at the feet of Russian heroes, called for a minute's silence for the soldiers. He said these are his words who are going through the mincer of war. And then moving on to talk about the West wanting to destroy Russia and saying we, too, have weapons that can strike targets on their territory. Now, that appears to be a threat, a frankly thinly veiled nuclear threat, a response to President Macron, who in a speech that made headlines earlier in the week, talked about the potential that Europe, that NATO should send soldiers to Ukraine, put boots on the ground in Ukraine. So Putin is two weeks from an election. He's been making campaign stops, like being pictured in the cockpit of a nuclear bomber. And again, now in this speech, making threats towards the West while saying we are a pillar of democracy, even though when Russia votes, of course, there will be one certain winner. Yes, and we should note Ksenia Karolina, 33-year-old ballerina, lives in California,

has dual citizenship in both the United States and in Russia, a critic of the war in Russia, now arrested. And as Kir just reported just moments ago, her appeal was denied. So she will remain in prison. The State Department says it is working on her case. Kira, as you listen to Vladimir Putin's speech today, his long annual speech to the nation, do you get the sense in recent weeks and perhaps months that he is emboldened watching what's happening in the United States, which is to say that the United States Congress cannot get that Ukraine funding that President Zelensky says is so desperately needed at this hour? Is Putin emboldened by the fact the United States is not pushing that aid toward Ukraine? I think he's emboldened, but I also think he is as resentful as ever. And I just think it's really interesting that, you know, President

Macron of France makes a speech in which he talks about potentially NATO putting boots on the ground in Ukraine, and that President Putin responds to that within days in a speech as important as this. He didn't mention President Macron by name, but it was absolutely clear what he was referring to and what he was responding to. So, I mean, I think in some ways what you're really seeing is the same President Putin, the same President Putin who has been justifying the invasion of Ukraine, the same President Putin who's been railing against NATO for so many years. The same President Putin getting tacit support from many Republicans in the United States Congress right now. NBC's Keir Simmons in London. Keir, thanks so much as always. Coming up next here, we'll take a look at how political campaigns are using artificial intelligence in some positive ways this election season. NBC's Morgan Radford joins us to explain that when Morning Joe comes right back. Forty two past the hour when it comes to the twenty twenty four campaign season.

Artificial intelligence is already playing a role. Earlier this month, the FCC made AI generated voices in robocalls illegal. NBC News correspondent Morgan Radford has been looking into all of this and she joins us now. And Morgan, you find that some campaigns are hoping AI can still be used for good. For good, Mika. That's right. Absolutely. Listen, but it's not quite in the way that you might think, because these ads, they're not coming to your TV screen or your phone. But instead, they're showing up in more subtle ways. In fact, one organization is aiming to make campaigns cheaper and more efficient.

And they're hoping to use AI to essentially turbocharge some of the work that campaigns do every single day. Take a look. This just in, a surge of 80,000 illegals yesterday. It's been both a political weapon and a political issue. Do you think the industry is mature enough to self-regulate? Now, one organization is embracing artificial intelligence as a political strategy. It's like you have a very, very smart, talented and fast assistant. Tech for Campaigns is using AI tools to help generate digital ads and

fundraising emails, giving cash-strapped campaigns in tight races a high-tech edge over the competition. Everything we do is AI-aided, which means a human puts in the request, puts in the context, and also edits it afterwards. It's not AI spitting out an email or AI spitting out an ad and a human doesn't look at it. That's not where we are. It's not just, you know, hands off the wheel, the computer does its thing. Yes. It's a strategy they first tested in the Virginia state house races in 2023. We did an experiment across 14 campaigns.

We tested AI-aided emails. And what we found is that AI-aided emails had about a three and a half to four and a half times increase in productivity versus the human only emails. When you say productivity, you guys can just get more marketing materials out there, more emails, more communication with voters faster. Not just more, but better. So what we measured was actually the dollars raised per work hour. So it's not just about more. It's about can these be as good or better? Now they're rolling out a new set of AI tools, which they plan to use this election year to help Democratic candidates across hundreds of races. All right. So you've pulled up top performing emails in the past. And then what happens now? You just ask the tool to generate

all in this case, I'll say two new email options based on what worked there it is it's working so is this an example of an email so yeah here's two options you can see it gives you a subject line and then it does the body for you Wow I mean this looks like it was written by a real person this looks specific it gives a catchy subject line and it did all this in less than a minute. Oh, it did it in, you know, about 15 seconds. Yeah. And it comes at a critical time. Your vote makes a difference in November, not just Tuesday.

Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission made AI-generated voices in robocalls illegal. And eight states have passed laws regulating AI in some form, which is why some democracy experts warn that any AI-generated campaign material should be used with caution. The challenge is that this is early days for the technology. We don't fully understand it yet. AI makes mistakes. It hallucinates. It can perpetuate biases that can be dangerous for the campaign. Concerns Tech for Campaign says they take seriously. I absolutely agree that there are malicious uses of AI that can be used in elections, and I am worried about that. But I'm also worried that we're not having a balanced conversation and

that the party is going to get left behind on AI because they are leading from a place of fear. A new kind of technology coming soon to a campaign near you. Now, to be clear, when she says the party, of course, she's talking about the Democrats because that's her organization's focus. But, you know, this technology is not only being used to help Democrats. Brad Parscale, for example, Trump's former campaign manager, he's also founded a digital firm that advertises some AI capabilities for campaigns. Meanwhile, the House leaders just recently launched a bipartisan task force dealing specifically

with artificial intelligence and among their objectives, ensuring legal accountability for election interference caused by AI. So Morgan, pretty remarkable and fast moving stuff here. Very fast. What's next? What's the next frontier in this technology? You know, it's interesting. I mean, of course you could have in theory, the perfect TV ad, right? They're saying that images and television, that's not out of the realm of possibility, but more specifically, what's fascinating here is that they're using AI to analyze voter data so they can affect voter turnout.

So they've already used this in 700 different campaigns. So imagine, now they know exactly what language is working, which email subject lines are making people click. And that's what's helping them sort of progress to that next frontier. NBC's Morgan Radford, we love having you on. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. President Biden underwent his annual physical yesterday and remains a healthy, active and robust 81 year old who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency. That's according to his physician. White House physician Dr. Kevin O'Connor states Biden says he feels well and there are no new concerns. Dr. O'Connor said he found no issues with Biden's neurological system after a, quote, extremely detailed neurological exam. Biden is currently being treated for sleep apnea, managed AFib, elevated

cholesterol, spinal arthritis and tingling or numbness of the feet, all of which have been announced previously. Now, in response to his physical, Biden had this to say yesterday. Take a listen. All right, Jonathan Lemire. So there was a lot to say about the physical that former President Trump had with his doctor, who's actually now a MAGA member of Congress I think there's a prescription that he forgot to put on there, and that is to not eat ice cream because it will be the lead on Fox News for 24 hours and cause the hosts to completely melt down. So for the health of Fox News hosts, he probably should stop eating ice cream. Yeah, the president not lactose intolerant. We know that much for sure.

You were mentioning Dr. Ronnie Jackson's evaluation of Trump was more or less that Trump was an Adonis. We should note that Jackson, the congressman, is now in a real scrutiny for the way he handed out prescription medication during his years in the White House. But yes, the president says routine annual physical. And as you just detailed, Mika, a pretty standard checkup. Real no changes from a year ago. There, of course, has been a lot of speculation about the president's age and his cognitive function. We should he was not given a cognitive aptitude test yesterday. His doctor

felt like that was not necessary. And certainly we heard the president joke there. If you couldn't quite make out the audio that the voters are concerned that he might look might be too young for the job. So we're seeing the president employ some humor in recent weeks as there's been more scrutiny about his age. But let's be clear. This was done at this was done at Walter Reed Medical Center. And his physician says the president is perfectly capable of holding the job.