Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/5/24

Episode Date: February 5, 2024

Senators unveil bipartisan bill to impose tougher asylum and border laws

Okay, our next question comes from someone who describes herself as a concerned South Carolina voter. Yes, hello. My question is, why won't you debate Nikki Haley? Oh my God, it's her. The woman who was in charge of security on January 6th. It's Nancy Pelosi. For the 100th time, that is not Nancy Pelosi. It is Nikki Haley. Are you doing okay, Donald? You might need a mental competency test. You know what I did? I took the test and I aced it. Okay, perfect score. They said I'm 100% mental and I'm competent because I'm a man. That's why a woman should never run our economy.

Women are terrible with money. In fact, a woman I know recently asked me for because I'm a man. That's why a woman should never run our economy. Women are terrible with money. In fact, a woman I know recently asked me for $83.3 million. And you've spent $50 million in your own legal fees. Do you need to borrow some money? Oh, Nikki, don't do this, Nikki. Nikki Tiki Tavi. Nikki, don't lose that number. Nikki Haley.

Joel Osment. Nikki Haley, Joel Osment, we call her six cents. Remember that one? I see dead people. Yeah, that's what voters will say if they see you and Joe on the ballot. Wow. Nikki Haley making a surprise appearance on Saturday Night Live. The Republican presidential candidate is coming off of her best month for fundraising, despite calls from MAGA Republicans to drop out of the race. Also ahead, we're going to bring you the details of the long-awaited bipartisan border deal, which is now getting pushback from members on both sides of the aisle.

Plus, President Biden ordered retaliatory strikes for the drone attack that killed U.S. troops in Jordan. We'll go through that military action in the Middle East and what could come next. Meanwhile, the economy exceeding expectations. Really is unbelievable how well the economies go. Are all looking good. But voters are not giving the president any credit for that. We'll dig into that disconnect. We'll also recap a record night for Taylor Swift at the Grammys, a night dominated by female artists. Good morning and welcome to Morning Show. It is Monday, February 5th. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House PR Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Departments, Elise Jordan, is with us this morning.

Good to have you with us. And after months and months of negotiations, a bipartisan group of senators has reached a deal on a bill addressing border security and foreign aid. It's a $118 billion package. It calls for over $20 billion in border security measures that include hiring new asylum officers and border security agents, expanding the number of detention beds and increasing screenings for fentanyl and other drugs.

Wow, that's all tough. The bill would end the practice of catch and release and raise the standard of asylum, Wow, that's all tough. Republicans must love this. The legislation grants a new emergency authority to the White House and the Homeland Security Department to close the border once encounters reach a certain threshold. Shut the border down. Wow. And in terms of foreign aid, over $60 billion would be allotted for Ukraine. $14 billion would be given to Israel and $10 billion would be given for humanitarian assistance for civilians in Gaza and the West Bank. That's just good for everybody. Makes everyone happy.

Despite the bill being crafted by a bipartisan group of senators, it is already facing major pushback from both sides of the aisle. Two Senate Democrats, California Senator Alex Padilla and New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez say they are against the bill. The House Republican leadership say they won't bring the bill up for a vote, with Speaker Mike Johnson saying it's even worse than expected. No, that's just a lie. And I'd love to know what Bible he's looking at when he says he lives by the Bible, because it's bizarre that this guy is worshiping at the feet of Donald Trump, basically does whatever Donald Trump tells

him to do, and was, of course, the chief sponsor of the big lie in the House of Representatives. So just ask Liz Cheney. So as Speaker Johnson calls this even worse than expected, the lead Republican senator who negotiated the bill, James Lankford of Oklahoma, responded to those comments. I'm a little confused how it's worse than expected when it builds border wall, expands deportation flights, expands ICE officers, Border Patrol officers,

detention beds, how it creates a faster process for deportation, how it clears up a lot of the long-term issues and loopholes that have existed in the asylum law, and then gives us an emergency authority that stops the chaos right now on the border. So I'm a little confused. I'll have to be able to get with the speaker's team on that to be able to find out what part would be, quote unquote, worse than what we'd expected based on the actual text. And hopefully they've all had an opportunity to be able to actually read through the text. Well, you know, Senator Langford, Jonathan O'Meara, obviously has good reason to be confused because this is the toughest border bill in a generation. If you had read any of that to us a year or two ago, we would all say, oh, yeah, that's the Republican wish list. You go down it. It's a Republican wish

list. And now just because Mike is being told by Donald not to pass this bill to continue to allow fentanyl to flood into the country, continue to allow illegal immigrants to flood into this country. What do we have? We have a situation where they want to keep the border open because it's bad for America and they believe what's bad for America is good for Donald Trump. The text of the bill only came out late yesterday. It sort of defies logic that everyone's read it so far, but that hasn't stopped a number of Republicans from coming out vehemently against it. We know for a while now it had a real uphill climb in the House. And Speaker Johnson is, as you just said, dramatically opposing it. He also compared himself to Moses in an interview over the weekend.

So as you speak about his own religion, his beliefs, there's that one. Did Moses spread a big lie, too? Was Moses the chief architect of a big lie? And I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite. In fact, he brought down the truth from the top from the mount. Yeah, that's yeah, that's that's how I remember. But but it's also now this bill, as we'll hear more from our colleagues in a few minutes, also faces a real uphill climb in the Senate. Now, a number of Republicans are opposed to it. Mitch McConnell sort of had a magic number of GOP colleagues he wants to get there. That's seemingly unlikely. There's growing discussion that this is going to end up being some separate

bills after all. Speaker Johnson's already put one forth for just on Israel. Unclear what happens to Ukraine. And now it seems like the border is going to go unaddressed. And this is something that poll after poll shows Americans want its leaders to deal with. Republicans for months have said we will until Donald Trump said I'd like to preserve that as a campaign issue. What I'm told here is this is this is the make or break week for this bill. At the moment, there's an expectation that it will fail. And I think if it does, if it is if it is defeated, we will then see at least a real push for President Biden to head to the border and say and it's not going to happen until it's done.

He's not going to go there this week. But when it's done and if it does fail, he's going to go there and say, I was willing to sign this, the toughest border security bill in history. Aides tell me that would be the message. It's Republicans who are in the way. And I see it no way, really. I would be shocked if this bill passes and comes if anything comes to fruition. You look at what Steve Scalise tweeted out immediately. This bill is going to allow 5000 more illegal immigrants in a year. And then also he was, you know, the auto automatic work permits. Republicans are going to, you know, raise hell about that, too. So anything that they can do to say like, oh, this bill is just going to let in more illegal immigrants and it really wasn't stopping anything, that will be their simplistic message, way oversimplifying what really is a sweeping bill and should happen for the sake of national security. Less about immigration than the national security threats

that are coming through that border. But I think that Republicans are really going to seize on. They can say, no, no, no, it's allowing more people in and then they will then nothing will happen. Wow. All right. Let's bring in NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Sirkin. Julie, you've been covering every detail of this. What comes next? Here's the reality. Republicans are perhaps deliberately mischaracterizing what this bill does and doesn't do. When you talk about that five thousand a day number, this is something we fact check even before the bill text came out, because again, it is impossible for this bill to prevent migrants

from coming to the border illegally. All they can do in the beginning is try to put in mechanisms to discourage that from happening. So that's point number one that is just completely mischaracterized. Point number two, you talk about work requirements, for example. This bill would deny work permits for anybody that comes to the border between ports of entry, only allowing that provision, allowing that right to people who come legally to ports of entry and initially pass their asylum screening. So those two things are being heavily misconstrued by Republicans. There are some of the things we heard Lankford say he's going to try to clear up. But let's also talk about what this bill doesn't do. And that is it does not provide any pathway to citizenship for undocumented dreamers. A few months ago, if you had told Democrats that they were going to accept a bill that had all these

conservative priorities in it without that pathway, that would be a complete pipe dream. And here you have Democrats and Republicans who are agreeing on this pathway forward. conservative priorities in it without that pathway, that would be a complete pipe dream. And here you have Democrats and Republicans who are agreeing on this pathway forward. And then you have extremists, in the words of Senator Sinema, Lankford, Murphy and Schumer last night, who were on calls with reporters for hours trying to put an end to some of the lies, frankly, that are being told about this bill, who are on the same page and willing to let it go through in order to fix the border, in order to allow that aid to Ukraine and Israel to go through. So bottom line here, look, Jonathan is exactly right when he's talking about the uphill battle this faces in the Senate before he even gets to the House. It'll be interesting to

see once the Senate returns tonight early to process the bill. Whether Lankford can have any luck in terms of moving his Republican colleagues closer in his direction here. But if it doesn't happen this week, I mean, there's going to be real talk of completely splitting off the border aid. McConnell already alluded to this the other week. He said if this doesn't go through, Ukraine aid and Israel aid has to move regardless. So it'll be interesting if there will be a broad bipartisan coalition trying to make that happen instead. NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Sirkin, thank you very much for your reporting this morning. And joining us now, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. He's chief international analyst for NBC News and former chief of staff at the CIA

and Department of Defense. Jeremy Bash is with us as well. So, Admiral, we'll move the border security issue to the side, though I must say I've always been very conservative on border security. I believe if you come to the United States, you should come here legally. And I think our borders need to be controlled.

We have a chance to do it. And Mike Johnson doesn't want to do it because Donald Trump doesn't want to do it. Let's talk about what's happening overseas and what Mike Johnson, who has voted pro Putin on every single Ukraine aid bill since he's been in Congress. Let's talk about Ukraine. If this funding is killed again, how dire is the situation? And sadly, I hate to be asking this, but what message does it send to our friends? And I think more importantly, our enemies alike. Yeah, let's actually start with border as follows. The border solving it is a national security issue in terms not only of controlling our border, which we need to do, but also because these other aid packages are linked to it. Taiwan and it's Israel. All of them are part of this package. And if that crumbles in front of us, the consequences will be significant in each of those venues. So now let's shift to the Middle

East and Israeli aid alongside that Ukrainian aid. Of the two, Israel is fighting a smaller war in a dominant position. They will continue on, but they need the aid that is part of this package. But where it gets dire, your word, and it's an accurate one, Joe, is Ukraine. We are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of the ammunition, the replacement tanks, the additional armored personnel carriers, the radar components, the anti-air systems, all of that is on the red line right now. Fortunately, our European colleagues are stepping up and can provide some of that. But this is the moment for the United States to to continue what we have done successfully thus far and put a stake in the heart of Vladimir Putin. If we cut off that aid now because of our internal domestic challenges, we'll be our

Ukrainian colleagues and we'll be our reputation globally. I mean, I mean, think about the message that Mike Johnson and the House Republicans are sending to Putin. Yes, they're saying America will capitulate. We won't stand by our allies. We'll leave them hanging in the in their most dire moments. The Israelis. Yes, we're we're we actually we're more interested in helping Donald Trump than helping you. And so Hamas will take great, great heart by the fact that we're not funding the Israelis. And then Mike Johnson is stopping the funding for our friends in Asia.

And so what signal does that send to communist China? President Xi's loving it. You know, all the people that Donald Trump says he loves and he respects, President Xi, he's very happy right now because of Mike Johnson. Donald Trump says Hezbollah is brilliant. They're really happy right now because Donald Trump and Mike Johnson and and, you know, and then Vladimir Putin, all of these people that he says he loves. Mike Johnson is doing their bidding right now. And and for fentanyl drug, you know, fentanyl drug runners, they got to love Mike Johnson, too. They probably have a picture of him up and, you know, in their warehouse.

Everything about Mike Johnson's behavior points to Trump and points to Trump's relationship with the situation, whether it be wanting to cozy up with Vladimir Putin or wanting things to go badly in this country now so he can come in and be president again. Jeremy Bash, voters may not be as clued in to what's going on in Ukraine and Israel, given kitchen table issues that are right in front of them trying to just get to work and take care of the kids. At the same time, does the White House need to do more in order to get support for these wars and control or contain the narrative more as it pertains to the truth. I mean, the future of our democracy depends on this election, you could argue, but it also depends on our partners being stable. Mika, I think the president was highly effective when he gave that Oval Office address after returning from his Middle East trip to say, look, we're going to be proposing

to Congress support of democracy. Democracy globally is under fire. It's under threat. It's under strain. And if we want to stand up for the principle of supporting our interests, our friends and our values, our democratic values, we have to be able to arm, train and equip the Ukrainians. We have to be able to fund air defenses and military capabilities for Israel. We have to provide weapons and capabilities to Taiwan, which is under threat from China, as just referenced. And so I think the president has done an effective job, but more can be done to articulate the imperative of U.S. global leadership at this very perilous moment. It's just unbelievable. They're putting politics

in front of national security, everything, politics in front of our allies, politics in front of territorial integrity, all the things Republicans once claimed they care for. Now, Mike Johnson and Donald Trump together are doing everything they can to undermine what conservatives have always supported. And and they're undermining national security for pure politics. And they admit it. For Putin. When we come back in one minute, the United States begins carrying out airstrikes in retaliation for the drone attack in Jordan that killed three U.S. service members. We'll have those new developments and what happens next. Also ahead, despite an

impressive January jobs report, President Biden still down 20 points when it comes to the economy. We're digging into new NBC News polling. We'll also show you more of Nikki Haley's new ramped up attacks against Donald Trump. We're back in 60 seconds. 19 past the hour, the United States on Friday carried out retaliatory airstrikes targeting sites used by Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria. NBC News has been able to verify the locations of five of those sites. U.S. Central Command said the attack involved more than 125 precise munitions, including some fired from long range B-1 bombers. The barrage of strikes hit more than 85 targets in seven locations and came in response to that drone attack last month

in Jordan that killed three American soldiers and wounded dozens more. In a statement, President Biden said the round of strikes would not be the last. Iran called the strikes a strategic mistake, saying they will, quote, have no result other than intensifying tensions and instability in the region. Meanwhile, the U.S. continues to launch attacks against the Houthis in Yemen. On Saturday, the U.S. and U.K. struck 36 targets across 13 different locations. In a joint statement, the country said the strikes hit buried weapons storage facilities and missile systems the Houthis have used to attack ships in the Red Sea. This was the third time the U.S. and U.K. have launched joint strikes against the terrorist group. Then yesterday, American forces announced

they hit five anti-ship cruise missiles in two different attacks. The Pentagon says four of those missiles were prepared to launch against ships in the Red Sea. So, Admiral, you know, over the last 30, 40 years, we've gotten used to missiles being fired in the middle of the desert, and Americans get skeptical after a while that they're just being fired to send a message and no real damage done. Here, the scope, the scale of these attacks seem far beyond what we've seen in the past. Explain the strategic impact of these strikes. I'll be happy to. I've fired any number of Tomahawk missiles from destroyers in these circumstances. There are two elements here, Joe. One is the deterrence piece of this, creating in the minds of the Houthis and the radical groups in Iraq and Syria, Iranian proxies, a sense of fear that more is coming.

And then importantly here, this round of strikes has been also directed against Iranian personnel, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. So you've got kind of the deterrence piece of this. Gosh, there's probably more where this came from. And then of the deterrence piece of this. Gosh, there's probably more where this came from. And then secondly, the tactical piece of this, actually destroying capability. Here, in particular, the series of strikes in the Red Sea area are very, very directed against missiles, radars, buried ammunition, command and control. These are taking away real capability in the Red Sea and likewise in the training camps that are supporting these Shia militias. So I would argue, and I think any military expert would tell you, you're creating both a strategic deterrence that's hard to measure and assess, but we'll watch for reactions.

But I know we are creating real tactical effect by destroying capability. This is the beginning of a campaign, and it's a smart one. So, Jeremy, we certainly heard from a number of voices over the weekend, mostly Republicans, criticizing the attacks, suggesting that the administration waited too long. They were overly telegraphed what they were going to do. They didn't really make much of a difference. So weigh in on that. But also, senior administration officials tell me that a strike within Iran is highly, highly unlikely. We heard from Jake Sullivan over the weekend on Meet the Press.

He's refusing to take anything off the table. But it was pretty clear that's not being actively considered. So with that as a given, President Biden has said more is coming. What do you think it is? Yeah, first of the timing, I think these operations are complex and challenging. They require setting the theater, making sure our force posture is appropriate, making sure our allies and partners are witting of our plans and making sure the air rights and air spaces are cleared so that we can operate with some very heavy platforms,

including, as referenced, B-1B bombers flying all the way from Texas. And so this is a complex military operation against seven targets. And so I think a couple of days to plan it out and to execute it. I think the proof is in the pudding. They were professionally executed and they had good effect. Look, are more coming? I do think more are coming. Jake Sullivan said so yesterday during his interviews. And the bottom line is Jim Stavridis is exactly right. Whether we deter the mercurial mind of Iranian leader cannot happen overnight. We're going to have to show the Iranians that not only do we have the capacity to hit more targets, but we have the will. And that's why it's so important that we've said that there's more to come and that we maintain a very robust force posture. You know, take a step back. What's going

on in the region? Iran is trying to disrupt the three-way peace deal between Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United States. We were on the cusp of having an agreement, a historic agreement, the peace to end all peace, to use a historic reference, really a way to have Arab-Israeli reconciliation on a scale not seen probably since the Camp David Accords. And Iran said that is an anathema to our interests. And they unleashed not only Hamas, but Hezbollah, the Houthis, these proxies in Iraq and Syria. And I think this is going to go on for a while until the Iranians get the message. Admiral, it's a little confusing here, though. What is actually the strategy and what's the end goal of these strikes? It seems as if, though, they're just strikes to do strikes without any real purpose.

You see, you know, Iraqis are killed. Syrians are killed. No Iranians have been killed. So what do you get the sense? What is the overall grand strategy here of the toward a growing rapprochement, ultimately diplomatic relations between the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel. When we bring our friends together, we emerge stronger. To do that, you have to knock back the Iranians who are determined to cause us to withdraw. Moving out a little bit, this is also part of an alliance strategy, Elise. Today, we have, I think, at least 15 nations have signed on on Operation Prosperity Guardian, which is the Red Sea, and keeping the global economy open. That's a significant part of this strategy here. And then thirdly, as we look at capability, as we talked about a moment ago, every time with these strikes, you take away capability, You are reducing the possibility of further attacks. I think this is actually a well-planned and escalating strategy that is moving up that ladder.

And ultimately, are we going to have to send jets over downtown Tehran? Let's hope not. And if we want to avoid that, the way to do that is to continue to move up on this ladder of escalation. I think the administration's got it about right. Retired four-star Admiral James Tavridis and NBC News national security analyst Jeremy Bash, thank you both very much for joining us this morning. And coming up, we'll have updates on legal cases connected to Donald Trump, multiple from his civil fraud trial to the effort in Colorado to keep him off the 2024 ballot. Former litigator and MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin will be here to break it all down for us. Morning, Joe. We'll be right back. Circumstance beyond our control.

The phone, TV and the news of the world. Gotten a house like a pigeon from hell. Through sending our eyes and descended like a flower Campaign finance records show that in the last six months, the super PACs behind Donald Trump spent $50 million on Trump's legal fees. And that's with the cheapest, worst lawyers on the planet. Can you imagine spending $50 million on the people who just lost you $83 million? The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments this week in the appeal of the Colorado High Court's decision that former President Trump

is ineligible to run for president because of the January 6th insurrection. The Colorado Court cited the Constitution's 14th Amendment that bars anyone who took an oath as an officer of the United States and then engaged in insurrection from ever holding office again. The Supreme Court's decision is likely to be the most consequential election ruling since Bush v. Gore more than two decades ago. Also this week, the final verdict in former President Trump's New York civil business fraud trial could come. The decision had originally been scheduled for release at the end of last month, but the judge delayed the ruling. The judge presiding in the case has already ruled the Trump organization has committed fraud. The verdict will determine penalties and resolve other claims

of wrongdoing from the case. And joining us now is former litigator and MSNBC legal analyst, Lisa Rubin. Lisa, let's start there. What is causing the delay? I understand there was a letter from the judge that is a monitor in charge of Trump's businesses, and there's a whole bunch of incomplete information that that judge is dealing with, how does that impact the decision Judge Angoran has to make? You know, Mika, we don't know for sure whether the letter that you're referring to from retired Judge Barbara Jones,

who is the monitor in the case, is impacting Judge Angoran's decision and its timing. However, as you noted, it's a 12-page letter that points to lots of improprieties and Trump's financial statements. One of the things that it points to, and maybe the thing that's most troubling about it, is for years it's been understood that one of the business entities in the Trump organization loaned former President Trump personally $48 million. According to Judge Jones, in a footnote in this letter, she could never find, no matter how many times she asked, documentation of that loan and was

later told essentially that the loan didn't exist. The Trump Organization lawyers, they refute that. They say the loan did exist. And what we did was give Judge Jones an intra-company memo telling her that debt had been extinguished. But I've looked at that memo. Memo was from December of 2023. It's a memo to the file. So nobody even had the guts to sign it, essentially. And it just says that the debt has been extinguished.

There is still to this day no documentation that the loan existed. And you might be thinking to yourself, well, what's the big deal about that? The big deal is if that loan did not exist and it was instead a gift, there would be massive tax consequences to that, as well as some improprieties in the financial reporting that went to Trump's financial institutions and insurance companies. In essence, a continuation of that same fraud that's been going on for years and has been showing up in his financial disclosures as a candidate. You'll remember that as president, for example, Donald Trump filed these presidential disclosures where we could see all of his finances. He is required to do that as a declared candidate as well. And the loan showed up in his

most recent disclosure as of April 2023. So as you know, they would say, I love Lucy. Someone's got some explaining to do. So I want to ask you about Colorado, but I just a little bit more on this. If the monitor has uncovered questions of more fraud, to put it carefully. OK, so that's one thing. But doesn't that also just play right into Donald Trump's constant narrative in any of these cases, which is delay, delay, delay? What happens to the timing of the decision as they're trying to figure this loan out or whatever it was? You know, I don't think it will have much of an impact on the decision. You remember, Judge Ngoran promised that he would try to have a decision by January 31st.

Last week, the Office of Court Administration released a statement saying we should now expect that decision by early to mid-February. So I think it maybe pushes it out a week as the judge adds this to the pile of evidence that he once said could fill an entire room of the Trump organization and Donald Trump's own fraud. But we're not talking about weeks, plural Mia, or even months. So, Lisa, was noted that this is a big week. The Colorado case coming before the Supreme Court, as Mika said, perhaps the most consequential electoral matter it's heard since 2000. So walk us through what you expect us to hear. What will the outcome here be? I think the out. Let's start with the outcome. I think the outcome is going to be that the court does not disqualify Donald Trump from being on presidential primary ballots.

How it gets there, of course, John, is another story. One of the things that I expect that we'll hear at oral argument and one of the things that like puts a chill into me personally as a lawyer is something that Donald Trump's team put on the very last pages of their brief. It's been long presumed that when a state Supreme Court makes a factual finding that the United States Supreme Court is supposed to defer to that. It really can't mess with the factual findings of a state Supreme Court. However, Jonathan Mitchell, who's Donald Trump's lawyer here, essentially says there's no reason for the court to give any deference to that and they should feel free to disturb the factual findings and sort of revisit the question of whether Trump participated in an insurrection at all. In this case, that would have big consequences. But overall, in terms of Supreme Court jurisprudence, that would have huge consequences. If a state Supreme Court is no longer the final arbiter of its own facts and law, you can see how that would topple basically the system of state to federal appeals as we

currently understand it. All right. And finally, this for you, Lisa. Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis is acknowledging for the first time having a personal relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade. The revelation came on Friday in a 176 page filing. And in it, Willis's team argued the relationship did not result in any, quote, disqualifying conflict of interest. Election interference co-defendant Michael Roman, who first made the allegation of an improper relationship, is attempting to use it to have his charges dismissed. Former President Trump has joined that effort. There is an evidentiary hearing on the allegations scheduled for next week. Lisa, what do you make of all of this? Mika, in a word, it's tawdry. And I don't think it really has much impact on whether Fannie Willis should be disqualified because at the end of the day, the things here that are troubling,

and I want to be clear with our viewers, there are some things here about this that are troubling to me, in particular, the fact that Nathan Wade doesn't really have a background in RICO law. On the other hand, if you take Fannie Willis at her word that no relationship developed between the two of them until after his appointment, and you take her at her word that these are two financially independent people who, in the course of one of their divorces, ended up in a relationship with one another, there really is no there there. It is just a distraction that is needlessly consuming time. And as you noted earlier, the name of the game with Donald Trump always in litigation is delay, delay, delay.

I mean, obviously, you brought it up. It begs the question, why in the world, in a complex RICO case, the most important that not only she would ever try, but that probably any state would ever try against a politician. She would she would appoint somebody who has no experience in RICO law. Well, Joe, let me play devil's advocate with you for a second. There are two other special prosecutors here, one of whom, John Floyd, is very experienced in RICO law and was appointed specifically for that reason. Fannie Willis would say that she appointed Nathan Wade here because she knew him to be an effective leader of teams, that he is effectively the quarterback of this team,

coordinating all other resources and generally serving as sort of the strategic captain here. If that's the case, that makes more sense. But again, there are some judgment calls here that are probably not the best, not making everybody here smell good, the optics or bad, even if legally they're on solid ground. Former litigator and MSNBC legal analyst, Lisa Rubin, we will see you many times this week. Thank you very much for starting us off this morning. And coming up, despite a growing economy and little opposition for his party's nomination, President Biden's approval rating

has sunk to a new low. We'll dig into the brand new polling from NBC News straight ahead on Morning Joke. Great economic news for President Biden. U.S. oil production hit an all-time high this week, and the economy added a surprisingly robust 350,000 jobs. Or as Fox News reported it, are migrants turning your kids trans? Actually, Fox News did have a number of positive reactions to Friday's jobs reports. Here is Larry Kudlow, a top White House economic advisor under former President Donald Trump. I know many of my conservative friends are trying to drill holes in this report. But you know what, folks? It is what it is. It's a very strong report.

Not every economic stat should be viewed through a political lens. I've been in this business a very long time, and sometimes you just have to throw away the ballot box and just recognize the numbers. They are what they are. This was a very strong report. There you go. All right. Friday's number showed the U.S. added three hundred and fifty three thousand jobs last month. Economists had predicted gains around one hundred and eighty five thousand. So that's a lot more than expected. But despite continued strong economic data, new polling from NBC News shows just 36 percent of registered voters approve of how President Joe Biden has handled the economy. And when asked who they would trust more to handle the economy,

55 percent said Donald Trump compared to 33 percent who said Biden. So, Jonathan O'Meara, the numbers are stark despite the good numbers in the economy. And let's keep that one up right there. Fifty five to thirty three. Why? What's the Biden White House's explanation and what are they going to do about it? I was speaking to some senior aides at the end of last week about this very matter, and they're still confident that they can turn this narrative around, that they point to strong the jobs report, this other strong economic metrics. Most importantly, they feel consumer sentiment. They feel like people are feeling better about the economy. And that translates usually into votes for the incumbent, the president who's

overseeing that strong economy. But at least for now, there is a disconnect between Americans who now are starting to think better about how things feel economically, but they're not giving the White House any credit. That is something they need to work on. That's about messaging. That's about salesmanship. That's certainly something this White House is going to do. Now, some aides say to me that they feel like that inherently Americans will vote for the incumbent even if they're not in love with that person, if they feel economically stable. And that's where we're trending right now. Also, we heard from Jerome Powell over the weekend in a rare interview suggesting the rate cut's still coming.

They might be delayed somewhat because of, frankly, the strong jobs number and other measures. But there's still probably three cuts this year. And that would certainly boost the economy as well. And that could be even, frankly, well-timed for for this president as he heads into reelection, which are so often economic referendums on the income. Well, and at least you look at the numbers, obviously, a lot of Democrats panicking as Democrats do. We're in the beginning of February. Long way to go. Joe Biden's numbers are very low. And this is, you know, there was an FT article on this last week, I think, that we talked about. Donald Trump could win. Who knows? Maybe he wins in a landslide. Not saying he's not. I am saying, though, if you look at numbers across the West, you see leaders that have low approval ratings. You saw Emmanuel Macron

when he was going into reelection with approval ratings in the low to mid 30s. He ended up with 58 percent of the vote. I just I just think staring at approval ratings and panicking about February polls, that's just time wasted. No, and so much can happen from now until November. And you look at what really matters more than anything. Are prices going to go down? Not just inflation, you know, gradually trending down, but are prices going to go down? And I think that's what's really hurting Joe Biden right now, because unlike the stock market, every American is impacted by rising prices. And so to be going out there and have your message be Bidenomics and that everything is fine and dandy, it's not the way that they should be messaging this. We feel your pain. We know it's been a tough time, but things are trending in the right direction.

The fundamentals are good. It's getting better. I just think that it's come across the Biden administration's messaging has come across as tone deaf on the economy. And there just needs to be a little shift of acknowledging that Americans have been really hurting. Yeah, let's bring in right now the president, the National Action Network and the host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton. Rev, I want to talk about the wars. There are a couple of wars that are raging right now. It's distracting for people. I know you brought it up the other day on our show that you have people saying, hey, listen, I support the president, but we're spending a lot of money overseas.

I look at the news. There's a lot of news about what's going on overseas. I want people to help me here at home. You're hearing that, and I'm just wondering how much, despite a strong economy, how much are these wars distracting from what the president's doing? I think a lot of it is distracting. When people look at the fact that you see the economy may be inching up,

but prices are not going down and people are still kind of trying to make ends meet. And then they see these billions of dollars going abroad, even for legitimate reasons. They say, well, what about me? Why are we spending all of this money, whether it's in Ukraine, whether it's in the Middle East, whether it's wherever? And it seems like I feel like I'm a second thought. And I think the politics of that is reflected by all these startling polls for the Biden camp this weekend is people feel neglected. It's not that people may disagree that we should be on the right side of international conflicts, but people want to feel like, wait a minute, I'm a priority. I think President Biden is actually a very good

sort of teacher on this front about not just the respect for democracy here at home, Rev, but for stability in the world and for the, you know, promoting democracy around the world. I just wonder, does the White House need to focus on the explaining part? We were talking to Jeremy Bash about this earlier. As much as our participation in Israel and Ukraine is definitely draining resources and time, that it is vital to stability of the world and ultimately America as a superpower, Rev? I think that they must make the connection so that people understand that we're not just in Ukraine or in the Middle East as charity, that it is directly connected. And the way that we're not just in Ukraine or in the Middle East as charity, that it is directly connected. And the way that we protect you at home and the way that we enhance you at home is by covering our flanks abroad.

I don't think there's been an effective communication of the connection of why we are spending money, that it is not spending money on others, it's spending money to protect and to consolidate democracy everywhere, which keeps China at bay, which keeps Putin at bay. And as long as people don't see the connection to my house, they're going to feel neglected. You've got to convince people I've got to save the neighborhood to save your house. I've got to say right now, though, Elise, and I'm not questioning the importance of what the United States is doing overseas. Now, I hope I got this right. I get your legal degree wrong. But I think you have a bit of a libertarian streak in you.

Is that correct? That is correct. So you're a perfect person to lead this to. I, you know, I grew up in a family of cold warriors. I'm I'm a little less libertarian on this front. That said, in Congress, I always people would come to me and say, oh, we need to do this. I'd always stop and say, hey, we can fight a one front war. So we can fight. Don't ask me to fight two, three, four front wars. We can afford right now chaos in one area, contain that chaos, and then we can worry about these other things. Right now, for the average voter, it's a lot to see Israel and Gaza every day. That doesn't mean the Hamas attacks weren't heinous and Hamas must be destroyed. They must be destroyed.

I get that. Ukraine, we've been here nonstop in support of Ukraine. I will tell you, General Milley said, though, a year ago, a year ago, those lines are frozen in place. He couldn't say it on air, but he said those lines are frozen in place. We can keep giving them stuff, but those lines are frozen in place. And extend the killing. Yeah. Do we want to keep those lines frozen in place for what? How many more years? One, two, four, five. Bring this up to say to the libertarian and you and for the libertarian and many Americans on foreign policy, there's a lot in the inbox right now, right? You got inflation,

you've got all these other issues, you've got crime, they're processing that. Then you have Israel and Gaza on TV all the time. You've got the Ukraine war, you've got China getting ready to move on Taiwan. Too many, too many fronts, too much chaos. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Our bombs, the U.S.'s greatest export. You know, you hear from some more hawkish congressional members, oh, but it's fueling job growth and arms factories in the U.S. And that argument just makes me a little sick. It turns my stomach. we don't really have a coherent grand strategy of why we are fighting in the Middle East, why we still have bases in Jordan where three Georgia National Guardsmen women are killed, why we are fighting this proxy war with Iran, but really in three other countries, not exactly with Iran. And then what is our strategy? We're giving Israel, we provide around 15 percent of their defense budget in a normal year, yet we're using none of that leverage to what's happening in Gaza with the slaughter of children and innocents. And I'm all for I think Israel deserved to have a robust response to kill Hamas.

But when it goes beyond the laws of proportionality, we really need to question ourselves as a nation and what values we are supporting around the world. Well, and we really, as it comes to Israel, we're always going to be supportive of Israel. The question is, though, do we continue to support Benjamin Netanyahu's policies, Mika, that again, continue to go against what President Biden, Tony Blinken, America's national security, our allies, everybody saying people in Israel. I mean, he's sitting there with maybe what, 20 percent approval rating. He knew about this attack a year beforehand, did nothing about it. He knew about Hamas's funding sources in 2018, along with Donald Trump. They did nothing about it. They told Qatar, Netanyahu's administration to give Hamas more money weeks before the October 7th attack.

They did nothing for six, seven, eight, 10 hours to actually protect Jews that were getting raped, slaughtered, burned. You know, it's time for Joe Biden to move away from Benjamin Netanyahu. It's time to do it publicly. This is this is this is, you know, this is this is pretty devastating. Netanyahu doesn't care about Israel's democracy and doesn't know how to keep them secure. Mika, we're going to.