Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/8/24

Episode Date: February 8, 2024

Supreme Court to hear Trump ballot eligibility case today

I understand this. In this building and in the 202 area code that is Washington, D.C., border security is a political issue. But if we leave the 202 area code everywhere else in the country, this is not a political issue. It's a national security issue. And when you actually go to the Border Patrol Council, those that see the chaos day to day, they're saying, send us some help. When you are handed the keys to the kingdom, as it were, when you have the majority, there is an expectation that you will be able to govern. And we've just struggled with that over and over again. It's a big leadership challenge that we need to find a solution for. Honestly, I don't care about basic governments. I actually

think that a little bit of turmoil, if you will, actually ends up being good for the American people at times. I mean, most of my voters would love to see this place shut down because they don't think it works for them. And specifically specifically they want to see it shut down until the border shut down. The Republican led chaos continues on Capitol Hill. The bipartisan border bill that Republican Senator very conservative James Lankford and others worked on for months is officially dead. But now there are Senate Republicans who are vowing to block any foreign aid bill until the situation at the southern border is addressed first, like the bill they just killed. The bad faith arguments on those issues made by some MAGA Republicans

has angered some of the true conservative members of the GOP. We'll get to that. Meanwhile, there appears to be no path forward for critical foreign aid. We'll go through more of its dysfunction in Washington in just a moment and how it affects not only our country, but the rest of the world. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, February 8th. Along with Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Beard Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle joins us as well. Willie, our top story this morning. Let's start with the Supreme

Court this morning. Just a couple of hours, we'll hear oral arguments on Donald Trump's eligibility for the Colorado primary. Back in December, you'll remember, Colorado State Supreme Court ruled Trump should be removed from the state's ballot based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The post-Civil War provision of the Constitution bars anyone who took an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States

and engaged in insurrection from holding public office again. Trump's legal team is expected to argue that as president, he was not an officer of the United States and that his actions leading up to and on January 6th do not constitute an insurrection or rebellion. Let's bring in former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Barbara McQuaid. She is co-host of the Sisters in Law podcast. Barbara, good morning. It's great to have you with us. So what do you expect to see today as this gets underway? Well, I think we know what the arguments are just because all the briefs have been filed, all the amicus briefs have been filed. But what I'll be looking for and what I

think we can expect are the questions that we hear from the justices themselves. That will be a real indicator as to whether they're going to go to the meat of this, looking to see whether Donald Trumpices are using their opportunity to ask questions as sort of advocate for a particular position or another. That's what makes it so fascinating to listen to the oral argument. So, Barbara, obviously, the Supreme Court, any court is supposed to stick to the law. And then 14th Amendment, Section three in this case. But there are obviously larger implications here. We've heard even some Democrats, we've heard some allies of President Biden and other networks saying they worry about the implications of keeping Donald Trump off of a ballot, what it means for the country, what it means for telling voters you don't even get a

chance to have your voice heard here. Does the Supreme Court bring that into its decision ultimately? I don't know. You know, Chief Justice Roberts has his hands full here because I think we are at a moment in our nation's history when public confidence in the Supreme Court is very low. And so I think it has to be at the back of his mind that he doesn't want to do anything that makes that worse. And if anything, he wants to bolster confidence. But it's difficult to know which way that cuts. Removing Donald Trump from the ballot, I suppose, would be putting the court at the center of American life. And perhaps he would like to avoid being the decision maker that removes a presidential candidate who is leading his party for the nomination.

On the other hand, Clarence Thomas himself has said it is not the job of the Supreme Court to render extinct language from the Constitution. And so to say that, well, he's popular, so we should just forget about worrying about the 14th Amendment. It is the job of the court to interpret the law. And so I think that they're a little damned if they do damned if they don't hear, because if they say, no, you know, the voters should decide that would really abdicate their role as the job of the Supreme Court. What is the question at hand here that they have to consider? Because I think a lot of people might listen to this headline and say, oh, well, he wasn't there at the Capitol. He didn't break a window. So there's no way that Donald Trump did what this claim is saying, but this is talking about engaging in insurrection. Am I right? And as a result, is it possible that could be proven? Well, yes. And in fact, if you look at the language of the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, it says not only that someone engaged in insurrection, it also says or provided aid

or comfort to those who did. And so I think there are a number of ways, just as the Colorado Supreme Court did, to find that Donald Trump did indeed engage in insurrection, which would bar him under this clause. For example, the speech he gave at the Ellipse and the tweets he sent even after the attack was underway could be a basis for engaging in insurrection. However, if there is a worry that that violates any First Amendment rights that he may have, I think a stronger argument is that he provided aid and comfort to the same, because as president, unlike the rest of us, he actually has affirmative duties to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

And so his failure to call off that insurrection after 187 minutes, I think, is maybe the strongest argument that he provided aid and comfort to those who were engaged in insurrection. And that would bar him as well. And Jonathan Lemire, I mean, not only did he say, go to the Capitol, I'll meet you there, and they all went running to the Capitol. Since then, he's called the people who are doing hard time right now for the insurrection that he instigated. He's calling them hostages. He had, I think, a convict choir at one of his rallies. I mean, he continues to give them comfort and to accept them as part of something normal. Yeah. And he, of course,

spent months spouting the big lie, which is what's primed that insurrection. And then he appeared before the crowd on the Ellipse on January 6th and whipped them up into a frenzy, even saying he would go with them to the Capitol before turning, changing his mind and turning back and heading to the White House. And certainly ever since then, he has only praised those who fought for him that day. And we know that he watched in the little television off the private dining room off the Oval Office and cheered on some of the more violent moments of the insurrection that day. So, Barbara, it's also, of course, important because it's not just Colorado. There are other states considering similar measures if this were to go through. The Supreme Court's got to step in, set sort of precedent.

So walk us through the mechanics of what will happen today. Who's going to speak for how long? And then most importantly, what happens next? When will we hear from the Supreme Court as to what they decide? So they have set oral argument to allow first the appellant, which is the typical case, the party who is seeking to overturn the prior decision. So the lawyers on behalf of Donald Trump will argue first. We'll hear from them. And then the response will actually be divided among two different lawyers, one lawyer

representing the voters of Colorado to represent that interest of not having an insurrectionist on the ballot. And then also the solicitor general of the state of Colorado representing the secretary of state of Colorado, who has slightly different interests, which is I need to know whether to put this person on the ballot and I have a duty to remove people who are not qualified. And so we'll hear from both of them, both arguing against Donald Trump being on the ballot, but with slightly different interests there. So we'll hear those arguments. And as I said to me, the most interesting part of listening and it'll be streaming live at 10 o'clock, I know right here on MSNBC. And I think what will be

most interesting is to listen to the questions, because sometimes that can give you a hint as to what is on the mind of the justices. And then your very good question about when can we expect to hear an answer? I think it will come quickly. You know, most of the time, these big issues are not decided until late in the court's term, in June, even into July sometimes, because it just takes that long for them to exchange opinions and reach consensus on things

or draft dissents from those majority opinions. But one of the things we've seen here is amicus briefs filed by secretaries of the states, of other states as well, saying, I need to know the answer to this question because I need to send out ballots for the primary election in my state. And so I would imagine that brings a sense of urgency to the court. And we have seen that from time to time when they really need to decide something quickly,

a quick decision. So I don't know that we'll see it overnight, but I think we may see it in a matter of weeks just because of the urgency of this question. Barbara, that phrase you just mentioned, listen to the questions. Would it apply, do you think, to Chief Justice John Roberts, who is carrying the weight of history on his shoulders right now? And I'm sure that he must have a sense of his role in the Supreme Court's history. The Supreme Court has had a rocky ride in terms of public opinion over the last four or five years. What part of that do you think will play a role in the hearings that we're about to begin listening to? Yes, I imagine that he has taken great care to prepare the questions that he is going to ask today in an effort to perhaps

not just elicit answers to his questions, but also to signal to his colleagues on the bench the direction in which he is going. And so oftentimes one of the things that an advocate is trained to do is, you know, listen to the question, is this really for me or is this justice actually asking the question to signal somebody three seats down as to the direction he may be leaning? And so I think that, you know, court watchers will be listening to those kinds of questions. What is, you know, his poker hand here? Is he revealing anything about the way he sees this case? So, Barbara, I mean, everything that I've read and heard about this points to what Mike Barnicle just said, what you've just said, sense of history of the Supreme

Court, the reputation of the Supreme Court, people's confidence in the Supreme Court, influence influencing public opinion, the concern about getting involved in politics, possibly having two election cases on their hands. Do they want to really do that? What will people think? I don't think that's what the Supreme Court, though, ultimately will consider their job. And when you look at the evidence and the interpretation of the law that's required here, is it possible that Trump is removed from the ballot? I think it's entirely possible, Mika. And as you say, it is not the job of the court to decide public opinion.

I think they're human, so it's got to be at the back of their minds. But I remember something that Attorney General Janet Reno used to say, which is when you find yourself in a situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, then you might as well just do the right thing. And so one hopes that the court will do that. I think that one of the things they did here is the way they framed the issue, which is very broadly, is Donald Trump eligible under the 14th Amendment? It gives Donald Trump several different ways to win because there are really, as we've discussed, roughly eight different legal issues they have to decide. Did he engage in an insurrection? Is he an officer of the United States? Is it self-executing? There are a number of issues. If Donald Trump wins on any one of those,

then he wins and he stays on the ballot. So I think that puts the odds in his favor. However, as we've just discussed, there are very strong arguments to indicate he is not eligible here. And so perhaps the court does lean in that direction. If I were betting, I'm going to bet that they keep him on. But I think there is a chance that he is removed. Well, we'll get some indications this morning when those oral arguments begin at 10 o'clock Eastern time before the Supreme Court. Former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuaid, always so great at explaining this stuff. We appreciate it.

Her new book, by the way, titled Attack from Within, How Disinformation is Sabotaging America, is due out on February the 27th. Barbara, thank you. A U.S. drone strike in Baghdad yesterday killed a high ranking leader of the Iran backed militia responsible for the attack that killed three American soldiers. NBC News chief international correspondent Kir Simmons reports from Iraq. A vehicle in flames in the Iraqi capital. A US strike so targeted, cars close by appear undamaged,

others driving past. But in the aftermath, fury erupting. A crowd chanting no to America, no to Israel. Among those killed, Abu Barker al-Saadi, a commander in Qatab Hasbullah, the group says, the Iranian-backed militia accused of the killing of three American service members in a drone attack on Tower 22, a remote desert base in Jordan, 10 days ago. CENTCOM saying in a statement, U.S. forces conducted a unilateral strike in Iraq in response to the attacks on U.S. service members, killing a Kateb Hezbollah commander responsible for directly planning and participating in attacks on U.S. forces

in the region. In addition to the deadly drone strike, Iranian-backed militias have launched over 160 attacks on American targets since October and have kept on attacking American bases in Syria, even after Friday's wave of American retaliatory strikes. President Biden, who's been under pressure to launch a more forceful response, was pressed about it earlier this week. Are the airstrikes working? Yes. earlier this week.

Iraq's military immediately branding the strike a violation of Iraqi sovereignty, with tensions between Iran and the U.S. escalating. And Kir joins us now live from Erbil, Iraq. Kir, so you sat down with the prime minister of Kurdistan there in Iraq. What did you learn from him about this attack? Well, William, as well as Rahat Bassani, he led, helped lead the fight against ISIS less than a decade ago. He counts President Biden as a friend. But what he says now is that they are facing a new battle, because while those three U.S. servicemen and women were killed in that drone strike at that base in Jordan, the Kurds here in northern Iraq have been facing a barrage, a wave of drone attacks and other attacks from Iranian-backed militia. They are under enormous pressure from Baghdad, from Iran, from Turkey. What he says, and the reason he sat down with us,

is because he says he considers the US a friend, but there just hasn't been the level of support that the Kurds need here in order to help with that fight, the very fight that President Biden is engaged in with those Iranian-backed proxies. The Kurds, he says, are on the front line. You fought terrorism alongside the United States. Yes. Now you're fighting terrorism again, but of a different kind.

Well, we know the definition of terrorism. It doesn't matter who is behind these terrorist acts. It's the act itself that we must prevent. We must fight terrorism, not who is behind terrorism. So that's my way of basically looking at this collaboration and cooperation with the United States and our allies, that we need to fight terrorism, regardless of what group or who is conducting these terrorist acts. And you need American support to do that, without American support? We definitely need American support, yes. Without American support? It would be very challenging, very difficult. So there really is that voice,

different from the voices we're hearing just this morning from some in Baghdad who are calling again for the US to leave Iraq. There is that voice of a leader who says the US should stay in Iraq. And yes, the Kurds are divided politically in many ways, just like everything in this region. It's complex for the U.S. But the Congress passed legislation just in December that talked about bringing in air defenses for Kurdistan here and for Iraq that plainly would help with these attacks. A business leader in this region was killed by a missile, an Iranian missile, just recently. And that, again, is

considered to have been a message. The battle is over whether the Kurds here will continue to be partners with the U.S. or whether they will be pulled into that Iranian orbit even more. And in a way, this is the last piece of Iraq that is standing against all that. So it's a really difficult situation here where the Kurdish leaders say the U.S. could do more beyond just sending in reprisal strikes when Americans are killed. Very complicated situation. NBC's Keir Simmons live for us in Erbil, Iraq. Keir, thanks so much as always. Let's bring in President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's the author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away,

available on Substack. Richard, good morning. So what appears to be, from the American point of view, a successful drone strike inside Baghdad against this Hezbollah leader, an Iran-backed group there inside of Iraq. What's your sense of, since the death, since the killing of those three American service members, the American response? Effective? It depends on what your definition of effective is. If you think America, the definition of success for us is to eliminate the threat, eliminate their attacks on shipping, in the case of the Houthis or in American troops, that's not achievable. What I think we're seeing, is we are involved in an open-ended, low-level war against Iran's proxies in the Middle East.

And we don't want it to get high level because we got our hands full. We can't do enough to help Ukraine. We're worried about what China might do and so forth. We've got to supply Israel and others, but we can't ignore it. So what the administration is trying to do is thread the needle, but we're not going to eliminate these groups. And again, Iran's watching what's going on. Their goal is to push us out of the Middle East. Let's be blunt. They want to get us out of Iraq, out of Syria. They want to dominate this part of the world. They think this is their moment. Again, everybody's looking at what's going on here. And they say the United States is stretched. It's divided. It lacks capacity. It lacks will.

This may be our moment. So, yes, we're right to strike back exactly the way we're doing it. But we shouldn't kid ourselves. We're not going to solve this problem. This is a situation to be managed at best. It's not a problem we're going to solve. Right after the death of those three service members, almost immediately, there was criticism from Republicans. Joe Biden is weak. Why isn't he doing anything about this? Fair to say he has. They took their time, as they should find the targets that are appropriate here, that they have retaliated appropriately and strongly, at least? Yes, what they've done is they retaliated strongly, effectively, killing these. They've again tried to not do things against Iran directly.

But we shouldn't hit ourselves. This is now open-ended. And so the idea that you could have some big strike and then the problem goes away, which a lot of the critics seem to be suggesting, it doesn't work that way. They're there. These people are in the region. We've got lots of places we've got to we've got to contend with. And that gives them a certain structural advantage. Yeah, and certainly the Biden administration has been weighing carefully here and they're not done. They've been clear that this is going to be a wave of attacks over a series of weeks. But, Mika, their priority is, as much as they are trying to enact some measure of retribution for what happened to those three service members killed

in Jordan, they also don't want to widen this war. They're trying to be very careful as to where they strike this. That has been their major concern since October 7th. And to Richard's point, the Biden administration does not use the word war. But most foreign policy analysts say, look, this is this is now a low level war. And this White House is trying to keep it that way. So they're being very selective was what they hit. And at least to this point, they have not hit an Iranian like naval asset, let's say. And they've all but taken off the table the idea of striking within Iran itself. And Richard mentioned Israel coming up in one minute. We're going to go through the major story on Capitol Hill that is connected. Republicans killing the border bill they demanded.

We're going to play for you what the lead negotiators had to say about that. Plus, we'll look at a possible plan B on a border security solution from the White House as President Biden considers taking executive actions to address illegal immigration. But what does that mean for aid to Israel and Ukraine? You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 60 seconds. 24 past the hour, the carefully crafted bipartisan border security and foreign aid bill was effectively killed yesterday after Republicans voted against the legislation they demanded and negotiated. This comes after months of talks between both parties as Republicans required any aid for Israel and Ukraine must be met with reforms at the southern border. Every member of Senate Republican leadership voted against the bill,

including minority leader Mitch McConnell, who had actively advocated for the package. The bill was all but doomed as soon as former President Trump began pressuring Republicans to kill it so he could use immigration as a general election issue. Take a listen to what two of the lead negotiators of the package said yesterday. I had a popular commentator four weeks ago that I talked to that told me flat out before they knew any of the contents of the bill, any of the content, nothing was out at that point, that told me flat out, if you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential year, I will do whatever I can

to destroy you because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election. By the way, they have been faithful to their promise and have done everything they can to destroy me. And then as I've mentioned, I've had a few folks that have said, if I can't get everything, I want nothing. I don't find most Americans are that way, just in their day-to-day life. We have high goals and aspirations as Americans, and quite frankly, I don't blame Americans for being really angry and frustrated where we are at the border, really angry and frustrated.

But what I hear from most Oklahomans is, do something. Don't just sit there. Do something. Make progress. But don't allow this to keep going. Stop it where you can. We were ready to bring the bill to the floor, open it up for debate and amendments. You know how the Senate is supposed to work.

And then pass the bill. But less than 24 hours after we released the bill, my Republican colleagues changed their minds. Turns out they want all talk and no action. It turns out border security is not actually a risk to our national security. It's just a talking point for the election. After all of their cable news appearances, after all those campaign photo ops in the desert, after all those trips to the border, this crisis isn't actually much of a crisis after all. If you want to spend the border crisis for your own political agendas, go right ahead. If you want to continue to use the southern border

as a backdrop for your political campaign, that's fine. Good luck to you. But I have a very clear message for anyone using the southern border for staged political events. Don't come to Arizona. Take your political theater to Texas. Do not bring it to my state.

Independent Senator Sinema, Republican Senator Lankford completely exposing the hypocrisy of Republicans on this issue. Meanwhile, the Senate will move forward with an alternative foreign aid package with no border security provisions. That'll happen later today. As of this morning, 58 senators, including eight Republicans, are supporting the move to send more than 90 billion dollars to Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Indo-Pacific. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will hold a vote on the bill tonight in order, he says, to give Republicans more time to, quote, figure themselves out. Meanwhile, a Senate Republican conference meeting turned heated yesterday, according to three sources in the room. Majority Whip John Thune telling colleagues a vote on the national security package is inevitable, so they need to stop being expletive and vote. That's according to two people familiar with that meeting. Joining us now, congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany, and writer at large for the conservative website, The Bulwark, Tim Miller.

Good morning to you both. Jackie, I'll start with you. So this is you have to kind of stop and process what you're hearing from Republicans, which is they forever wanted something done about the border. Republican James Lankford leads this negotiation for months, gets a deal to do something about the border. They vote against doing something about the border. Then when this foreign aid package comes up, they say we're not voting on that until we do something about the border that we just voted against.

Do I have that about right? That's exactly right, Willie, and pretty fair considering the day that Republicans had yesterday. It's interesting because Senate Republicans generally consider themselves to be the more deliberative and efficient body in Congress. But yesterday and really in recent months in the lead up to today, they have joined and started to resemble their rowdier House counterparts. But it was a very embarrassing day luncheon that stretched through the day, really, about what they're going to do on this supplemental aid package, which is the standalone package that contains aid for Israel and Ukraine without the border bill. But, you know, Republicans who are feeling pressure and want to do at least something and

not be blamed for this political crisis that they essentially have manufactured are weighing options to craft some border provisions, potentially in the form of an amendment to add to this bill, which is why this this this secondary vote has taken until today to be scheduled. Here are some of the Senate Republicans vowing to block any foreign aid bill until the situation at the southern border is addressed first, despite voting against legislation earlier in the day yesterday, which would have addressed the situation at the border. What this administration and Chuck Schumer, they are doing is using the crisis in Israel to support other priorities of the party. We should first secure our southern border. Second, provide resources to Israel. Third, take a look at Indo-Pacific. And fourth, make sure that we have accountability woven into any resources that we give to Ukraine.

Without doing those four things in succession, it's going to be hard for Republicans to support it. You have already too many Republicans who have transitioned from, okay, well, this first foray into trying to force border security has gone down. Now let's move on to Ukraine. And I think there are those of us who belong to the sanity caucus in the Republican Party need to throw our hands up, say, let's pump the brakes here and let's continue to work on solving the

border problem as opposed to immediately pivoting to putting more resources into Ukraine. It was about Ukraine money. It was not about the border. Most people knew that it wasn't going to happen. We wasn't going to get a deal on the border. So now we jumped ahead, jumped into the Ukraine funding, and they're going to find a way to get it done. But hopefully we can block it. We need to protect our borders first before anybody else's borders. But Tim Miller, they had a deal to protect the border that Senator James Langford and many others worked on for months, a bipartisan deal that was stronger than anything that they've ever seen before and ever could get again. What happened? Well, James Langford and Kristen Sinema and Chris Murphy ran into a party that's not a conservative party and not a party that wants to solve problems.

It was interesting at the beginning of the segment watching just the frustration on Lankford and Sinema's face and in their words as they were talking about how the Republicans wouldn't support this deal that they've come to a realization that many of us have realized what the majority, not every single Republican, but the majority of the Republican Party wants is nihilism, is extremism, and is a total servitude to Donald Trump, not advancing conservative policy solutions. I mean, when you stand back and look at this, it is crazy to consider that James Langford, an extremely conservative senator from Oklahoma, would put forth a border bill that has none of the immigration reforms the Democrats have wanted in the past, nothing for dreamers, nothing to liberalize the immigration system.

It is all border security, pretty harsh rules for detention of migrants. And for him to be able to convince, it seems like maybe every Democratic senator or nearly every Democratic senator to go on board with that, and then have his own Republicans scuttle it because they do not want to solve any problems because they're happy to do Putin's bidding in Ukraine. I guess I'd be frustrated if I was him as well if it wasn't for the fact that this is something that we've seen for the party for a long time now. And it's just a fundamental change in where our politics are right now. John, the conservative Wall Street Journal opinion page

editorial section calls this the self-sabotaging GOP, saying the mistake by Senators Lankford and McConnell was assuming Republicans who demanded border provisions were sincere. Those senators ran for cover as soon as Mr. Trump handed down orders not to give Mr. Biden anything he could take credit for. And they go on to talk about a coming betrayal of Ukraine attached to all this. Yeah, the first, the border, it's an everyday issue. It's a humanitarian issue. It's a national security issue. And it is now being ignored because Donald Trump wants it that way. And a political opportunity, perhaps, for a president running for reelection. I know the team is thinking about how they can try to take advantage of this to change the narrative on immigration. But Richard, I wanted to get to

what Willie just said, is the idea of Ukraine. First of all, on Senator Scott's list there, Ukraine was fourth, a four out of four. There's reporting in The New York Times today, an analysis that suggests if the U.S. doesn't come through with aid, Ukraine can maybe hold the status quo for a few more months, but then it's going to steadily lose territory. We know this week Russia has had its first wins on the battlefield in quite some time. So we're already seeing stark relief, the impact of what Republicans are doing. Kiev is deeply worried. Give us your sense as to how this could all play out. Well, they're right to be deeply worried.

Let's be honest here, Jonathan. We are about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. What has happened in Ukraine over the last two years has been extraordinary, really impressive. What Ukraine has done with the support of the United States and Europe, they have fought Russia to a draw. Over the last two years, Russia's really gained no new territory. And we are now putting all of that in jeopardy. So we're talking then about Russia beginning to win back or gain more territory in Ukraine.

And does anybody really think it would stop there? If Putin gains momentum in Ukraine, does anyone really think that other parts of NATO Europe would not be vulnerable? What would we be prepared to do then? Does anyone think we were just talking about Iran? That the mullahs in Iran are not watching this and say, hey, this could be a moment for us. Does anyone think China is not watching this closely and taking this? This is one of those moments where you almost sense that history is being made. And let me put it this way.

I understand the border shenanigans. I hate it. It's irresponsible. But I get it. I don't understand this. The idea that they're doing this, that they're being this reckless, if you will, with history, and they think this is going to rebound to their advantage. I do not understand this.

And it's real. I think I don't know how to stop it because Ukraine can maybe begin to produce more stuff itself, but not enough. Europeans don't have the inventories. They don't have the defense industry. I'm sorry to say at the end of the day, we really can't be replaced here. And so if we are if we're going to be irresponsible, this will have historic consequences. So, Jackie, these historic consequences that Richard Haass just mentioned, apparently there's very few Republicans who have any sense of history, very sense of no sense of what happened in Europe in 1939. But the legislative and voting clock is ticking.

And what is the voting clock ticking toward today? What's going to happen in the United States Senate today? Well, yesterday, after this first failed border vote, the deliberations stretched on all day, and it was clear that Republicans could not unlock the votes necessary to get this through and advance it to the House. As of this morning, it still remains unclear. I mean, we ended last night with Senate GOP leadership telling us that they didn't know where their members were at, but that there was some hope that if they could hash out some of these border provisions and these amendments, that they could potentially unlock more support

for foreign aid. But some Republican lawmakers made the point inside closed doors that you're either for foreign aid or you're not, because some of these amendments are ultimately unlike unlikely to ultimately be approved and make it through to the House at the end of the day. So it's really a toss up right now. The Senate reconvenes at noon today where they'll continue to deliberate. And Mitch McConnell's got to figure out a way to corral these votes. Otherwise, this is just going to really die like the rest of the Senate legislative agenda that has expired this week. So, Jackie, do you feel like we're at 58 votes for this this foreign aid package? And are there two more votes to be found here in the next

few hours with the vote coming up, according to Leader Schumer? I don't know, Willie, that that is the key question here. I mean, there were some members last night who were genuinely on the fence and they wanted to learn more information about about the amendment process and whether they could stick in some amendments that would be analogous to some of the provisions that were included in H.R. 2. That is the stringent border package that the House had initially passed. But as of this very moment, those two holdouts do not exist. We're not sure who they are and whether they're ultimately going to throw their hat in the ring. And this isolationist view has only grown further and seeped into the Republican conference. The closer we get to the election, someone made the point yesterday that Lankford simply took too much time to negotiate this bill and that they missed the window altogether.

You know, it's obviously not that unusual for big, politically risky decisions to be deferred until after an election year. But this is obviously a huge political talking point for Republicans and that's now being spun against them. And there is palpable frustration in the halls of Congress that they've been put into this position where the American public agrees with with making these provisions that they have previously supported. And now Republicans are going to get blamed for ultimately not passing it and implementing anything. And perhaps a convenient talking point that it was James Lankford's fault for taking too long to negotiate this. Not clear they ever would have gone along with this if Donald Trump told them not to. So, Tim Miller, we know that the U.S. Border Patrol Union has come out in favor of this bipartisan package in the Senate,

making the case very clearly. But senators, members of Congress, Republicans have kind of tied themselves in knots trying to even rebut that. Watch this exchange. If this had passed today, because I'm sure you have looked at this closely, would it have made the border safer than the status quo that we live with right now? Well, first of all, Martha, I want to thank Senators Lankford, Sinema, and Murphy for their bipartisan effort. As long as there's no action coming out of Congress, we're languishing in the same situation. So I don't think there's anybody that says that a bill has to have everything that we need in order for us to accept that that's why we have compromise.

There are definitely aspects of that bill that I liked for the agency, and there's aspects of it that, of course, I didn't. That's always been the case. The Board of Bill has been dead. It's been as dead as Woodrow Wilson. But I don't see how anybody can look at this bill and confidently predict it would have been an improvement. Well, the chief of the Border Patrol just said exactly that. Don't you think that he probably knows better than anybody what would have helped his people out a little bit? And I have great respect for him, but I disagree with him. That's the same show. Moments later, Tim Miller, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, coming on and saying he knows better

than the head of the Border Patrol Union. By the way, that's been very friendly to Donald Trump, endorsed him a couple of times, but says in this case, this is going to make our jobs easier. This is going to help the immigration crisis. Please. They're begging of these Republicans to get on board and help us out. And Republicans are saying, no, actually, we know better than you. Now, of course, they don't mean that. They're just doing what Donald Trump's telling them to do. Of course, that's my senator now, Willie. And let me tell you, he does not definitely doesn't know anything about what's happening at the border. This is the thing that they need to come up with post facto explanations for opposing this. Right. And so obviously they're going to look silly at times when they go on Fox News, because this is what they demanded, what they wanted.

I really didn't even need to be here. Right. All of the elements of this bipartisan compromise that Langford worked on. I should have majority support in this Congress and in both houses, if the Democrats are for it. You know, supporting Ukraine should be a clean and easy thing for Republicans to support. This stricter border security, even if it isn't everything on Stephen Miller's, you know, wish list, should be something that people would support as a standalone. They're not supporting it for political reasons because they don't want the country to do anything. It is in line with Donald Trump talking about how he wanted the economy to fail

earlier this year. What all of these people care about is getting Donald Trump back in the White House. And anything that would help do that is something that they would support. And that's why, to your point at the beginning of this, this wasn't about timing. It's not about specific provisions in the bill. It's reminiscent of the Donald Trump conviction after January 6th. It was like, well, we can't vote to convict right now because he's out of office, and we'll wait for the courts to do what they're supposed to do, and then the courts do what they're supposed to do. It's like, well, we can't do the courts now. That's the representation of government, and now we're in the election cycle. It's excuse after excuse after excuse because they need to come up with something,

some talking point that justifies their only overarching goal, which is getting Donald Trump back in the White House. So, Tim, I'm going to ask you to go on the way back machine and put your hat on as a communications director for a national political campaign. That clip we played coming into this segment of James Lankford talking about a phone call he got from some of our Republican who said if he did anything to pass the border bill, they would destroy him. And he goes on to say, and they've done a pretty good job of destroying me. What would you do with a clip like that, that names, names, names, parties? What would you do with it? I found the Democrats, you mean? Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, absolutely. This thing needs to be on TV. I think that if you're Joe Biden, right, I think that there are some legitimate policy concerns that people have about what happened at the border and it's gotten a little bit out of hand. And so what do you have to do to change this narrative? And I think that this supports the best argument that Joe Biden has, which is that the other side, Donald Trump, wants chaos and that Biden and his administration want solutions. Right. And what better evidence is there than that? I was willing to work with one of the most conservative senators to secure the border. And and the Republican power brokers are trying to ruin him for trying to help secure the border. These people want chaos and we want solutions.

I think that there are a few of many vectors that you can advance that same frame on. And that's what I'd be trying to do if I was the Biden campaign. So, Jonathan Lemire, I'm just like, if we could just pull back a little bit. And either party's saying, OK, we need a presidential candidate. Ah, we got this guy. We got this guy. Well, he's got 91 counts against him, a couple of indictments. Liable for sexual assault.

It's OK. It's OK. Liable for fraud. Might have to pay hundreds of millions. It may completely go bankrupt and lose all of his homes. But, you know, we're waiting on that. Don't worry about that. Sex with a porn star paid off with campaign finance. That that that that. Don't look at that either. And in a matter of hours, the U.S. Supreme Court today is going to be hearing arguments on whether Trump or this candidate is eligible to even run for president. So let's run this guy. He's our candidate. And by the way,

when it comes to our foreign policy and our domestic policy, if there's anything good going on in Congress, that's good for us on those two fronts. Let's kill it for him. I mean, that's where we are in terms of the Republicans with their candidate. That's the candidate they have chosen and will stick with. My question to you is, is there anything Joe Biden can do at this point for the parts of what's happening here where where this party is being self-destructive for Trump to the point where it's hurting our foreign policy and our domestic policy. Yeah, no baggage there whatsoever for that unnamed Republican candidate, Mika. In terms of the White House, I mean, they're watching this. They have understood for years now that the border has been a bit of a vulnerability.

It's a rare issue where Democrats have criticized the Oval Office. We know Democratic mayors and governors have said, look, we need help here. The situation is out of control. We can't support these number of migrants. So that's why the White House took a deep breath and said, we're going to risk alienating the progressives. We're going to risk alienating voters of color who we might need come election time to have a strict, tough border bill. They're on board. President Biden has made clear repeatedly and publicly, I will sign it if they pass this. But of course, it now seems like that legislation is not going anywhere. So the White House is considering what can they do on their own. And they are mulling

over some executive orders, which will toughen some measures of the border. But let's be clear, these are relatively limited. They're not going to be nearly as sweeping in power as they as would legislation coming from the Congress. There has been some debate about the president even going to the border, making a political stand, calling out Republicans, saying you own this issue now. And whether he travels to the border or not, that is going to be the refrain now from this White House is that they feel like immigration has been a tough issue for them for some time or polls suggest it's been good for Republicans. They feel like they can try to reset that narrative and at the very least try to negate some of this Republican advantage on that issue because they can point to them and say,

look, they're the problem, not us. Mika, in case there was any doubt about what's going on here, James Langford said on the floor of the United States Senate yesterday that what he called a popular MAGA media figure threatened that he would destroy him if he continued to pursue bipartisan legislation to fix the crisis at the border because it's a presidential year and they all need to rally around Donald Trump. They're just saying it out loud explicitly. This has nothing to do with making the country safer, nothing to do with fixing the crisis that they've been talking about for a generation.

It's all about saving Donald Trump. A guy who, as you'll see in live coverage all day here on MSNBC, who the Supreme Court right now has to figure out whether or not he engaged in insurrection January 6th, you know, when he said, fight like hell, go to the Capitol, I'll meet you there, and then watched it on video all day long and now calls the people charged in doing hard time for engaging in insurrection hostages. This is the guy that they are, I'm sorry, being masochists for. The Washington Post's Jackie Alimany and writer at large for The Bulwark, Tim Miller. Thank you both very much for being on this morning and coming up. Israel's war against Hamas could cost President Biden votes in crucial battleground states.

We're going to talk about what the president can do to win back Arab American voters before November. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. To pass the hour, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has rejected the latest demands by Hamas as part of a proposed deal for the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza. NBC News foreign correspondent Raf Sanchez has the latest. Secretary of State Antony Blinken insisting there's still a path to a deal to free Israeli hostages after Israel's prime minister rejected a new list of demands from Hamas. Clearly, there are things that Hamas sent back that are absolute non-starters. But at the same time, we see in what was sent back space to continue to pursue an agreement. Hamas was responding to an American-backed proposal,

saying it will free all its hostages in exchange for a four-and-a-half-month ceasefire, leading to an end to the war, the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners, and a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu calling the Hamas proposal delusional. Giving in to Hamas's bizarre demands not only won't bring the release of hostages, it will just invite another massacre, he said. In Gaza, Israeli strikes hitting the city of Rafah. Mohammed stares at his hands, shaking uncontrollably.

In Han Yunis, we followed Israeli troops deep underground into what they say was a tunnel for top Hamas leaders. This is years of bullying. And then, a disturbing discovery. The Israeli military says this was a cage where at least three Israeli hostages were held. You can see there is a slot for what they say was delivering food and here a lock from the outside. Somewhere in these tunnels, more hostages waiting desperately for a deal. NBC's Raf Sanchez reporting from inside Gaza there. Raf, thanks so much.

So, Richard, let's talk about this proposal quickly rejected by Prime Minister Netanyahu of a prisoner swap. What are the options here? What is the role for President Biden when you have two sides obviously so far apart and Prime Minister Netanyahu saying we're not doing any deals here? We're going to eliminate Hamas. We're going to continue to push into Gaza until we think we have rooted them out. What do we do with this? The idea that the Israelis can somehow, quote unquote, eliminate Hamas, that there's a military solution without any political dimension is just fanciful. It's not going to happen. What's also increasingly clear, almost the attempted humiliation by the Israeli prime

minister of the American secretary of state yesterday. We've got to take this seriously at the risk of repeating myself. We do not have a partner in this prime minister or in this government of Israel. U.S. policy has to pivot and take that into account. I would say we've got to look really hard at introducing our own resolution into the U.N. Security Council so we can stop abstaining or vetoing. Let's have the United States say what it wants. I think we can look at what we're doing for Israel in terms of aid. You know, we went after, we sanctioned some of the settlers the other day. There was that signal. Biggest thing is, look, if this prime minister is not going to work with us, let's find Israelis we can work with. Let's start speaking over the head of this government and let's start talking

directly to the Israeli people about what we think needs to happen, what's in Israel's interest, as well as in the interest of this bilateral relationship. So it's one thing to say what Hamas asked for yesterday is not right as a non-starter. But what's the alternative? Is it just continued military operations that kills thousands of civilians and an open-ended Israeli occupation, is that really the alternative? It can't be. So we have got to begin developing the alternative. Because to this point, Richard, as you know, every time the president or the secretary of state talks about the future in that area, they talk about the two-state solution. The prime minister isn't endorsing that. The Israeli army has ignored a lot of the guidelines and guidance the U.S. is trying to put forth to try to minimize civilian casualties.

One option that's been considered is the idea of starting to put some conditions on aid to Israel, which they have, to this point, not done. Would that be a possible first step? I mean, and when you say speaking over the head of the prime minister, I know you floated the idea of the president heading to Israel to talk to the Knesset or to give a speech there. But the fear the White House has is that it's going to just further ensnare them in a region that's on fire. And they're trying to, the last thing they want to do is be further involved. But we're going to have to get more involved politically and diplomatically if we don't want to get more involved militarily. It might be in the prime minister's interest to see this war continue. Yeah. There are some in the administration who think that they were they could be forgiven for

thinking it. He set out military goals that, again, I believe can't be met, but he wants to prosecute the war. He's he doesn't want to have new elections and continuing the war reduces the chance of new elections. I don't rule out a possible widening of the war on his part. He's also playing for time. He obviously wants Donald Trump to get elected, and he'd much rather work with Donald Trump than Joe Biden. So I think what the president has to say to himself is, I got nine months to try to bring about a ceasefire, to try to change the political dynamic in Israel, in the Middle East. It's not what we're doing now, even though I think it's directionally, it's not working. And I think what the White House needs to do is recalibrate and basically come to the understanding

that what we're doing needs to be changed and we have to basically be more forceful, much more independent of Israel. Stop thinking we have to work with Israel and give them a veto over what we're doing. Start working much more independently in the Middle East.