Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/10/23

Episode Date: March 10, 2023

Prosecutors signal criminal charges for Trump are likely: NYT

You may remember I was running for office at the time, but you all may remember it, that I had a big fight with the former president and maybe future president. Bless me, Father. Anyway, no, all kidding aside. I can honestly say I have never been more optimistic about America's future than I am today. I mean, that's a say. I mean, that's sincerely. And I've been around a few years, like 400. President Biden brought some jokes with him alongside a budget proposal while he was in Philadelphia yesterday.

But his plan has little chance of passing the Republican controlled House, making this more about campaign messaging than the actual numbers. Meanwhile, there are significant developments this morning out of the Manhattan DA's office that signal criminal charges could be coming for Donald Trump. We'll get into the details of why. had a lackluster debut for the subcommittee on so-called weaponization of the federal government has some Republicans frustrated now with Congressman Jim Jordan and his game plan. We'll be joined by the reporter of that piece for The Washington Post in just a minute. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, March 10th. With us, we have the host of way too early, White House Bureau Chief of Politico, Jonathan Lemire, Pulitzer Prize Winning Columnist at the Washington Post,

Eugene Robinson and U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, the great Katty Kay. Good morning to you all. As I mentioned, we're going to begin with the New York Times report that the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has signaled to attorneys for former President Donald Trump he could face criminal charges. The paper cites four people with knowledge of the matter. It all stems from the investigation by Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg's office into Trump's role in the payment of hush money to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election. Prosecutors now have offered the former president the chance to testify next week before the grand jury that has been hearing evidence in

the potential case. The Times reports it would be unusual for a DA to notify a potential defendant without ultimately seeking charges against him. But Trump is likely to decline that offer. According to the paper, the former president's lawyers also could meet privately with prosecutors in an attempt to fend off criminal charges. Two of Trump's defense attorneys tell NBC News Trump has been told through his attorneys he can appear before the grand jury. They say this is standard. They also say there was no subpoena. Trump is not being forced to do any of this. And they say Trump was not told specifically that criminal charges could be forthcoming. All of this, according to the Times' sources. The Manhattan DA has declined to comment on the matter. The former president did issue a statement

on social media late last night, writing in part, I did absolutely nothing wrong. I never had an affair with Stormy Daniels, nor would I have wanted to have an affair with Stormy Daniels. This is a political witch hunt, he writes, trying to take down the leading candidate by far in the Republican Party, while at the same time also leading all Democrats in the polls. Join us now, former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Barbara McQuaid. Barbara, good morning. It's great to have you on to help us wade through some of this. So what is the significance of Donald Trump being given the opportunity, at least offered the chance to sit and testify before a grand jury. What does that normally signal to you? Well, you never know exactly what's happening in a grand jury, but I think we can make a very

strong, educated guess here that it means two things. One is that Alvin Bragg is at the end of his investigation. And two, the charges are very likely. And I say that because typically when you are talking to the target of an investigation, you want to save that person for the end so that you've already talked to all of the other witnesses and looked at all of the other documents so that you can be as informed as you can be before you question that person. It also says to me that it is likely that charges are coming because you would not go through this extraordinary step of inviting a former president to come testify if you were simply going to decline to charge the case after you've heard from all of those other witnesses.

It seems that they have reached the point where they have decided, yes, it does appear that charges are likely. And so let's take this last step. And the reason they invite the target in is just to ensure that there's not some other side to the the reason they invite the target in is just to ensure that there's not some other side to the story. It's an opportunity for that person to come in and tell them that maybe there's some innocent explanation for all of this. As you reported, it is typically something that is declined if the person does not have some valid misunderstanding to explain the whole thing away. And so I think a very fair conclusion is that the investigation is over and that charges will be coming. There's so much swirling around the

former president. It's worth reminding our viewers what exactly we're talking about here in this particular case, which is that one hundred thirty thousand dollar payment in the waning days of the 2016 presidential campaign to Stormy Daniels, a hush money check cut by Michael Cohen, who, by the way, has cooperated in this investigation, spoken to the DA's office many, many times, including as recently as last week. So what specific crimes could we be talking about here and what would be the penalty? I think it seems that two crimes are likely. When someone falsifies business records under New York law, it is a misdemeanor unless it is used to conceal another crime. I doubt Alvin Bragg would go through all of this enormous effort simply to charge a former president with a misdemeanor.

So it seems that that second piece is likely. And here, based on what we've heard publicly from Michael Cohen and what he pled guilty to, we know that the reason for the falsification of the business records was to conceal the payment that was a donation to the campaign in 2016. Had that payment been disclosed publicly, it could have damaged his political campaign or his personal reputation or both. And so that concealing can constitute that second crime, which converts the misdemeanor into a felony. And so it's a serious crime. I don't know that a lengthy prison sentence is likely. I'm not sure any prison sentence is likely, though I will note that Michael Cohen got three years for this combined with some other

crimes. But I think a felony conviction by someone running for president will be very damaging to his ability to campaign. Yeah, I mean, Jonathan Lemire, let's remember that Michael Cohen spent more than a year in prison. He spent 13 and a half months inside a federal prison in this very case for for this hush money payment to Stormy Daniels that he says came from Donald Trump in the White House through an intermediary. But this coming, obviously, this unprecedented for a former president who was also seeking the White House through an intermediary. But this coming, obviously, this unprecedented for a former president who was also seeking the White House again. The president said just a few days ago at CPAC, there's no chance he would ever get out of the race if he's indicted, if he's charged. None of this will affect him politically. But it now does become part of the 2024 conversation, obviously, if he's indicted. Yeah, there's no question that it does. And you're right, Willie. He says he's not going anywhere, even if he's indicted on this or any of these

other legal matters. But I think we should also take a moment and just note that this would be history. We've never had a former president charged with a crime, indicted for a crime. That's never happened. And we seem to be on the precipice of that now. And Eugene Robinson, let's talk through some of the politics of this moment. Were Trump to be in the weeks ahead, as Barbara signaled, if he is to be charged, yeah, there would be logistical challenges here. He'd have to come to New York for court dates. He'd have to show up for this and that. He'd have to meet with his lawyers, things that would distract him from the campaign trail. But I have a suspicion that he distract him from the campaign trail.

But I have a suspicion that he'll use this as political ammo. He'll say, look, this is a biased DA in a deep blue liberal city that's coming to get me. An argument, frankly, he can make about Fulton County as well, if that were to lead to criminal charges. I think his poll numbers in the Republican base might go up. Well, they very well might, Jonathan. You know, I have always thought that one reason why he got officially into the race so early, which makes it, complicates his life a bit in terms of how he can raise and use money. He's more regulated now. But he got in early.

And I think that one reason was to be able to make that claim, that any sort of charges or prosecution is all political. He's being persecuted by his evil enemies. They're all out to get him. And I think that might raise his numbers. You know, I was on the air with our colleague Ari Melber when this broke last night. And my first reaction was, you know, Stormy Daniels, it seems like so many felonies ago, you know, and I should have said

so many alleged felonies, so many impeachments, so many, you know, an insurrection and an attempt to steal an election. It goes on and on and on. I think he will kind of use that as well, that this is sort of ancient history and as another indicia that they're just out to get him, that it's all political. I did have a question for Barb McQuaid, if we still have her with us, though, because so that second crime that you need in order to charge a felony, that illegal donation to the campaign was prosecuted on federal charges in terms of Michael Cohen. Is that a state crime as well that Alvin Bragg can concern himself with in New York? Or does he have to rely on that federal conviction in order to allege that second crime? Yeah, there is also a state offense for concealing campaign contributions.

And so I would suspect he would go that route. If he were to use the federal offense, I think the law gets a little more complicated. I don't know if he is precluded from doing that, but it seems that the safer route would be to use the state court basis to make it a sound charge. I suppose he could charge both, but I think what seems most likely to me is that he would use that state felony in an effort to conceal as part of his legal theory in this case. And Barbara, I'm glad we have you this morning, and we are certainly making you work your way through all of these cases. But Willie and Gene have already mentioned the fact that there are a slew of legal legal cases facing Donald Trump, potentially at the moment our viewers might be forgiven for perhaps not keeping track of them all. But now you see that this one has potentially an indictment coming.

Where do you put it? I mean, maybe this is a crass way of thinking about it, but if you put it in the kind of constellation or the ladder of cases that Donald Trump potentially faces, where do you kind of rank it in the hierarchy of severity? I put it as number four. I see four criminal cases that are lurking out there. This is probably the least significant of them, but any felony is a very serious charge. And so I don't want to diminish it in any way. I think the likely prison sentence in a case like this is probably relatively small, but it is not insignificant because not only was it a falsification of a business record, it was done to achieve the presidency in 2016. Imagine if those facts had come out shortly before the election in 2016.

It would have really amplified some of the things we heard in the Access Hollywood tape, in his reputation about women. And so I think it could have been a very damaging revelation if it had come out at that time, including with his base. That includes the religious right information about an affair. But the other three cases that are in the constellation, you know, interfering with the election in Georgia with Fannie Willis, very serious case because it undermines democracy, which I think is a more serious crime than this false statement. Same with regard to the federal case that is being investigated about the January 6th attack and the Mar-a-Lago documents, you know, so blatantly and brazenly abusing the public trust that comes with safeguarding our nation's secrets. So all four of these cases are serious, but I would rank it slightly behind those other

three. OK, you answered my question, Barbara. That's what I wanted. I wanted the rankings, but it sounds like we've got Georgia, January the 6th, Mar-a-Lago and Stormy is basically the order. I know that sometimes there's been, you know, different thinking about those shuffle up and down in terms of severity and likelihood of both an indictment and then a conviction. Do you see those as pretty static now, that ordering of severity? No, I don't. And in fact, I think at the end of the day, the one that could be the most serious of all would be the special counsel's investigation federally into January 6th, because I think it is likely to encompass more than Georgia.

And so I think it will include what Fannie Willis is doing in Georgia. I ranked that first only because she has said that her charging decision there is imminent and that we know from that grand jury and the grand jury for person who said so publicly that they've recommended that there be more than a dozen indictments. So I think I include the likelihood of indictment there that puts it higher. But I think that if ultimately the special counsel, Jack Smith, were to charge Donald Trump relating to his activity for January 6th, That encompasses so much more. It encompasses at least seven other states where actions were occurred by Donald Trump to overturn the election results, the attack on the Capitol. So I think potentially that one is the looming giant out there. Probably not a good sign for you when legal experts have power rankings for the legal cases against you. But here we are in the case of Donald Trump. Former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuaid. Barbara, thanks so much doing a lot of work for us there. We appreciate it. The Republican-formed House Subcommittee investigating

the so-called weaponization of the federal government held a second hearing yesterday on what's become known as the Twitter files. On Capitol Hill, Republicans brought in two journalists to testify who were handpicked by Twitter CEO Elon Musk to report on the alleged anti-conservative bias he claims the company operated under before he took over. It comes as House Republican leaders continue to accuse tech companies of trying to censor right wing voices, even when evidence often suggests otherwise. For example, while the Twitter files did show the Biden 2020 campaign team asked the company to remove nude photos of Joe Biden's son, Hunter, a former employee testified last month,

the Trump administration also asked Twitter to remove a tweet where model Chrissy Teigen insulted the former president. The selective nature of the Twitter files came up in the hearing. It was brought up by Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Journalists should avoid accepting spoon-fed, cherry-picked information if it's likely to be slanted, incomplete, or designed to reach a foregone, easily disputed, or invalid conclusion. Would you agree with that? I think it's i think it depends really you you wouldn't agree that a journalist should avoid spoon-fed cherry-picked information every reported story that i've ever done across three decades

involves sources who have motives every time you do a story you're making a a balancing test i ask you this because before you became el Musk's hand-picked journalist, and pardon the oxymoron, you stated this on Joe Rogan's podcast about being spoon-fed information, and I quote, I think that's true of any kind of journalism, and you'll see it behind me here. I think that's true of any kind of journalism. Once you start getting handed things, then you've lost. They have you at that point, and you've got to get out of that habit. You just can't cross that line. Do you still believe what you told Mr. Rogan, yes or no?

Yes or no? Yes. Good. Congresswoman questioning Matt Taibbi there. Let's bring in congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany. Jackie, good morning. You've got a new piece in the Post titled Jordan's Weapon Panel Game Plan Draws Critique from Some on the Right. You write this, quote, Some leaders in hard right intellectual circles have critiqued the initial work of the subcommittee on the weaponization of the federal government as lackluster and unfocused. Some Republican lawmakers have privately raised concerns. Critics say the committee has been too slow to staff up, insufficiently aggressive in issuing subpoenas for interviews and testimony, and lacking in substance. The frustrations reached critical mass ahead of a Thursday hearing,

the subcommittee's second, featuring testimony from people who were given access to Twitter's internal communications that Republicans allege show the suppression of right-wing viewpoints on the platform. Here's the issue. What independent investigation did Jim Jordan do in advance of Thursday? He took an adapted screenplay from journalist tweet thread, said Mike Davis, the president of the Article 3 Project, a conservative judicial advocacy group. Jordan should hand off the committee, he says, to a lawmaker who has the time to do it. This needs to be a big undertaking and they need a strategy and a dedicated, focused staff. They need to be dogs on a bone. So, Jackie, the criticism here is not the premise of the weaponization committee, which the Democrats have criticized as a waste of time and a fishing expedition.

In some ways, the criticism is it's not aggressive enough, even under the leadership of Jim Jordan. That's exactly right, Willie. These criticisms have been percolating for several weeks now and have sort of made their way into the public discourse on social media platforms from these places like the Center for Renewing America, the Heritage Foundation, Mike Davis, these hard right intellectual circles. But the rub here, as you point out, is that the witnesses and the targets that some of these groups are pushing have credibility issues that Democrats have recently highlighted in a report, a 316-page report that they released last week on some of these very witnesses. Again, that places like the Center for Renewing America, the same places criticizing Jordan, have pushed forward to be sort of the face of this investigation and this push to sort of

flesh out the narrative, the unsubstantiated narrative that there is corruption and bias in the federal government against against conservatives and House Republicans. You know, I think yesterday, Jim Jordan sort of got a few more points on the scoreboard with the way that the the hearing went. There was some praise that we heard from people who claim, you know, that these critics need to give him some time to build up a committee that is ambitious as they've set this committee out to be. And Jordan himself dismissed a lot of the criticisms in an interview. But there is, you know, as Stephen Miller said to us on the record, there's a conversation happening at this very moment about the tactics and methods of sort of the investigative

strategy within the committee going forward. Jackie, are there any Republicans in that House caucus? I know there are some senators, because some of them have said so publicly, who question the wisdom of even taking this on at all. In other words, while the House can't come up with its budget yet, while it can't do a lot of the things that you might expect a new body with all this power to do, it's put a lot of focus into the so-called weaponization of the federal government and holding these hearings of institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department and the IRS, other agencies like that.

Are there any Republicans who say maybe we should move on to more serious business, or is this just delivering on what they promised during the campaign? There aren't any Republicans publicly saying that yet, but there is a feeling that House Republicans have put forward. We have one congressional investigator who was sort of opining on the situation, that Republicans do have some substantive goals that they've laid out and that this committee does sort of distract the focus from those legislative targets and that Jim Jordan has sort of set himself up for a Sisyphean task in that he is trying to do the impossible by trying to explain and prove a lot of these labyrinthian conspiracy theories. has been reticent to blow up this budget in a way that Republicans on the hard right are calling for, akin to the January 6th House Select Committee that had almost a $20 million budget.

And, you know, it's unclear why Jordan has been dragging his feet on that. But you sort of have to wonder if that's because there is some sort of hesitation about just how far to take some of these conspiracy theories and put them up as sort of representative of the House Republican strategy in this Congress for the majority. So, Jackie, in your last two answers, you just outlined those in the Republican Party who don't think Jordan's going far enough, and as well as those who have expressed concern that he's going too far. So what is the path we should expect him to chart forward? People you've talked to around the committee, around Jordan, they are staffing up, they've increased the number of people there, as you've reported. What's he going to do and what are some future targets of his? Yeah, well, we know that he is in the midst of trying to ramp up the staff even

more right now. He told us in an interview that he has around 50 staffers, but those staffers are on the Judiciary Committee writ large and not specifically assigned to being full time on this subcommittee that Republicans have really touted as sort of the marquee, all-powerful committee for this House GOP conference. That hiring is happening this week. We could expect potentially some new announcements on different investigators in the coming days. We expect Jordan to continue to focus on the Twitter files and the Federal Trade Commission's investigation into Twitter. But as Democrats pointed out yesterday, that Republicans are largely trafficking in false narratives, that there is no there there and that they have sort of misframed a lot of the evidence that they've been pointing to in a misleading way. But Jordan's success largely rests on whether or not he can identify a credible

whistleblower who can sort of fulfill, again, this narrative that there is bias and politicization in intelligence agencies. Whether or not his investigators are ultimately going to be able to find that sort of needle in a haystack is really the key question here, John. Weaponization certainly has become a buzzword. Former President Trump used it in his Truth Social post last night, talking about the Manhattan DA as well. The Washington Post's Jackie Alomany, such an interesting story. It's up now on the Post website. Thanks, Jackie. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell still is in the hospital this morning being treated for a concussion he sustained after falling at an event Wednesday night. According to McConnell's communications director, the 81-year-old will

remain in the hospital for a few days of observation. President Biden tweeted his well wishes, writing, Jill and I are wishing Senator McConnell a speedy recovery. We look forward to hearing and seeing him back on the Senate floor. And we are hearing he will be back next week. We send our best to Leader McConnell as well. Still ahead on Morning Joe, President Biden lays out a $6.8 trillion budget plan, setting up a fight now with Republicans. Steve Ratner is breaking it all down for us with his charts. Plus, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis will make his first appearance today in Iowa. And former President Trump will be right on his heels. We'll have a live report from the Hawkeye State.

Also ahead, the CEO of train operator Norfolk Southern appears before lawmakers and apologizes for last month's toxic train derailment in Ohio. We'll have some of the highlights from that hearing. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. President Biden yesterday laid out a budget proposal of nearly $7 trillion, including a plan to increase taxes on corporations and the wealthy while increasing spending on the military and on programs for the poor and the middle class.

But in a divided Congress, it is highly unlikely to pass as is. NBC News Chief White House Correspondent Kristen Welker has details. In Battleground, Pennsylvania, President Biden unveiling his sweeping budget proposal, calling for major tax hikes on the wealthy and increased spending. My budget is going to give working people a fighting chance. It's going to create good paying jobs. Still, with divided government, that plan is dead on arrival, with Republicans staunchly opposed to any new tax increases. But Mr. Biden's proposal likely a blueprint

for his battle plan against Republicans in his expected 2024 reelection bid. MAGA Republicans all voted to get rid of the Affordable Care Act. They voted to get rid of it over 50 times since Barack passed it. The $6.8 trillion plan calls for protecting Social Security and shoring up Medicare by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, including increasing penalties on oil and gas companies, imposing a billionaire tax of 25 percent and hiking the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent. And it includes record spending on the military and increasing funding for social programs like early childhood education and child care. But Republicans blasting it as a reckless tax and spend plan.

What does this budget do? Raise more taxes, spends more money, creates probably the biggest government we've ever seen in the history of the United States. The president's plan, also an attempt to revive his standing. In our latest NBC News poll, just 36 percent say with some of his charts to break it down. Steve, good morning. It's good to see you. Let's start with your first chart, which is sort of a contrast between what the president has put out here in this nearly $7 trillion budget. As I said a minute ago, the House Republicans don't have their budget yet, but they're working on something. But we get an idea of where they're headed here. Exactly, Willie. There was a Republican study

committee budget that came out a few weeks ago, which represented at least one vision. It actually had a majority of Republican House members on it, one vision of what they see for their budget. But as Kristen Welker alluded to, this budget is as much a statement of these widely, widely divergent views of the role of government as it is as it is anything else. It is dead on arrival, but it's going to become part of the debt ceiling debate as well as the 24 campaign. What you can see on the on the outlay side, we're comparing these two budgets, Biden's and the Republican Study Committee, is that Biden would hold outlays relatively constant at around 25 percent of GDP at even with his new programs, economic growth should hold it at around that

level. By contrast, you see the red line on the left, how sharply it drops. Those are all the cuts that the Republicans plan in their programs. And I'll go through those in a minute. But what you see across the middle is the historical average of what the government spends has spent over the last 50 years as a share of GDP. So you see these different visions so vastly. The Democratic vision on top, we're going to hold government at 25 percent. The Republican vision, we want to cut it way below anything we've seen before. On the revenue side, the differences are somewhat smaller, but it's the same idea. Biden has a bunch of new taxes, as Kristen went through. But with economic growth, that would still hold revenues at roughly the same share of GDP as it is now. The Republicans

would not impose any new taxes, so it would go down. And again, you can see the historical level there with taxes being modestly above the 50-year average. And Steve, moving to your second chart, as you alluded to, specifically looking at some of the proposed cuts. Again, these are proposed cuts from the Republican Study Committee. Some of these, Kevin McCarthy, the speaker, already has said he doesn't agree with some of the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security. But, boy, a big hatchet taken to mandatory spending like food stamps, farm subsidies, spending on veterans, 67 percent. And that's just the beginning. That's right, William. You actually pretty much did my chart for me, which is helpful, actually.

I've learned from the master. Yeah. Thank you very much after a long time of doing this. So, yeah, as you said, Kevin McCarthy has already rejected the first two things in the upper left, which are Social Security and Medicare. The Republican Study Committee, relatively small cuts in Social Security, raising the retirement age a little bit, bigger cuts in Medicare. But to the extent that Kevin McCarthy doesn't want to do this, of course, if you want to balance the budget, which is what the Republicans claim they want to do, then you obviously have to have even bigger cuts in everything else. And as you move across here, you can see already we're talking about very major cuts in other social welfare programs, Medicaid in the upper right, in the lower left you have things like food stamps, other kinds

of social welfare programs of that sort, and then the middle circle on the bottom is all the other discretionary programs, everything from national parks to the Federal Drug Administration to all the other services that government provides to us. And then as you noted in the lower right, where it goes the other way is Republicans actually want to increase defense spending. All of these numbers are relative to what Biden proposed. So Biden did have a small defense increase. Republicans want a much bigger one. So as we look at your third chart, it makes a point, Steve, one that we've been making for a long time here, which is that suddenly many Republicans in the House, and we just heard it from Kevin McCarthy in that clip and Kristen's piece, have found their debt

and deficit hawkishness again, which sort of contrasts with where they were during the Trump years. Yeah, Willie, it's kind of reminiscent of the movie Casablanca, that they've suddenly said gambling, gambling, there's gambling going on here. And so you can see that on the left, these are only the programs proposed by each of these two presidents, Trump and Biden, and what the 10-year impact would be on the debt. And so you can see in the case of Trump, his big tax cut, his military spending, and so forth, would add about $4.9 trillion to the debt over its 10-year life. In contrast,

the programs that Biden has put forward so far would put far less, only about $2.5 trillion on the debt over those 10 years. And if Biden's plan were to be adopted, which as we've discussed, it won't be, but just to say what Biden is prepared to do, if it were up to him, it would actually reduce the debt by $500 billion compared to what it would have been. And this is the $3 trillion deficit cut, in effect, that Biden has been talking about in Philadelphia yesterday and elsewhere. Steve Ratner with his famous charts explaining it so well as always. Steve, thanks so much. Great to see you. Thank you, William. Jonathan Lemire, let's talk about the president's plan here. Significant that he was out on the road making the pitch in Philadelphia

yesterday, not making this announcement from the White House. It did have a little bit of a feel of a campaign event. And as he said, quoting his father, that this budget was a statement of his values. What was significant in there to you and what kind of a statement was the White House trying to make here? Yeah, it is unusual that a president didn't unveil his budget at the White House. But I will say it was nothing unusual at all about President Biden being at a union hall and particularly one in Philadelphia city. He he visits so very often. Let's be clear. The word is aspirational, this budget. Very little of this is going to come to pass with Republicans controlling the House. But it's a statement of priorities, as the president said. And he's really put Republicans in a bit of a bind as he's proposing

real funding increases to popular programs, Katty Kay. It's a campaign blueprint for the likely reelection bid, but it also sets up what is really going to be the definitive fight this year, the debt ceiling this summer. And people I talk to on both sides of the aisle say we could be walking right up to the edge of the cliff. Yeah. As we have done multiple times and every time we do it, we think, why are we doing this? But it looks like there isn't a resolution that's coming quickly on this time. And we have to wait for what the Republicans propose as well, right? Which is what the White House is trying to do. Put your cards on the table, mostly so that they

can criticize those cards and say these plans are popular and why you're trying to cut them. But it is. It's a blueprint for reelection. Invest in families, reduce the deficit, shore up Social Security and Medicaid. And there are good economic arguments for doing all of those things. The trouble is they're just not going to get passed. But for the White House, it at least gives them something to talk about out on the campaign trail, which is why the president is out there talking about this in union halls. And it will give them a counter to when the Republicans do eventually come forward with their own plan. Well, one of the potential candidates who may be seeking President Biden's job, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, is headed to Iowa today,

ahead of that much speculated upon run for president. DeSantis will hold two events with the governor of Iowa, one in Davenport, one in Des Moines. Former President Trump also headed to Iowa, his first visit since declaring his candidacy last year. Trump is scheduled to visit on Monday, just missing the Florida governor. The two are first and second in early primary polls, though the former president has a wide lead over DeSantis at this point. Joining us now, the co-founder of Axios, Mike Allen. Mike, it's great to see you on a Friday morning. So you've got some new reporting there about Democrats advertising against DeSantis, even though he hasn't even launched his bid yet. What more can you tell us? Willie, that's right. But first things first, happy Friday.

There it is. Yeah. Happy Friday, Mike. And on Friday, we have new reporting that today Democrats are going to launch ads that, along with President Trump and Speaker, former President Trump and Speaker McCarthy, targets DeSantis. So he's not even officially running in the Republican primary, let alone running against Joe Biden. But these battleground ads from American Bridge Pack going up today in, sound familiar, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania. And they're trying to target all of those as MAGA Republicans. We're really seeing the likely DeSantis campaign come into focus this week. So look at what's going on. So you have his book tour, which is doubling as a tour of

early states. You mentioned that he was headed to Iowa, Nevada. Maggie Haberman reports he's going to be in New Hampshire soon. They're talking about South Carolina after that. So that's quite a quartet. His book, by the way, debuted this week, number one on The New York Times bestseller list. And this morning, Politico's Jonathan Martin points out the Republicans also are targeting him, that they're not just going after Trump, but other Republicans who are hopefuls for 24 are focusing on DeSantis. So we're seeing in a very real way what there had been just sort of hints of and speculation about before. And that is that Governor DeSantis, the clear alternative to Trump, both parties already acting on that, putting their money behind it. And Willie, the bottom line for DeSantis is he has a background backdrop to this of a legislative session where he's got Republican supermajorities in both chambers.

What does that mean as As a Republican governor, he's going to get just about everything on his agenda. He's teed up a very conservative agenda, including immigration, and he's going to get all of it. Mike, does all this anti-DeSantis activity potentially have the effect of raising his profile and, in fact, making him more formidable as a potential candidate. Yeah, sure. If you're DeSantis, you love being talked about in this way. Nobody's saying anything new about him that's going to do damage. And so he's able to the book tour lets him engage and be in the political dialogue.

This legislative session also lets him out there talking on the issues that he wants to. And he can hold off on announcing Trump is out there not going away. And so he's able to just talk about these issues. Now, what Democrats tell us is that the reason that they are already invoking him in ads is that they think that his culture war agenda does not play well with the women voters who are so important to them and are really going to determine likely to be one of the determining if not determinant, block. And so that's why we're seeing the DeSantis face in Democratic ads already. And Willie, we should note, to Mike's point, DeSantis' book debuted at number one in the New York Times bestseller list, but it did have the little asterisk next to it that meant

bulk orders made up a lot of the sales, which usually means political groups and friends of a candidate or a politician having something to do with that. And we should also know the Washington Post reported last night that DeSantis has been telling confidants he's leaning towards running and that a super PAC group is in its early stages of forming that would support that run. So it's all kind of coming together here, although likely he would not announce until after the Florida legislative session ends and he gets a state law changed, and that wouldn't happen until probably June or so. That's what aides say. Donald Trump welcoming him to the fight. Yeah, by the way, that's how we got you on the bestseller list, too.

Just me and Joe on Amazon. You didn't have to pull back the curtain on that one, Willie. We could have let that one, But I appreciate you and Joe. Thank you, guys. We got you there. By the way, DeSantis is going to get his look. He'll be in Iowa this weekend. A reality check, that poll that came out of New Hampshire this week that had Donald Trump

up on DeSantis by 41 points. The co-founder of Axios, Mike Allen. Mike, thanks so much, as always. Good to see you. Coming up, we will be keeping an eye on Wall Street, which is in the red ahead of the February jobs report, which comes out later this morning. We'll go live to CNBC to break down the numbers. Plus, we will play for you part of Joe and Mika's exclusive sit down with Ukraine's first lady, Olena Zelenska and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. That's coming up next on Morning Joe.

I think Vladimir Putin is very much taking a longer-term view. I think he's doubling down in many respects right now. I believe he's convinced that he can make time work for him, that he can grind down the Ukrainians through this war of attrition, that he can wear down the Ukrainians through this war of attrition, that he can wear down Western supporters of Ukraine. And he's convinced also and has been for some time, the Ukraine matters more to him than to us. Therefore, the challenge, I think, is to puncture that view. CIA Director William Burns testifying at a hearing of the House Intel Committee yesterday. Earlier this week, Joe and Mika sat down with Ukraine's first lady, Olena Zelenska, alongside former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Here is a part of that exclusive conversation. Madam Zelenska, I'll start with you. If you could please tell us what the situation is in your country, in Ukraine, for women and families, especially with so many displaced? The situation is really difficult. We have more than 7 million women and children primarily who have been displaced abroad. We do not call them refugees. We call them temporarily displaced persons because they really want to come back. More than 6 million Ukrainians have been displaced inside Ukraine, again, mostly women and children.

So you can imagine the situation when a woman loses her normal routine, her normal work, and has to move quickly to a different place. And it doesn't matter if it's a different country or a different region. It's still a change, a massive change in her life. And sometimes she fears it's forever. And so the situation is really difficult. And many of these families want to come home. The majority. There's a debate in America and across the world about what we should be doing to help Ukraine, what Ukraine needs now more than ever. What would you tell the people in the United States?

What are your greatest needs? First of all, I would like to thank you very much for the help that we have already received. It's been right to give this help. Somebody perhaps thinks that it's not — it's out of place for a president's wife to ask for weapons, but I will ask for it, because it's our salvation. It's the salvation of people who are shelled by missiles, by Iranian drones. It's the salvation for our armed personnel in the frontline. They are defending their country.

And, of course, we must continue with this help, because any delay right now would be very dangerous. The second aspect of what we need is to hear us, tell our stories to everyone who will hear them. We need to hear voices for change. We need the voices of opinion leaders, because still some people in the world believe that it's not so simple, it's not so black and white, and you could have another opinion about the tragedy that is happening in Ukraine. This is a war of invasion, and that's it. Madam Secretary, you know better, I think, than anybody alive about partisanship in the United States and what it's cost our country.

The Ukrainian war has been one thing that has brought Democrats and Republicans together for the most part. Are you hopeful that that will continue despite the fact some House Republicans are being critical of the Biden administration and even Republicans that are supporting the war effort? Well, I am hopeful that it continues, Joe, because I think, as we just heard, this is a war of aggression and invasion. The behavior of the invaders has been barbaric. And it really is a war for not just the freedom of the Ukrainian people, although that is first and foremost. It is a war for our values, for what we believe should be the birthright of every person in

Ukraine, in Europe, in the United States, around the world. So I want to underscore that, as we support the courage and the extraordinary commitment of the Ukrainian people, their government, their army, their citizens. We're not doing it just because it's the right thing to do, although it is. We're doing it because we have to draw this line and make it very clear that in 2023, this kind of aggression cannot stand. Isn't it remarkable over the past five, six years in the United States, we've had an opportunity to understand just what democracy and freedom means at home. And now we look to what what's happening in Ukraine and all these things we talk about

growing up that we learn to suddenly the Ukrainians are fighting for what we've always said we were supposed to stand for. How inspiring is that to you? It's so inspiring to me. And I hope it is inspiring to every American, particularly those in positions to make decisions, because we have to continue and I would even argue, increase the military support that we give to the Ukrainians sooner. Does that include F-16s? Well, it includes air cover. It includes long range missiles. It includes much more defensive systems and not just from us, but from our NATO allies and others. But they are on the front lines of freedom, and we need to support that. And we have to provide the humanitarian assistance that is so desperately needed for the Ukrainian

people both in the country and then, as the First Lady says, those who are displaced temporarily outside the country. AMY GOODMAN. Madam Zelenska, can you please talk about the challenges that your people are facing, and tell the world what they need to know? ZELENSKA ZELENSKA, I think that the war is an everyday challenge, and everyone in Ukraine is risking their life, even just by being inside the country. Just now, as we speak, the whole of Ukraine is troubled by the video of the Russian occupiers killing a Ukrainian soldier

for just saying glory to Ukraine. Every time I speak in the international arena, I finish my speeches with this phrase. It means that I also would have been a subject of their hatred, object of their hatred if they were to meet me. Some horrible cases of behavior of occupiers towards the local population, the local civilians. A massive amount of rapes, not only of the women, the majority, of course, of the women, but there are also

cases of men and boys. The General Prosecution Service is now investigating 171 cases of rape by different means, of different kinds. They are extremely inventive in how they think up of these horrible tortures, but there's only 171 cases of the people who were able, who found it in themselves to talk about it. The majority of the people are silent because they're scared of the invaders coming back, they're afraid of judgment, they're just scared.

So these things are happening all the time, and these things are terrible. And every time we open, we liberate another territory, sometimes we rejoice, and then we start worrying about what we're going to find there. Torture chambers, mass graves, etc. This war is not being waged with conventional rules of war. It's medieval. That is just a portion of Joe and Mika's interview. You will see the full interview with Ms. Zelenska and Hillary Clinton Monday on Morning Joe.

And, Katty, as you listen to Elena Zelenska speak, the first lady of Ukraine, so pointedly about what Russia is doing and the tactics it is using against women and the way it is going after infrastructure and civilian targets and not just what's happening on the front lines in the east, but now even as of two days ago, lobbing missiles into places like Lviv and Kiev and other places that haven't been attacked for some time. She is there talking to Mika and talking to Joe to tell the world that the urgency is still there and that her country needs the West as much as it did at the beginning of the war.

Yeah. You know, when you listen to what Zelensky is saying, and we know about these rapes, we saw them in Butcher. We know there's been an uptick in human trafficking, particularly of girls. We know that eight million Ukrainians have had to flee their country. The vast majority of them are mothers with children who have had to go and live somewhere else and don't know when they're going to be able to go home. So this war has impacted not just those men who are fighting and those horrible meat grinders in the east of the country, but it's really impacted

the whole country. And I think when I hear what Zelensky is talking about and what you're describing, Willie, it's the challenge of reconstruction. Of course, we're still in the war, but there is already, from my understanding of people I speak to, the prospect of how do we ever rebuild this country? How do we rebuild that infrastructure that has been destroyed? How do we rebuild the mental health of that country? I mean, this is going to be a country that is completely traumatized from the men who are fighting to the women who have suffered to the refugees who have had to flee the country. This is a nation that will be traumatized.

There's going to have to be a huge amount of effort. And that's not going to come from foreign governments. That's going to have to be a huge amount of effort. And that's not going to come from foreign governments. That's going to have to come from the private sector. And the conversations are already being had about how that's going to happen. But it's not going to be easy.

And by the way, Mrs. Zelenska has a lot more to say about all of this. And you can see again that full interview Monday on Morning Joe.