Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/15/23

Episode Date: March 15, 2023

U.S. drone, Russian jet collide over Black Sea

They flew by 19 times, it's been reported. I don't like it, of course. This is dangerous. This is reckless. These are the things that can lead to escalation. I'm glad the Biden administration responded forcefully, and I'm also glad they didn't over-respond. And I hope it doesn't happen again. Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, with his assessment of the Russian confrontation of a U.S. drone over the Black Sea. We're going to have much more on the diplomatic implications of the incident just ahead. Plus, some Republican lawmakers are pushing back on comments from Ron DeSantis about Russia's

invasion of Ukraine with comparisons to Neville Chamberlain. We'll play for you their comments. Also ahead, things got a little tense between Ari Melber and Donald Trump's lawyer in the stormy Daniels hush money case. More of that must watch interview, which is incredibly revealing in a number of ways. A little later on Morning Joe. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, March 15th. It's just me here. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius,

NBC News, national affairs analyst John Heilman, and former advisor to the president, George W. Bush, Mark McKinnon. They are co-hosts of Showtime's The Circus. And as soon as we get Jen Palmieri here, the circus will officially be in town. But first, we start with the new information that we are learning about a collision that occurred yesterday between a Russian fighter jet and an unmanned U.S. surveillance drone over the Black Sea. United States European Command reports that around 7 a.m. local time yesterday, two Russian jets began to track the drone as it traveled in international airspace above the Black Sea. According to a U.S. statement, the Russian jets, quote, dumped fuel on and flew

in front of the drone in a reckless, environmentally unsound and unprofessional manner. Shortly afterwards, one of the Russian jets then struck the drone's propeller, which forced the U.S. to bring it down over the water. Russia's Ministry of Defense released a statement denying its jet made contact with the drone at all. David Ignatius, you've been talking to your sources on this. What's the latest and what's your analysis on what happened here? So, Mika, I was able to talk to a Pentagon official who'd been able to see the footage, the surveillance footage from the cameras aboard the drone. And here's what he saw. The first Russian pilot speeds ahead of the drone

and in what he described as a juvenile maneuver, dumps fuel, the aviation fuel in front of the drone that's kind of vaporous. It doesn't cause any damage, just was described as an immature action. But a second drone that's behind, a second Russian jet that's behind the drone, begins to accelerate sharply and comes up behind it without good control of his flight maneuvers. And that's the one that clips the propeller of the drone, which is in the back of the drone. And this person describing what you can see on the film says that the second pilot simply didn't appear to have adequate control of his aircraft.

So the US has made demarches, as diplomats say, spoken to Russian diplomats here in Washington. It's likely that Secretary of Defense Austin will call his counterpart Secretary Shoigu in Moscow today. It's likely that Secretary of Defense Austin will call his counterpart, Secretary Shoigu, in Moscow today. It's likely that General Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will try to call General Gerasimov. In the larger scheme of things, I'm told this isn't a big escalatory move by Russia, nor is our response likely to trigger escalation. But it's fascinating that the footage showed just a lack of adequate control of these planes by the Russians who were flying them. Well, David, we certainly know there's been real questions about the training and equipment

the Russian military has displayed as their faltering invasion of Ukraine. We also know Russian pilots like to be reckless. They like to provoke. So you just say, though, that at least for now, U.S. officials don't think this is escalatory. Are there going to be any sort of changes or shifts going forward in terms of patrols in that region or trying to have more degree of communication with the Russians to prevent something like this from happening again? Jonathan, I'm told that the patrol routes had recently changed. We were going a slightly different path over the Black Sea, but nothing that was unusually provocative. It may have been that the Russians were adjusting to the new course.

But no, I don't have the sense that there'll be any any big changes. This is just one instance of so many different moving parts in this war. The surveillance, various electronic warfare things that go on that are usually invisible to us. In this case, it's said because of poor pilot performance by the Russians, we ended up knowing about it. I'm sure that in the days going forward, people will be a little more careful. You don't get the sense that there's a desire on either side to have lots of these incidents. And David, while we're on this, the Washington Post this week details the growing concern on the front line of the war in Ukraine, where after a year of fighting, Ukraine's forces

are getting bogged down in Russia's war of attrition. The quality of its soldiers was Ukraine's advantage. But after a series of protracted battles, such as the ongoing fight for Bakhmut, Ukraine has suffered massive casualties. The Post citing the United States and European officials as estimating 120,000 Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or wounded since the war began. These officials estimate that number is around 200,000 on the Russian side as the war grinds on. There are questions surrounding Ukraine's ability to launch its anticipated spring counteroffensive. And David, David, you know, this is this is dragging out. And it was inevitable that Ukraine would see massive losses. The question is, can the support that they're asking for help really fill the void now that is in Ukraine's army with manpower and with machinery and air power that will help them continue to push back the Russians.

So, Mika, I asked officials in the Pentagon last night about the report in The Post, which was disturbing. I think the feeling is that this is a brutal battle at the front in the east, especially around Mahmut, that the level of human suffering on both sides, the losses that each side is sustaining in what's essentially a static fight over the terrain of relatively little strategic importance is draining for both sides. In terms of the larger question of Ukraine's ability to mount a significant counteroffensive later this year, I think U.S. officials continue to be fairly confident that the pieces of that are in place.

Units are being trained outside of Ukraine. They've got the armed equipment, new vehicles. They've got as much ammunition as we can provide them. And so at some point over the next several months, that offensive is going to happen. Obviously, we don't know where. Ukrainians would be crazy to speak about that. The other thing that I hear is continuing concern about ammunition supplies. The Ukrainians feel that they just don't have enough. They need more. Americans say that Ukrainians have got to stop firing as much.

They sometimes exceed their very specific rate of fire that they're supposed to adopt. In recent weeks, they've sometimes exceeded that. They've slowed down now to stretch out the ammunition supplies they've got. But the bottom line, Mika, is we were reminded this week of just how terrible the human carnage is for the Ukrainians in this battle and for the Russians, too. All right, David, and we'll turn to the circus now in the politics of this. Republican senators are pushing back against one of the leading voices in their own party for controversial comments he made about the war in Ukraine. Yesterday, a handful of GOP lawmakers broke with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who on Monday dismissed Russia's invasion as a, quote, territorial dispute and said defending Ukraine was not a vital interest of the United States.

It's not a territorial dispute in the sense that any more than it would be a territorial dispute if the United States decided that it wanted to invade Canada or take over the Bahamas. Just because someone claims something doesn't mean it belongs to them. This is an invasion. I just think that's a misunderstanding of the situation.

This is not a territorial conflict. This is war of aggression. I think Governor Florida has been a great governor, but in my opinion, if you don't get Ukraine right, this is a chance to stop Putin before it gets to be a bigger war. I would not agree with him on that. I think it's pretty clear, historically speaking, the importance of keeping Vladimir Putin in his lane. Most certainly, it is of concern to me. We've got a number of individuals who are looking, I think, at the 2024 race and we'll find out whether or not the rest of them feel the same way. Senator Graham, who you just heard there, also had this to say.

The Neville Chamberlain approach to aggression never ends well. Comparing DeSantis to the British prime minister who appeased Adolf Hitler. This is an attempt by Putin to rewrite the map of Europe by force of arms. Meanwhile, Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas tells Politico, I am disturbed by it. I think he's a smart guy. I want to find out more about it, but I hope he feels like he doesn't need to take that Tucker Carlson line to be competitive in the primary. It's important for us to continue to support Ukrainians for our own security. And John Hellman, a number of different things here. Yes, indeed.

So many different places to go here. But let's start with Ron DeSantis, who sounds so Trumpy. Well, yeah, first of all, let's start with this. Governor DeSantis, welcome to the NFL and the United States Senate filled with people who either run for president like Lindsey Graham or think they could be or should be president like almost everybody else in the United States Senate. All of them welcoming the what they see as the provincial semi-hic governor from Florida to what they think of as their province and sort of saying, hey, you might want to read a couple foreign policy, at least white papers and some history before you start talking in the context of international security. So, there's a little bit of that, first of all. Second of all, it's hilarious to see people,

Lindsey Graham says, this is the Neville Chamberlain approach. Somebody else, one of the other senators there, I think Cornyn maybe said, I hope he doesn't take the Tucker Carlson line. You'll note none of them are saying what is also true. I hope he doesn't take the Donald Trump line because that is really kind of what all this is about is Ron DeSantis. I don't want to say the words right flank because those words don't mean anything anymore in the Republican Party. But let's say the MAGA flank. Ron DeSantis wanting to make sure that if he's going to be the guy who's going to be one on one with Donald Trump, that on issues like this, there's no daylight between him and Trump on issues that resonate with the MAGA part of the base. Donald Trump would probably say essentially the same thing, maybe in slightly different terms,

different words that Ron DeSantis would say about Ukraine, because that is where a lot of the MAGA base is, skeptical about U.S. involvement in this dispute, about spending money on this dispute. And so you have Ron DeSantis trying to make sure there's no daylight between him and Trump. The problem is that a lot of the United States senators here are willing to criticize DeSantis or anybody else, certainly willing to criticize DeSantis or anybody else, certainly willing to criticize Tucker Carlson, anybody, but they won't make their obvious point, which is that this is all about Ron DeSantis trying to kind of test it, get him to kind of wade into the foreign policy waters. Doesn't necessarily know those waters very well.

But the one thing he knows is he doesn't want to let there be any way for someone, for Donald Trump to say, Ron DeSantis is a globalist, Ron DeSantis Donald Trump to say, Ron DeSantis is a globalist. Ron DeSantis is with Joe Biden. Ron DeSantis is on the side of NATO and the Europeans. And so he's trying to find his way. And so far, he's discovering that the waters that he doesn't know very well are quite choppy. I mean, I'm just curious how, I mean, is this just a dum-dum and he's imitating Trump because he thinks that's, no, I'm serious, though, because like, do you think MAGA Republicans out there, you know, going to Trump rallies are sitting there going,

I'm really thinking about Putin and I want him to cozy up to Putin just like my friend Donald Trump did. That's a good call. Like, do you is that is that in the mainstream MAGA thinking? Because it seems to me whatever Trump says at his rallies for whoever is still showing up, no matter what he says, even if it's something disgusting or about hurting somebody, they all clap. But do they, you know, really, do they, does he, I guess my question is, why so Trumpy, Ron DeSantis? Why do you need to do this? Well, I think there are two things to say there, Mika. One is that there is a large isolationist streak in the Republican Party. And Donald Trump has always been aligned with that streak. They don't see this cozying up to Putin. They say it is keeping

America out of foreign entanglements that it has no business being in. And Trump, that's not the wing of the party that has been the dominant wing of the party for the last 40 years prior to Trump. It's not the wing that Lindsey Graham or John Cornyn or Mitch McConnell represent, but it is the part that Donald Trump captured on his way to the White House and still has a hold on. And so DeSantis understands that it's going to be impossible to be the Republican nominee without at least having the acceptance, if not the full embrace of the MAGA part of the party. They're not sitting there thinking, hey, he's cozying up to Putin. But they are saying the polling data is increasingly clear. And this is not just about the MAGA part of the party, but across the board. Republicans in particular,

but Americans and some Democrats are increasingly skeptical about the amount of money that's being spent in Ukraine, about America's involvement there. And there is going to be a very interesting debate in the Republican Party. Ron DeSantis is trying to find his way. But these other candidates, they're Nikki Haley's and Mike Pompeo's and others who are either in the race or about to get in the race, who are more kind of traditional Republicans, more maybe neoconish in their orientation. They're going to find out. They're going to have to test their views out there if they say they are with Lindsey Graham and they think that, you know, they have to stand four square with Vladimir Zelensky.

They're going to see how popular that turns out to be in the Republican primary. It might not be a tenable position to be all the way where Lindsey Graham is right now, where Joe Biden is on this issue. And we should note how warmly received these comments surely are in Moscow for Putin. He now looks at two top Republicans, the top two Republican candidates for president, both saying, hey, we should be less involved in that war. If you're Putin, maybe you bet you can hang on to November 2024, get a Republican in the White House who won't be nearly as eager to help Zelensky and Keith. But the pushback from those Republican senators we played for you is not the first time in recent days that members of the GOP have broken with some MAGA-inspired talking points. Here's how a handful of GOP lawmakers responded to claims by a primetime host on Fox News that the January 6th insurrection

was much ado about nothing. I think it's bulls**t when you see police barricades breached, when you see police officers assaulted. If you were just a tourist, you should have probably lined up at the visitor center and came in on an orderly basis. I just don't think it's helpful. officers assaulted. If you were just a tourist, you should have probably lined up at the visitor center and came in on an orderly basis. I just don't think it's helpful. It was a mistake in my view for Fox News to depict this in a way that's completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official here at Capitol. Thanks. It was not just some rowdy, peaceful protest of Boy Scouts to somehow put that in the same category as a permitted peaceful protest is just a lie. So, Mark, what do we think? Is this the sign of some members of the Republican Party

anyway, growing a backbone? Or is it simply, hey, there are two things we can create daylight with Trump about, and that's Putin and January 6th? Well, I don't know a single Republican strategist that thinks it's a good idea to relitigate January 6th. People who have a vision of the future of the Republican Party think, put that in the rearview mirror and let's move on. And the notion that Tucker Carlson and others want to replay different versions of January 6th when we've all seen the tape, we've all seen it. And the notion is, you know, this is supposed to be for full transparency. Well, we've seen the tape. We know a crime was committed. We don't need a tape to show us that a crime wasn't committed. That's like showing airplanes flying over Pearl Harbor before they drop the bombs. They drop the bombs. We know that

we've seen the police. We've seen the violence. So if I think Democrats, my Democratic strategist friends are clapping their hands and jumping up and down, say, great, OK, let's just keep relitigating this. And if Marjorie Taylor Greene wants to go visit the insurrectionists in jail, fine. Let's just keep having this discussion. Yeah. So we also have Vice President Mike Pence, who the circus, you guys caught up with Mike Pence about this. But before we go to that, can we just re-rack if we could those Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, holding up the piece of paper? I want to play that again, because if you out there watch Morning Joe, but you maybe have some Fox News loving family

members, you really need to show them this. OK, you really need to show them what the Republicans are saying about the whole Tucker Carlson thing, January 6th, and anybody who's trying to make it anything less than a violent, deadly insurrection and an attack on our democracy. Do we have Pence? Should we go with Pence first or should we re-rack Mitch McConnell? Dan. All right. Let's hear it again. Again, this is for your Fox News loving family members. Take a look. I think it's helpful. It was a mistake, in my view, for Fox News to depict this in a way that's completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official here at Capitol thinks. It was not just some rowdy, peaceful protest of Boy Scouts. To somehow put that in the same category as a permitted peaceful protest is just a lie.

These guys are doing the right thing for America. And Mitch McConnell, we hope you're feeling better. Don't agree on everything, but they are taking a stand on disinformation. And that is the right thing to do at this time in our history. We also have Vice President Mike Pence caught up with him by the circus. Let's take a look at that. Oh, Heilman, I'm sorry, we don't have the sound bite. So tell me what he said. Yeah, well, I'm not sure which clip we're going to play there, but I will say this, Mika, about your Fox News loving friends. I think a lot of them, if you played that clip for them, they would say what Donald Trump would say about Mitch McConnell, which is they would extend

a long, stiff middle finger. I don't like Mitch McConnell. They don't care about what these senators say. They think Tucker Carlson is speaking the truth, and they think that those bought and paid for corporatists, the old crow, I believe, is what Donald Trump likes to call Mitch McConnell. I mean, their attitude isn't, they're not going to be, oh, hey, Mitch McConnell's criticizing

Tucker Carlson. We're on Mitch McConnell's side. That's not where the MAGA base is. The MAGA base is. So, John Heilman, I agree with you. I agree with you. They're going to everyone's going to listen to Donald Trump. But these are Republicans who were there. It's just an opportunity for Fox News loving family members to take a look at Republicans who were there, who perhaps Vice President Mike Pence could speak on this or you could tell us about that interview. But, you know, we'll get to that. My bigger point is they were there and they are Republicans. So who do you really want to believe Fox News loving family members? I mean, I

understand you'll go back to Trump for anything, no matter what you say about Donald Trump, no matter what you see, say they go, yeah, but yeah, but and then they come up with a conspiracy theory from a website that is based out of somewhere else instead of a news organization that actually checks its sources. I understand that. I just think it helps to see Mitch McConnell holding up that piece of paper and saying, no, we're not going with this disinformation that happens on Fox. We're not going to help spread this the way Fox does. We won't do it anymore. I think it means something, Heilman. I'm not saying it doesn't mean anything. I mean, it certainly makes, we certainly are right to

applaud it in the sense that there's no dispute about what happened on January 6th. And you don't need to have the senators who are there say this. And we've all seen the video over the course of the last now two years. So it's not like there's any confusion about this. If you believe your eyes, you know what happened on January 6th. And so do I think it's helpful? I will say not to take anything away from them. I'm glad these Republican senators are standing up and speaking the truth. I'm glad that they're taking a shot at Tucker Carlson, who's doing this irresponsible, outrageous, ridiculous thing by propagating these conspiracy theories, as he has been wanting to do over the course of the last couple of years on this question. But to what my colleague and my friend Mark McKinnon said earlier, it's not just that they're doing it because it's good for America.

They're doing it because they think that it's political suicide for the Republican Party to not move past January 6th. And so their attitude is like, yes, that's the right thing for America. It's also if the Republican Party keeps clinging to the notion that the election was stolen, keeps clinging to the conspiracy theories and the lies, et cetera, that they will pay a price politically. Mitch McConnell and Kevin Cramer and those other Republicans are like, they're turning to the Tucker Carlson's and by implication of Donald Trump's party and saying, hey, can you guys shut up about this? Because you're doing us no good. You're just leading us down the path to losing.

And so please, can we move? Can we just stop talking about January 6th and get on with it? So it's both self-interested and in the interest of the country to tell the truth about this for their purposes. But I don't, I have to say, I mean, is it good? Is it helpful? I'm for it. I'm for it. But do I think it's changing a lot of minds among MAGA voters?

I don't think it's changing many minds at all. No, but you've got top Republicans saying to fellow Republicans who, for some reason, still find themselves needing to be Trumpy that it loses. This is a losing position. They're saying lose, lose, lose, lose. You've heard it from Joe. He can go through each loss in depth. But Donald Trump is a losing proposition. Don't stand with him. It gets you nowhere. It gets you somewhere in a primary and nowhere in every other possibility. And they really want the MAGA base loving Republicans to shut up, just shut up, stop losing. And they can't like Ron DeSantis now is, is obsessed. He's got some sort of weird addiction to saying things that are Trumpy, like that's going to get them somewhere. It might in Tampa, Florida.

It might in Tallahassee. But look at where the country is. Check out the midterms. Check out where people stand on guns and abortion and take a look at where this country stands on our democracy. Love it. We don't like insurrections, dum-dums. Only Donald Trump does. So Jen Palmieri is here. So the circus is complete. The circus is in town. And as we mentioned, former Vice President Mike Pence met up with the circus to discuss the Republican primary field. Here's part of that interview. Hey, everybody. Good evening. I saw an interview you did last week and you said that you thought that President Trump was the only person who could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016. I do. I really do. I worked for her. I kind of think the same thing. You said that it's time for the Republican Party to move on. Have you thought about how you

made that case without alienating his supporters, which is really the Republican base? Now more than ever, I think you're going to see Republicans come together around the kind of leadership that will meet this moment. And I'm very confident that our voters will choose the right standard bearer who will lead us to victory in 2024. Oh, my God. Oh, Jen. I mean, Jen, I'm I'm sitting here waiting for him to say history will judge Donald Trump on January. Oh, that's right. He only says that when there are no microphones, nobody to actually show what he said, because that would hurt Donald, his friend. He can't hurt Don Don because he's a dumb, dumb. He can only say, I'm going to talk about what's good for America.

Yeah, you were running out of there with your people holding the nuclear football because Donald Trump tried to kill you. And it's so revealing that Pence said what he said at the gridiron dinner where there were no cameras, because it tells you that he really wants to say this, right? He really wants, he wants us to know this. He wants reporters to know this, but he still doesn't have the, doesn't think it's in his interest or doesn't have the courage or whatever to actually say that on camera and have the, and have the public see it. And, um, you know, it's just, it's not, no one, none of this is working. I was in, I went to Davenport on Monday for the Trump rally that

was there. You know, DeSantis was there on Friday. Trump purposely comes to Davenport on Monday. He has twice as big a crowd as DeSantis. I talked to a lot of people at CPAC. I talked to a lot of people at that Pence event that was in South Carolina at Bob Jones University. I talked to a lot of people at the Trump rally. And just about everyone I talked to assumes, even at the Pence event, even when John and Tim Miller, who was on the show last week were down in Florida with DeSantis people think Donald Trump is going to be the nominee and that is what

they want you know I grew up in the Bay Area during the 49er glory years and people be like oh yeah I like Steve Young but Joe Montana like that's my quarterback right so people the MAGA base I talk to they're like yeah we like DeSantis we like him see on this.

We like him. Great. But Joe Montana, Donald Trump's our guy. We'll love him in 2028. That's great. He'll be great in 28. John Heilman, I just this is my point. This is why what Mitch McConnell says to me, at least very important. And what those Republicans were saying about January 6th and putting down a marker on the truth. We'll take whatever we can get. And we I appreciate it. I know there are a lot of other issues, but I appreciate them pushing back on Donald Trump on January 6th at the very least. Jen, Paul, Mary, stay with us. Still ahead on Morning Joe, the lawyer representing Donald Trump in the stormy Daniels hush money case tries to explain to Ari Melber why the former president is innocent.

It is revealing. You'll hear it. You'll want to see it. Plus, new reporting on the possibility of more legal trouble for Donald Trump. This time, it's money tied to his social media company. How many legal cases can he manage at once? Also ahead, expert analysis on the latest inflation report and what it says about the state of our economy. Steve Ratner is here with charts.

You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. There is superstition. Letters not to fall. 13 month old baby. Drunk and black. Seven years of bed. Live look at the White House at 32 past the hour. We're going to get to Donald Trump's legal woes now with a potential indictment looming potentially in a matter of days. John Heilman, just before we get to this, I'm curious because my gut instinct has been telling me and I just want to know what you think.

Like, is it all going to start and end for Donald Trump with porn star Stormy Daniels? There's so many ways I could go with that, Mika, that I'm going to try to avoid this hour of the morning saying anything that's too risque. I don't think it will stop. Look, this is the I don't think it's going to I don't think it started with her and I don't think it's going to end with her. You know, you think about the various potential for indictment that Trump faces on multiple legal fronts, the Georgia case, the two different cases in the, in the federal with the, the, the independent counsel is looking at, you know, this is this one. I can't imagine that this will be the end for Donald Trump. And there are many people will say this is, and I think is one of

the points his lawyer was making yesterday with Ari Melber, was this will be a thing that will help make Donald Trump the Republican nominee, at least, because this will look to a lot of those people you love. I know your warmth was on display in the last block, the MAGA faithful. They will look at this and they will see the weaponization of the legal system against Trump. I'm not endorsing that view. I'm just telling you what they will see, which is like this is a story that Trump denies it. It was back for 2016. And this is all BS. And who cares? But they will see this. This will make him more of a martyr in their eyes.

Yeah, it may. It may. It may, Heilman. But the rule of law doesn't care about that. The rule of law is whether or not somebody is guilty of a crime. I understand this until proven guilty. And I just want to say, didn't the whole thing start with Stormy with this whole campaign fight before he even became president? And here we are back again. Here is Trump's attorney for the Stormy case. He was on Ari Melber's show and a couple of tense moments. Take a look and especially take a look at Takapina, the attorney. Then why was Trump hiding it and lying about it at the time? And I'll play that for your response. He lied about it. We all know that. Take a look. Take a look. Let's see. Ari, that is, that's what you're going to consider a lie.

A lie to me is something material under oath in a proceeding. Well, I didn't say perjury. I said a lie. Yeah, but that's not a lie. That's not a lie? Here's why it's not a lie. That's not a lie? Here's why it's not a lie.

Could you put your paper down? Did you know about this? Put the paper down. Let me answer. Did you know about this? No, I don't. We don't need that. Here's why it's not a lie. Yeah.

Because it was a confidential settlement. So if he acknowledged that, he would be violating the confidential settlement. So is it the truth? Of course it's not the truth. Was he supposed to tell the truth? He would be in violation of the agreement if he told the truth. So by him doing that, by him doing that, he was abiding by not only his rights, but Stormy Daniels' rights. It seems like we're drawing some blood here because you're having a strong reaction.

He did lie about it, and in a confidential settlement, you can easily say, no comment, or I'm not getting into it. He says, and the reason why I look at this, he says, no. No, I didn't know about it. But he did know about it, didn't he? To make the point that you don't believe that is a tight, open-and-shut finance felony. That's number one.

And number two, on the misdemeanor case, which is more legally minor, but is not zero. And you and I can point to individuals who've had trouble with misdemeanors. It seems that you're saying, well, yeah, you know, he lied, he lied. It wasn't really legal services. Stormy's not a lawyer.

What did you say? I said his lawyer advised him to pay him his legal services. And that money went to Ms. Daniels. The money went to Ms. Daniels before that. He was reimbursing his lawyer. His lawyer sent him an invoice for legal services. That's the evidence in this case. So he didn't lie.

He would lie on count. It sounds like you're saying, one, not a campaign finance crime, and two, well, the misdemeanor, sure, maybe. Maybe he lied about it, but you don't want to deal with the misdemeanor. You're kind of admitting part of the misdemeanor, sure, maybe. Maybe he lied about it, but you don't want to deal with the misdemeanor. You're kind of admitting part of the misdemeanor. No, I am. Ari, please don't put those words in my mouth. I am not admitting.

He's not guilty of any crime. But they weren't legal services. His lawyer classified them as legal services. His lawyer sent him an invoice for legal services. His lawyer told him they would be properly classified as legal services. He relied on his lawyer. Joe Takapina, are you are you really glad you took this case on? Because I got to tell you, that body language alone was brutal.

When you're reaching over to touch the person who is interviewing you because you're so, so hell bent on trying to, like, get a narrative going, that's impossible, you're in bad shape. We're going to circle back to that in just a moment. But first, a new report this morning in The Guardian reveals federal investigators have looked into former President Donald Trump's social media company for possible money laundering. Sources familiar with the matter tell The Guardian the probe involves the media company's acceptance of $8 dollars from a source with suspected Russian ties. Anyone surprised? Joining us now is the author of that new article,

Political Investigations Reporter for The Guardian, Hugo Lowell. I'll let John Heilman take the first question here. Heilman. Hugo, going to tell us the story. Like, what's the... I mean, it's like this thing. We've got a couple headlines there. Russia, Russia, Russia. First of all, the fact that they're even looking into the Truth Social thing, just in and of itself,

is a new line of inquiry, as far as I know, from federal investigators. Just talk to us about what you found. Well, so there was an existing criminal investigation into Trump Media, the parent company of Truth Social that started last year. They were looking at the merger with the SPAC because he already ran into problems with

the merger with the SPAC. But not a money laundering investigation. Well, not quite. But then towards the end of last year, what happened was they got a tip and they started looking at basically two tranches of an $8 million payment that came through the TMTG. It was at a time when they were cash poor because the merger had been delayed because of the investigation, the SEC investigation. And they really needed a bridge loan. So what they did was they went and got bridge financing from, at first, a bank in Dominica called Paxson Bank. And then in February 22, they got a second loan

of 6 million from an entity called ES Family Trust, right? Ostensibly two different companies. As it turned out, they're pretty much one in the same company. And if you trace the beneficiaries back, you get to the nephew of a Putin ally, who was the first deputy justice minister in Russia and previously served in Putin's executive office. And so when you look at the whole thing, like it's difficult to know if there's going to be actual exposure here for

money laundering. They were just looking at it, right? It's just an investigation. But the optics of Trump coming out of the White House as first business venture is getting, you know, really opaque loans through opaque conduits from offshore banks. I mean, it's not a great look. It's hard to believe, Bill Amir. You know, that's all Trump says. You know, you Democrats and you fake news hounds, all you ever want to talk about is Russia, Russia, Russia with no basis whatsoever. I just, I mean, it's outrageous. There's the way that he's personally treated.

Ample reason to talk about it. I have already evidence tying him to Russia. Ample reason to talk about his ties to Russia. Talk about going back to the beginning. Yeah, they never quite leave it. So, Hugo, you obviously wired into Trump world very closely. What is the sense right now from the level of concern? As this was going on, were there people involved with the company or involved close to the former president who were nervous, noticed something was up here and were nervous about it?

And what's the degree of worry now? Yeah, well, there was. I mean, some of the officers of the company kind of saw the $2 million and then later the $6 million and saw that there'd been really no vetting or no information about the people who are lending $8 million to Truth Social's company, effectively. I mean, they had $12 million in cash. $8 million was a significant portion of the stuff they had in their account. And it's funny you say it goes back to the beginning, because in December, when the first $2 million was coming in, a lawyer emails Don Jr. and say, hey, this $2 million is coming in. No guarantee it's going to get signed, but are we going to proceed with this? And Don Jr. goes, thanks, John. Much appreciated. Let's go ahead with it.

And so I don't want to tie too many connections to Natalia Fessler-Skyer and Trump Tower, but somehow Don Jr. ends up getting involved. And then later in February and then spring 2022, when they're trying to audit these payments, there are flags raised. And the then CFO, Philip Juhann of Trump Media, weighs returning the money. But then they realize actually eight million out of the 12 million is such a big segment. We don't want to return it. All right. The Guardian's Hugo Lowell, thank you very much for your reporting. We have a lot more to cover on this and we'll get back to it. But now to other news. Multiple federal investigations are underway into the lead up and eventual failure of Silicon Valley Bank. NBC News has

learned that the Justice Department is investigating the bank's collapse. That's according to three sources familiar with the matter. Two of the sources say the investigation is still in its early stages, but that part of it will look into company executive stock trades before the bank faltered. Joining us now, national reporter for The New York Times, Katie Benner. Katie, tell us what exactly investigators are digging into. Sure. So you have investigators both here in Washington, D.C., as well as in San Francisco, and SEC investigators in San Francisco looking at overall the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. What were executives doing? Why did the bank fall apart so quickly?

Now, a lot of experts we've spoken to and in your own reporting, you found that one of the things that people are going to look at really closely are stock sales made by executives of the bank in the years and in the months and even weeks in the run-up to the collapse of the bank. Did they know something? Did they know about the weaknesses in the bank? In a way, it would materially affect their decision to sell. And so I want to know what the broader picture is here in terms of what they're looking at at this bank. I mean, I think a lot of other people are now wondering, is the situation OK? Could whatever mistakes that are being made at Silicon Valley Bank being repeated at other banks? Or does this have something to do with, from the top down, the Fed chair, inflation, and moves being made by top officials in our government?

So I think that we've said many times, and this has been reported quite often, that Silicon Valley Bank was in some ways a unique and exceptional bank. It really focused on a single sector of the economy, the startup sector. Its base was mostly venture capital and venture capital-backed companies. And it had an extremely online user base as well. So when problems seemed to arise at the bank, this was a group of people, of customers who went online and said things like, we need to withdraw all of our money. We saw a bank run sparked in some ways by the customers themselves. So again, a slightly unique situation there. Also, I think it would be wrong to say that nobody knew that Chairman Powell was raising rates. He signaled this loudly and clearly for a long time over a

long period. So the bank executives knew that rates were going to rise, but they had mismatched their assets. So they were not making the sorts of money that they needed to make on their portfolio to offset the risk. And they knew that and they knew that Powell was raising rates. So I think investigators are going to not only look at stock sales, but moves made by bank executives in those final weeks to shore up capital and shore up securities for the bank. National reporter for The New York Times, Katie Benner, thank you very much. And coming up, yesterday's inflation report came in a bit stronger than economists had expected. Steve Ratner says the fight to tame rising costs is far from over, though. He joins us with charts straight ahead on Morning Joe. All right, it's 10 minutes before the top of the hour.

A beautiful shot of New York City. The sun is coming up and a lot of folks are going to want to tune in to hear what is going on with the economy. Stocks closed higher yesterday as bank stocks rebounded. And new economic data showed inflation is slowing down. Inflation rose in February but was in line with expectations. The Consumer Price Index increased 0.4% for the month, putting the annual inflation rate at 6 percent. And joining us now with some supersized charts, former Treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst Steve Ratner. So, Steve, tell us. I love this new setup you have here. This is really going to help tell

the story. Where do we stand with inflation, the economy, and what are you looking at today? Sure, Mika. Well, as you said, inflation looked to be coming down if you look at the headline number from 6.3 to 6 during the month. But the numbers are very squirrelly still at the moment because of COVID-related things. So we have to look behind the numbers at some more interesting and hopefully relevant data. So what we've done over here is we've looked at three-month annualized numbers for the CPI, and we've broken it into two buckets, the headline number, which is the number that you report and everybody reports up front, and then what we call core. We take out food and energy, which are very volatile, and the Fed does not look at that

closely in terms of deciding how much inflation is in the economy and what they need to do about it. And then we break that down a little bit further into core services, your lawyers, your doctors, travel, all that kind of stuff over here, and then goods, whether you're actually buying a new car or something of that sort. And what you see on a three-month trailing basis is that core inflation actually accelerated a bit. That's not good. Goods inflation is still falling, not as much, but that's okay. But what the Fed really looks at is core services, and that is rising, and that is not a good thing in terms of getting inflation down to that 2% level, which you can see is way below where it is at the moment. But if you look over here, you can see part one

of the reasons for what's going on out there is the economy has been running stronger or hotter, as we say it in the parlance, than it had been running. Coincidentally, right up until the last Fed meeting, at which they increased interest rates by 25 basis points, you can see a quarter of a point, you can see that the economic surprises, so to speak, how the data comes in relative to how economists expect it, was positive, cooler. It looked like the economy was cooling. And then suddenly it kind of turned around over here. It turned around on a jobs report for January that came in over 500,000 jobs relative to 300 some odd thousand expected. February also the jobs numbers came in too hot. Retail spending

numbers came in too hot. And so suddenly the Fed was facing the prospect of having increased rates more. Then the next thing, of course, that happens is Silicon Valley Bank. And Silicon Valley Bank has a real effect on the Fed in so many different ways in terms of trying to make it easier for the banks, trying to deal with the macro effects on the economy and so forth. And what this chart shows is the progression of the market's expectations of what would happen to interest rates. So if you go back to the beginning of February, everyone thought, this pink area, that we would continue to increase interest rates by about a quarter of a point. But then as the economy got stronger, my second chart with the surprises, people began to think, oh no, maybe we better

have a 50 basis point, a 0.5% increase in interest rates. And then right over here, Jay Powell gave his normal testimony to the Senate. And you can see that the expectations for 50 basis points shot up all the way down to here and people said, oh yeah, the economy's hot, we're going to have to really cool it off. Then comes Silicon Valley Bank and the whole interest rate market flips around and now the betting is 78% that we will get a quarter of a point next Wednesday and the balance that we'll get no increase at all. And so this is what Jay Powell and his colleagues are grappling with, which is how to balance the fact that the economy is still

running hotter with the fact that we are now seeing the stresses and strains in the banking system and a lot of other concerns still going on in the banks. And apropos your last discussion, there is real concern about other banks and what depositors are going to do and whether depositors are going to flee those banks and what that will do to the financial system if that happens. Steve, the supersized charts are spectacular. I like them. I wanted to go exactly where you finished there. The idea of, you know, we saw the bank shares sort of rebounded a little bit yesterday, but there is still concern here that something could happen between now and when we will get the decision from the Fed.

How do you, how do you, you foresee this playing out? Jonathan, this is one of the hardest ones to scope out. You're kind of dealing with the madness of crowds. Do people decide it's okay, these banks are basically safe, I'm going to leave my money there? Or do people decide I'm going to rush into the safest banks there are, the Citigroups, the J.P. Morgans, the Bank of America? If they keep their money there, then most of these banks should be fine. Regulators are obviously pouring over their books at the moment trying to figure out exactly what their financial position is.

But as long as the depositors stay there, that should be OK. And that should be OK. If the depositors say, hey, I'm out of here, I don't really trust these banks because their stocks may have gone up yesterday, but they're still way down from where they were a week ago. Then you have a different picture. And it's a very, very scary. It's a very, very scary moment. And a very, very scary moment. And we'll have to see how it unfolds over the next nine days before the Fed meeting. All right. Steve Ratner, we'll be watching this with you. Thank you very much.