Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/15/24

Episode Date: March 15, 2024

The Morning Joe panel discusses the latest in U.S. and world news, politics, sports and culture

These kind of orders take time to write. I need to make sure I say exactly what I want to. And I plan to stick to the timeline I gave everyone. So this week? Should be out tomorrow. So the message I always want to convey is that no ruling of mine is ever going to be based on politics. I'm going to be following the laws best I understand. Judge Scott McAfee saying he'll release a decision today on whether Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis can continue to prosecute the election interference case against Donald Trump.

And we're expecting that maybe around 845, close to 9 o'clock. Eastern time, sometime during our show. That's just one of the legal developments we're following this morning involving the former president. He was in court yesterday as his legal team tried to get the classified documents case dismissed. Plus, we'll get a live report from Moscow where polls are open for Russia's first presidential election in six years. But Vladimir Putin's total control over the country leaves no doubt what the results will be. And the highest ranking Jewish elected official in the United

States is calling for changes in Israel now five months into its war with Hamas. We'll play for you what Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If you heard the reaction from the far right, from the Trump right, you would have forgotten for a second that Benjamin Netanyahu was the guy that led Israel's defenses down, was the guy that knew in 2018 where all of the illicit funding was for the Hamas terror organization, was the guy who gave Hamas money from through Qatar with a couple of weeks left to go and had the attack plans a year before from from Hamas, did absolutely nothing, actually had evidence that morning that what was happening again did absolutely nothing. But my God, Benjamin Netanyahu, you would think he was you'd think he was George Washington. The attacks, just absolutely unbelievable. Benjamin Netanyahu should have resigned the day after when it took five, six, seven, ten hours to bring aid to children who had seen their parents shot to death in front of their eyes or babies shot. I mean, I could go on and on.

But seriously, the outrage, the faux outrage is such garbage. It's why Americans hate politics. It really is. There's no doubt Netanyahu has damaged Israel in a way. No prime minister has damaged Israel since 1948. And they know it. So really, I mean, God, reading some of the editorials, reading some of the tweets, reading some of the garbage from the far right, really is nauseating as somebody who has

supported Israel my entire life, guy who's spoken before AIPAC my entire life. My God, I mean, how much do they want to politicize this? Some of us, I know this is radical. Some of us actually want what's best for Israel and not what's best for Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump. Some of us actually give a damn about the safety and security of Israel, not just now, but five years from now, 50 years from now. Yeah, all of that is true, but no less an extraordinary moment to hear Chuck Schumer, Democrat who represents the largest Jewish population in the world outside of Israel in the state of New York, to say explicitly it's time for a change of leadership. It's something a lot of people have been thinking, as you said, but something we're not accustomed to hearing

from a leader such a high ranking leader in American politics that it's time for a change. Leader Schumer did put out a statement later saying this is up to the people of Israel. This is how I view this. The people of Israel need to decide that. But you're right. There was a huge reaction from the right, a huge reaction from inside Israel, from the Netanyahu government as well. Just a fascinating dynamic here as we see our own president, President Biden, not just Chuck Schumer, stepping up his criticism of Netanyahu and the way he's conducted this war as well. Well, you know, it's a sad dynamic. It's a sad dynamic because there's some people in America on the far right who are more interested in helping Benjamin Netanyahu than Israel. I mean,

I guess that's just a sad reality. I mean, there are a lot of us that are a lot more concerned about the Israeli people and Israel's security and Israel's hostages, the hostages, Israel's long term support, 35 days, the support, which is just continues to erode in the United States and across the globe. So there are some of us that have always supported Israel, that, yeah, we're concerned about what's going on, more than a little concerned about what's going on in Israel, what went on October 7th, what's been going on on college campuses across this country, the anti-Semitism that's been sweeping the world now for, oh, I don't know, 2000 years or so. So but but again, this is a disastrous path

that Netanyahu is on. And they know the far right extremists who are defending Netanyahu right now know he's doing everything he can do to stay in office. It's not for the best interest of Israeli people. It's in the best interest of Benjamin Netanyahu. They know that and yet they spew lies. They know that's the reality. And yet they continue to defend him. Speaking of spewing lies, Jonathan Lemire, on this Friday morning potpourri, the dirtbag conspiracy theory that the Sandy Hook parents were actually actors and there were no kids, but this was an inside government job. I find it absolutely remarkable that Aaron Rodgers had to come out yesterday and clean up comments he made to a CNN reporter earlier that he thought that Sandy Hook didn't happen. He thought that it was an inside job, that the government did it to take guns away from Americans.

That, according to a CNN anchor who heard him say that in 2013, I believe it was. So yesterday he had to come out and try to clean that up. By the way, these are the type of people that RFK Jr. are associating himself with. And actually talked about this conspiracy theorist being a possible vice presidential candidate. Yeah. One note briefly on Netanyahu. The White House was given a heads up what he was going to say, didn't object. What Netanyahu said publicly, a lot in the White House has said privately. We'll have much more on that later in the show. But as far as Aaron Rodgers go, yes, this is perhaps the most loathsome

conspiracy theory in America. The idea that what happened at Sandy Hook either was completely made up or was some sort of government false flag operation to take away the nation's guns. And Aaron Rodgers, who has distinguished himself on the football field over the last 15 years or so, apparently believes this and said it publicly to the CNN reporter about a decade back. And he is someone who Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. yesterday was asked about Rogers, his beliefs about Sandy Hook. And all Kennedy had to say was that he praised Rogers as a, quote, critical thinker. Didn't denounce his comments, didn't distance himself from Rogers. Instead, the two men talk frequently. It's unbelievable. Rogers did put out a statement later in which he tried to clean it up, but it was pretty vague in its wording

and it wasn't a full-throated denial. And we should note, this is not Rogers' only conspiracy theory that he endorses. He also has questioned September 11th, believing it's an inside job. That's according to some of his former Packers teammates who have told reporters that Rogers would talk in the locker room about things like this. We know his stance on vaccines. That's what brought him and Kennedy together in the first place. And now Rodgers is at least being floated as a potential VP candidate, despite the fact that we think he's going to play quarterback for the Jets this fall if he can recover from his injury. Kennedy said he'll name his running mate in a couple of weeks. Aaron Rodgers, though,

by the day, reveals himself to be a pretty loathsome human being. Yeah. And one Jeffrey Epstein, a conspiracy theory after another. All right. We here at Morning Joe, we try off on a really depressing try to unwind conspiracy theories. And that's where we have the BBC's Katty. Katty. The great Katty Kat. Katty, I would like to tell you last night that Mika and I were sorting through the intricacies of Middle East peace. I know. And and and just what was going to be required for a two state solution. And by the way, everyone should watch Turning Point. That's the other issue we were discussing. So that was really good.

That was amazing. But I know what you're getting to. We spent about an hour talking about it. An hour. Turning Point's not about tennis match. It's about thermonuclear war. Yeah. The kids will love it.

But that's not- Caddy. Yeah. Caddy. And I'm serious. When I ask it this way. What in the hell is going on with Kate Middleton? And how could how could a group of people as obsessed with their image allow something protective to spin out of control as badly as this. And don't give me any of this whatever, because everybody in Britain's talking about it to you Americans. So tell us

what's going on. You know, I seriously thought we were going to have a moment where we could go down the path of what it would take to get the Saudis to recognize Israel in exchange for a two-state solution, how that is all going off the table. Okay, we'll do that next. Kate Middleton. So the royal family's in this really weird position at the moment where they're trying to be more open. You had the king come out and say that he had a problem with his prostate. And then suddenly, amazingly, good news on Friday morning, lots of British men went to the doctor to get their prostates checked. Tick for the royal family and their openness, great public service campaign. And then Kate, who has had this operation in January, we still don't know what for.

I promise you, I am texting our royal reporters, people who cover this day in, day out, which I do not, every day, and they still do not know what she was in hospital for. I mean, tons of conspiracy theories, talking about conspiracy theory, tons of conspiracy theories about what she went into hospital for in the first place. And then she's not going to be seen, we were told, until April, but for some reason on Mother's Day, British Mother's Day, they decided to put out this photograph, which then turns out to have been edited. And it's all, anyone is talking about what's wrong with her why did they edit the photograph was it actually taken at this time

of year because it's suspiciously green and sunny and of course this is england in march it's not suspiciously green and sunny yet and um did they mash up the photo was it because louis was scowling and so they had to kind of put together lots of different photographs to get the one where Louis is smiling. Anyway, own goal for the royal family in terms of openness. And it does kind of play into this moment that we're in when no one trusts anything. Right. We don't trust anything we read. We don't trust anything we see. We're all worried about AI and how it's going to be deceiving us. And then we get this from the royal family, which is meant to be something that we can trust,

which shows us that she is doing well. And guess what? We can't trust that either. But, Cady, it's so easily fixable in so many different ways, and they don't, and I think that's why everybody's worried. Yeah, worried that they could fix this. She could take a picture of herself. Or Instagram Live.

Right, and then she came out with that kind of ex of, oh, well, I mean, I think we were talking about this the other day. Was it yesterday, Joe? I can't remember. This week's been like so long. About, you know, come out and apologize. I'm really sorry I confused everybody. This is the

original photo, but look, Louis is scowling and so we tried to make him look more cheerful or whatever. But, you know, come out andowling, and so we try to make him look more cheerful or whatever, but you know, come out and at least have a bit more transparency. But it's not the story. Portapaz winning Congress. No, I'm not satisfied

at all. We did it because Gene was the London Bureau Chief. Gene was the London Bureau Chief. He knows this sort of thing. He has deep contacts there. Something is wrong.

Gene, something's up. Seriously, we're worried about it. And I know you are, too. What is it? I am worried about it, actually. Look, the royal family has always been opaque, deliberately opaque. And they're allergic to sharing, right? That's the way they were during Queen Elizabeth's entire reign. And so now they've decided to be transparent, except not really. And you can't have it sort of halfway. So, you know, Charles announced that he has, you know, prostate issues. That was very good.

It really helped. And then he said he has cancer and he's being treated. He won't say what kind of cancer. Nobody knows how serious this is or how he's doing. And if you're going to say you have an illness, you should be more open about it. And then this thing with the photograph. Again, as Katty said, a huge own goal. But it's a kind of own goal they're going to keep making because that's who they are.

They just simply haven't internalized what transparency means. And it's going to hurt the institution going forward. And also, just to backtrack for a second, Aaron Rodgers is an idiot. I mean, let's just face it, he's just an idiot. And what Chuck Schumer said about Benjamin Netanyahu is what I have been hearing from some of the most influential and fervent American Jews who support Israel. And they've been saying exactly the same thing privately. So I think it I think it's a great thing that Chuck Schumer said it publicly. Yeah, guys, I think we've covered everything. Should we just call it a weekend?

I mean, that was a great show. By the way, to your point, the fact that after this photograph scandal that the next morning, Kate didn't come out and wave at a window or step out of a balcony tells you makes you does sincerely make you worry about it. We hope she's OK. So I'm worried. We're going to dive dive into some more news this morning. A decision, as Joe mentioned at the top, will come today over whether Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis will be disqualified from the Trump election appearance case. Trump and several of his co-defendants have accused Willis of misconduct and financially benefiting from a romantic relationship she had with prosecutor Nathan Wade, whom she hired on the case. In a hearing last month, both Willis and Wade acknowledged that relationship, but insisted

it started after Wade was hired. Meanwhile, in Florida, the judge in Donald Trump's classified documents case has denied one of the ex-president's requests to have the charges against him dismissed. Trump's legal team tried to argue the law on national security secrets is too vague. But Judge Aileen Cannon ruled hours after the hearing a dismissal over vagueness right now would be, quote, premature

and better suited to be addressed later, quote, in connection with jury instructed briefing. She did not rule yet on the other motion from Trump's team, which claimed the former president believed he was allowed to keep the documents as his personal records because of the Presidential Records Act, which we have said ad nauseum does not apply here. Judge Cannon appeared skeptical of that argument yesterday, saying at one point, it's difficult to see how this gets you to the dismissal of an indictment. And in New York, just days before Donald Trump was set to face his first criminal trial, we've learned the hush money case brought by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office likely now will be postponed. Trump's lawyers want to push the trial back by 90 days. In a new court filing yesterday. The DA's office said it does not oppose a brief delay, but asked that it not

exceed 30 days. At issue is about 31,000 pages of additional records the Manhattan DA's office received this week from federal prosecutors in New York. Trump's legal team requested more time to review the material, and the DEA's office responded saying it would not oppose an adjournment. The judge presiding over the case has not yet ruled on a delay. The trial currently set to begin March 25th. That's a week from Monday. All right, with all that, let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Lisa, looks like another day, another pop quiz for you. So much to cover here. Let's go back to the beginning with this announcement.

We're expecting sometime in the next few hours about whether or not Fonny Willis will be disqualified as the prosecutor in the case down in Georgia. What do you expect to hear? Willie, I really don't know. And I think a lot turns on two things. One, what is the legal standard that Judge McAfee applies to whether Fannie Willis should be disqualified? Because that is contested. You have some people telling him, the DA's office most notably, that the standard is whether there is an actual conflict of interest that prejudices the defendants in their capacity as criminal defendants here and not, for example, as voters in Fulton County who helped elect Fannie Willis. The other standard, though, the one advanced by

Steve Sado and by Mike Roman's lawyer, Ashley Merchant, who started this whole thing, is that it's really about the appearance of impropriety. When there was oral argument on this, one of the things that the DA's office drilled down into was telling McAfee that while there is some case law that provides for the disqualification of elected officials on the basis of that appearance of impropriety, that's never been held to disqualify a prosecutor. You have to find an actual conflict to disqualify a prosecutor. So let's see whether he buys the DA's argument there or Fannie, I'm sorry, or the folks on the other side. If he buys the defendant's argument, I think odds are that Fannie Willis would be disqualified. But the other big issue here is how much additional evidence Scott McAfee decides is relevant to his decision.

You'll remember that sort of at the last hour, everybody piled on with cell phone records and purported expert declarations, new declarations from the guy at the winery who remembered Willis and Wade and from another prosecutor who had been in a conversation with Terrence Bradley, where she alleged Bonnie Willis called on the phone and essentially said to Bradley, they're snooping. Don't talk. Whether McAfee takes any of that into consideration remains an open question. He hasn't publicly ruled on the admissibility or whether or not he thinks that that's relevant here. I think it could go either way. My sense is that Fannie Willis holds on, but barely,

and that whatever McAfee does in that respect, if he does allow her to stay on the case, still comes with a bunch of criticism for her and her special ADA, Nathan Wade. So, so, so, Lisa, let's break this down, actually, to what actually is relevant to this case and what is not relevant to this case. First of all, Fannie Willis, I mean, the judgment she used is just absolutely atrocious. If there are ethical ramifications, you know, perhaps there should be, especially if she's lying, there definitely should be. She's going to have to answer to the voters for just this again. The most important case probably that's ever been tried in Georgia. And she has just turned it into an absolute clown show.

I wanted to use another word, but it's early in the morning and some kids are eating their breakfast. All right. So we can all agree on that. I think everybody can agree that she is really, really messed this up. All right. That's on one side of the ledger. But on the other side of the ledger is, does it in any way prejudice the defendant? And does it get in the way of Donald Trump having a fair trial and these other defendants having a fair trial? I don't see how it gets to that line.

There are a lot of things the judge can do. The judge can say, Miss Willis, I cannot even believe the horrific judgment you've shown. And Bradley, I mean, you point this guy. What are you doing? You know what? We're going to have to delay this trial. You're going to have to find somebody else to run your case.

And I hope you don't have a personal relationship with them as well. I don't know if you can do that, Ms. Willis. Nathan Way. Nathan Way. But push it to that side. It seems to me these are two totally separate things. Yeah. And so I really don't understand why she would be disqualified. Ethics charges. Yes. But just have her appoint somebody else to run the case.

Well, look, you know, when we talked, you guys were talking in the earlier segment about the easiest ways to correct for the conspiracy theories going on over at Kensington Palace. This was a situation that could have been easily corrected, too, when these allegations were first floated. Once Fannie Willis and Nathan Wade admitted that they had a relationship, the right and maybe the helpful thing to do at that point would have been for Nathan Wade to step away from the case and for them to say, OK, we recognize that this was an error of judgment on the DA's part, but we're going to cure that now. Nathan have been for Nathan Wade to step away from the case and for them to say, OK, we recognize that this was an error of judgment on the DA's part, but we're going to cure that now. Nathan Wade will no longer take part in the case. That's not what they did. But putting that aside, Judge McAfee has already made clear it doesn't matter if Nathan Wade was the worst lawyer in

the world. She is entitled to appoint whoever she wants so long as they have a bar card, a legal education, and are basically competent to stand up. You know, it's like one step beyond Weekend at Bernie's in terms of who she's allowed to appoint. The conflict issue here, and I'm going to be generous to the defendants, their allegation is by appointing someone with whom she was in a personal relationship, she financially benefited from that because in her payments to him, she knew that it was going to come back to her. That's what Trump has said in an interview recently, that they almost tried to inflate the size of the case, the number of defendants, the number of allegations, all to enlarge the size of the payments to Wade. The only problem with that is Fannie Willis makes a decent salary on her own. And the number of dollars that they were able to tie back to her in terms of Nathan

Wade's expenditures, while lavish in terms of how ordinary Americans spend their vacation money, isn't substantial enough to have, you know, a normal person says to themselves, would you really concoct this whole big scheme, this RICO conspiracy, in order to get yourself $10,000 of vacation benefits? I don't think so. I'm with Joe on this one. We should note also that Judge McAfee did dismiss, Lisa, six of the charges in this case. But certainly some very damaging ones exist for former President Trump. Let's turn to Florida now.

Judge Cannon, to this point, has been pretty sympathetic to the Trump cause. The Trump team brought her two reasons yesterday, they believe, to dismiss the case. She threw one of them out and said, no, that's not accurate, as Mika described at the top of the show. The other one still remains pending. Give us your analysis. Were you surprised by anything we heard yesterday? No. If anything, I was surprised that there was a hearing yesterday and that it took as long as it did. Because last night and disposing of one of those, she issued what is a not even two page order. And I want to be clear about something, John. She denied their motion to dismiss on this unconstitutional vagueness of the Espionage Act argument. But in doing so, she took a bunch of swipes at the special counsel. There's some language in that order that basically says, I'm not deciding this now.

But she was saying to them, I'm going to read from it right now, that there are still fluctuating definitions of statutory terms and phrases, along with some disputed factual issues. So rather than prematurely decide now whether this is unsalvageably vague, despite the asserted judicial glosses, there's some loaded accusations against the special counsel in that. In other words, you are telling me how other courts have interpreted this, but those are asserted judicial glosses. You are telling me what these terms mean, but there are still fluctuating definitions. So yes, she kicked the can down the road. She didn't give Donald Trump what he wanted. On the other hand, she made it difficult for anyone to appeal this and just sort of held it in abeyance. So I don't think it's a victory for the special counsel's office. In terms of the Presidential Records Act, on the

other hand, finally, Aileen Cannon has seen an argument from Donald Trump that she recognizes as ridiculous. And I think many of us breathe a sigh of relief on that one. Lisa, finally, there was news also about the hush money case, the sex with a porn star covered up by a payoff. And Alvin Bragg's team, they submitted, what, 30,000 pages of documents? New York got them 31,000 new documents. So even more than that, folks, even more. What what it's going to obviously cause a delay. Do we know what's in the documents? Is this a problem? We don't know exactly what's in the documents. But let me step back, because when you guys just described it, you said Alvin Bragg's

office belatedly produced. That's the accusation that Trump is making, that somehow Alvin Bragg's office is responsible for this belated production of documents that actually comes from the U.S. Department of Justice and specifically the Southern District of New York. That's the U.S. Attorney's Office here in Manhattan. What they said in response was when we started prosecuting this case, we asked the Department of Justice for extensive files relating to its prosecution of Michael Cohen on campaign finance charges. Those campaign finance charges, Mika and Joe, as you know, relate to sort of the underlying core of this case, the concoction of a settlement with Stormy Daniels. And then the papering of that in a way that looked as if Michael Cohen was being paid for legal fees, but really was being reimbursed for settling with her with his own cash. What Albert Bragg's office is saying now is we asked for those things. We got a subset of them.

We gave you, Donald Trump and your lawyers, everything that we got. What Trump did is he sat on that for months. Then he issued a subpoena to the Department of Justice on his own accord this last January. And it's in response to that subpoena that now we have seen a production of 104,000 pages of new documents and with more to come next week. That's why the DA's office, given that this relates to the most important witness in the case, the DA's office is saying, look, we'll concede that an adjournment of 30 days is appropriate because they need to review this stuff, too. They got to figure out what's in it. But they were clear. Yes, Trump is responsible for this delay by sitting on what he got for many months and not issuing a subpoena until January. But be very clear what's not being said here. And my expectation is Alvin Bragg is livid right now with the Southern

District of New York. There's no explanation for why they didn't give these stuff to Alvin Bragg's office when they asked for it at the outset of their case. Well, and that's what I was going to say. I mean, you know, Donald Trump's lawyers have a right to have all relevant documents. I don't understand why the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District didn't give Alvin Bragg these documents at the beginning. And I'm a little surprised if they get the request in January that they would wait this long before giving them to Alvin Bragg. Everybody has to be looking at the U.S. Attorney's Office here saying, what gives? Do we know what's in them? Why the delay? Well, Joe, I can partially explain that. And then I still have a bunch of

questions. So in the papers that Donald Trump's people put in asking for an adjournment or a dismissal, and I think that's also a point that's getting lost. They attach a bunch of correspondence between Todd Blanch, who is one of the co-lead lawyers for Donald Trump, and a lawyer at the Department of Justice in the Southern District of New York. The DOJ goes through a process when they are subpoenaed for documents relating to one of its investigations. And there is a bunch of correspondence back and forth between them about whether the requests that Trump was making were actually relevant and whether the DOJ had to accommodate them or not. So you can see that part of the delay here is taken up by that negotiation process. And the DA is involved in that negotiation, too, saying some of the things that Trump is asking you for in this subpoena have nothing to do with what he needs to realistically,

incredibly defend himself in this case. That having been said, the big unanswered question is there is some category of documents that the DOJ legitimately decided belong to Trump in his defense now that overlap with the DA's requests last spring and summer that were never fulfilled vis-a-vis Alvin Bragg and are now being fulfilled. And I think, you know, somebody has, they say on I Love Lucy, somebody's got some explaining to do, you know? Yeah, they do. Ricky. All right, MSNBC legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin.

Thank you very much. We will be talking to you again very soon about all of this. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll get to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's harsh words for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Plus, the war that Israel could have fought. Richard Haass joins us with his new piece for The Wall Street Journal. But first, it's

election day in Russia. We'll get a live report from Moscow as Vladimir Putin looks to secure a fifth term as president. You're watching Morning Joe. We will be right back. The polls are open this morning in Russia, with the nation's first presidential election since 2018 now set to run through Sunday. Vladimir Putin will secure a fifth term as president, extending his rule by six more years. Joining us from inside a polling station is Moscow, NBC News chief international correspondent Kir Simons. Kir, what are you seeing there? Well, Willie, this is a middle school in central Moscow, been turned into a polling station for three days. In a sense, this is less of an election,

more of a referendum on President Putin and on his so-called special military operation in Ukraine. This is the first national vote since that illegal invasion of Ukraine. You can see people registering to vote and voting across here, Willie. And let me just show you the motif for this election, you'll recognize it as a Russian war symbol, that V in Russian colors, maybe a V for victory, maybe a V for Vladimir Putin, because, of course, there are lots of people questioning the authenticity of this vote, not least Alexei Navalny's wife, Yulia, who this week called on the West not to accept this vote. We know, of course, that President Putin will be re-elected on Sunday night,

another six years after 24 years in office. And in many ways, what he's looking to do here, and there is voting even in the illegally occupied territories of Ukraine. What he's looking to do here is to prove, if you like, that Russia supports him. So it's not just the vote result, but the turnout that will matter. In 2018, it was 67.5%. The Kremlin will be looking for that or more. I mentioned the voting across here. That is the traditional voting.

You can see the see-through polling booth there. But then further over, that's electronic voting. So it's the first time it's been a three-day vote. It's the first time that they've had electronic voting in a presidential vote like this. And there are observers here who have told us that they are not able, honestly, to know exactly what's going on there. So I think you can be confident that no matter what happens across this enormous country of 11 time zones, there will be an outcome that has a turnout that is as much as or if not more than what was seen in 2018.

That being said, though, Willie, President Putin is popular in Russia. A woman in her 90s told us that she saw Stalin's funeral and she said, President Putin is the only person that I trust now. Wow. Carrying on that legacy, NBC's Keir Simmons, great reporting from inside of Moscow in a polling station there where Vladimir Putin, as Keir says, hopes to get a higher percentage of the vote even than he did six years ago. Keir, thank you so much. So, Joe, obviously, Vladimir Putin will win this election. Not much opposition. Why? Because his opponents are either in jail or in the case of Alexei Navalny, now dead. Yeah, yeah, he kills his opponents, always has. Let's bring it right now to the president of Erdis, to the Council on Foreign Relations,

Richard Haass. He is the author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away available on Substack. Just a side note, Vladimir Putin does to his political opponents what Donald Trump says he wants to do to his political opponents and generals and others that are insufficiently loyal to him. And if he's given the second term, he promises that he will do just that. So, Richard, the Soviet Union was, of course, in complete political and economic and cultural and military military control of their empire until the moment that they weren't. I'm curious your thoughts about where Vladimir Putin is two years after this invasion. There have been some ups, there have been some downs. But as Keir said, a lot of Russians, a lot of Russians see him in a favorable light. And one suspects that even if the election were fair, he would most likely win. What's your thought on where he is right now,

his standing with the Russian people? No, I think he I think, unfortunately, you've got it right. Russia's worked its way around the sanctions. It's able to sell its oil and gas. It's able to import all sorts of things. The situation on the battlefield is gradually, slowly moving in its favor. Putin controls the domestic political narrative because he controls media. He's jailed or killed his opponents. The biggest challenge, the Prokosian challenge, that was a demonstration effect of what happens if you do take on Vladimir Putin. So I actually think two years into the war, Joe, he is stronger than he was before. And this is a hollowed out Russia. Unlike you, you mentioned the Soviet Union.

There you had institutions. There you had a communist party. You don't have any of that now. This is a truly deinstitutionalized country. This is a this is almost the politics, what a personalization rather than institutions or systems. So right now, this is this is this is Vladimir Putin's Russia. Well, and, you know, Richard, the what our viewers who may not have have maybe are younger viewers or others that haven't followed Russian history over the past 50, 60, 70 years. What I think is important to understand here is that we all hear what Vladimir Putin said about the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century is the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is a shame. He that is shame. That shame drives him every day. I think what a lot of Americans may may not understand is that's a shame that drives a lot of older Russians who remember the Soviet Union, who were raised in the Cold War like you and I and Mika were raised in the Cold War. And of course, we left that twilight war victorious. But Putin promises them this renaissance, this resurgence and this belief that they will never

settle for the status quo post 1989, post 1991. That has to be a big driver of his support, doesn't it? Absolutely. If you think about it, the Soviet Union, when it broke up and now Russia, it lost two empires. It lost the external empire that was Eastern Europe. And then it also lost the internal empire that was the Soviet Union. So Russia is a much reduced, bitter, bitter, humiliated entity. And Putin very effectively plays on that. And think even now, his whole packaging of the war with Ukraine is rather than Russia as aggressor, Joe, it's Russia as victim. It's Russia, the victim of NATO, victim of the West, standing us. He is very clever at framing, if you will, and controlling, again, the political narrative at home. So even if this election, as you say,

were somewhat more open, my guess is he would still come out way on top. And again, like Trump, plays the victim card endlessly, ceaselessly, the conspiracy theories about what the West is doing. But again, as you say, Richard, a hollowed out power. That's why I always remind our viewers, this is not the Soviet Union of 1975. This is the Russia of 2024, who's lost over a third of their military over the past two years and has a GDP, again, about the size of Texas. Let's talk about what Chuck Schumer said yesterday. He's calling for new leadership in Israel. Had a very pointed speech. He criticized Netanyahu's actions amid the war in Gaza and his refusal to actually talk about, even talk about a two-state solution.

Watch this. The U.S. government should demand that Israel conduct itself with a future two-state solution in mind. We should not be forced into a position of unequivocally supporting the actions of an Israeli government that include bigots who reject the idea of a Palestinian state. Israel is a democracy. Five months into this conflict, it is clear that Israelis need to take stock of the situation and ask, must we change course? At this critical juncture, I believe a new election is the only way to allow for a healthy and open decision-making process about the future of Israel. As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me the Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7th.

The world has changed radically since then. And the Israeli people are being stifled right now by a governing vision that is stuck in the past. Wow. Richard Haass, you have a piece out in the Wall Street Journal entitled The War That Israel Could Have Fought. Take us inside your argument. Well, Mika, Israel had the right and the necessity to respond to what happened on October 7th to the horrific, brutal attacks. But how exactly it responded, that was a matter of great discretion and latitude. And my argument is almost every choice Israel made beginning on October 7th has been wrong. It's been counterproductive for itself, for its relationship with us.

And that's where the Chuck Schumer speech is such an interesting development for the Palestinians. Israel, first of all, could have waited a few days or a few weeks, allowed it to sink in. Imagine if the world had had two or three weeks just to focus on Hamas and its backer, Iran. Imagine if that had been the only conversation for the first few weeks. Second of all, when Israel did start to use military force, and it was right to, it could have been far more measured and calibrated and targeted on the leadership. Rather than something big and in a hurry. It could have taken place over months or years. Go after the leadership. Aid should have been very generously provided. And fourth and last and most important, there needed to be a

political dimension. There still does. You can't beat something with nothing. If your argument is that Hamas is going down a dead end, that violence is not the answer, well, then what is the answer? How are Palestinians meant to realize their legitimate aspirations if violence isn't the way? What is the political path? Why isn't Israel articulating that? What they're prepared to sign up to? What conditions Palestinians have to meet. That is totally absent here. So, again, Israel had every right to respond and needed to respond. But every way it's done it, I think, has really been costly and counterproductive. A couple of thoughts, Amika.

First of all, Richard is right. There's so many ways this war could have been fought. There could have been a longer pause to focus on the horrors, the absolute horrors of what happened on October the 7th. And also so they could get get into focus targets and what they needed to do. That's the first part of it. The second part of it is this this this false like argument. Right. That you had to either do it Benjamin Netanyahu's way or Hamas was going to get away with. No, it's just the opposite. Hamas played this out. Right. They knew what a Benjamin Netanyahu would do. They knew all of all of what we're talking about right now.

They knew this was going to happen. And Netanyahu has played into their hands. And again, these people that are falling, using their fainting couches this morning over what Chuck Schumer said on the floor yesterday, they're a lot less interested in Israel's security than they are Benjamin Netanyahu's security, because he's misplayed everything over the past 10 years and allowed Hamas continued funding. Hamas knew what he would do because this leader, much like one that we talk about here in America a lot, is impaired and is running from indictments and is trying to hold on to power any way he can. So in a way, he doesn't have just the Israeli people on his mind. He has his own survival

on his mind. That's an important point. I want to take it to Gene. He can take it back to Richard. But Richard talked about, Gene, that Israel had the right to respond to October 7th. I think nobody would disagree with that. But it's they didn't. I mean, many who were there, many who were there would argue I didn't see a response for seven hours as my family in my village was being decimated. So if Israel had a right to respond, where the heck were you? Those answers still non-existent. And so I wonder where we are in terms of Benjamin Netanyahu's relationship with the Israeli people. Is it like Hamas needs to be eradicated and then there are the innocent civilians and Palestinian civilians that need to be worried about? Is it a situation where there's Benjamin Netanyahu and then there's

Israel? Are they losing trust by the day? Yeah. Look at the numbers, Jane. It's a disaster across the West for Israel's support. Absolutely. You see that Israel is very frankly, losing support around the world. And this is an awful thing for the state of Israel. You know, what Netanyahu has done, and then just done on steroids with this war, is it seems to me it tends to lock Israel into a one-state solution rather than a two-state solution. And he has bragged about having prevented a two-state solution for the Palestinians. And that means, it seems to me, fundamental change in the nature of Israel. It is a Jewish democracy, a Jewish state and a democracy. But I don't see how it can remain both unless there is a two-state solution.

If, you know, one-state solution, either it ceases being a Jewish state or it ceases being a democracy, both of which I think would be disastrous for the nation of Israel. And that's what I'm hearing from a lot of people. So my question for Richard is, is there still a way back? Is there still, let's, you know, Netanyahu's not going away tomorrow, but let's assume he did. Is there a way back to the two-state solution framework that I see and that so many people see as the only realistic way forward for Israel? Well, a couple of things, Gene. First of all, you're right. Bibi Netanyahu has no interest in a so-called two-state solution. What his approach is, I call it the one-state non-solution.

He favors drift. He favors continued occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. He favors settlement activity. And as you say, that kind of occupation is incompatible with Israel remaining a democratic Jewish state. Either these people all become citizens, at which point Israel ceases to be a Jewish state, or you have occupation without citizenship, at which point Israel ceases to be a democracy. So I think the course Bibi Netanyahu has committed Israel to is not in its own long term interest, to say the least. It's bad for the U.S.-Israeli relationship. That's where, again, the Chuck Schumer thing I think is an interesting marker.

Is it too late? No. I think we can't go directly from where we are to a two state solution. Israel's not a partner with this government. The Palestinians aren't a partner with this government. The Palestinians aren't a partner yet. What you can do, though, and what U.S. policy should focus on is keeping open the possibility. That means, among other things, stopping settlement expansion. Ultimately, there needs to be some territory to work with. What we have to push back against Israeli settlement activity. We've got to talk about what is it that Israel needs to do

in order to get Palestinians to step forward as an alternative to Hamas? What about where's the economic help? What about politically? What do they have to be willing to do? That's the conversation the United States has to have and introduce into the Israeli body politic. We can't go from where we are, given October 7th, given the lack of leadership and so forth, to a two-state solution. What we can do is begin the conversation and stop actions that preclude the possibility several years down the road. Richard, I'm curious for your reaction to Chuck Schumer's comments and the impact they might have on the relationship with Israel, which is, as Joe pointed out, you had Democrats, you had Mitch McConnell saying that comments from Schumer were grotesque and disrespectful. You had Lindsey Graham take it

with a grain of salt, but saying they were earth shatteringly bad, that they hurt the relationship. Then you had some Democrats saying, supporting what he said on the grounds that, of course, we support Israel. Of course, they're one of our closest allies and always will be. But we don't just blindly follow everything Bibi Netanyahu says. We can object to the expanded settlements in the West Bank. We can object to the way the war is being prosecuted and not fund it with a blank check. What is your sense of how Schumer's comments may change things here? I actually think it opens up the conversation a little bit, Willie. And I think there needs to be a difference or a distinction between being pro-Israel and pro the policy of Israel's government.

Look, you and I, and we all disagree with what the United States does at times. Doesn't mean we're not patriotic. Doesn't mean we don't love this country. But governments make mistakes. Governments make choices. And they're not always the wisest choices made for the best reasons. I would think that applies to Bibi Netanyahu and Israel. So I think Chuck Schumer, what he's done is opened up the conversation.

And in part because for decades, he has been such a staunch supporter of Israel. So I think he's actually legitimized it. What's really interesting also is he's of a generation not that different than Joe Biden. I expect this from younger Americans. But, you know, the fact that he's doing this is really interesting. And yes, the Republicans are ganging up on it and Bibi Netanyahu will reject it. But the Israelis are making a big, big mistake if they reject this. You can't have a U.S.-Israeli relationship without essentially Americans across the political spectrum supporting Israel. And I worry that the short-sightedness of Israeli's

policy, and long after Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer are gone from the political scene, I worry about the 20 and 30-year-olds today who are going to be the 40 and 50-year-olds who are going to be the 40 and 50 year olds who are going to be making American foreign policy, if they grow up unsympathetic to Israel, if they see Israel as essentially Bibi Netanyahu's Israel, that'll be a very different American relationship with Israel. And that's not in either country's interest. Well, and it's a great concern. You look at what's happening. You look, there is a massive generational gulf in the United States now on the issue of Israel. So, yeah, for those of us that actually support Israel and aren't just blindly dedicated to supporting Bibi Netanyahu. Yeah, very concerned.

And Mika, this idea that somehow you have to support Bibi Netanyahu or you can't support Israel is asinine. I mean, here is a guy, let me say it again, here's a guy that had the terrorist attack plans for a year before they happened. They did nothing on it. They were warned repeatedly that the Hamas attack was coming. They did nothing about it. In 2018, Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu uncovered, had people come to them and say, this is how Hamas is illicitly getting money to fund their war operations. They did nothing about it. You had Hamas actually getting funded by Qatar three weeks before the attack, but only after Netanyahu and his government said, yeah, yeah, yeah,

keep sending money to Hamas. Did you hear what I just said? Bibi Netanyahu continued funding Hamas through Qatar three weeks before the attack. And really, this guy is the guy that all Americans have to support if we love Israel. Yes, you know, it's BS. It's garbage. And then when the attacks came, he did nothing. His government did nothing for hour after hour after hour after hour. It is mind boggling. Yeah. The mistakes, the errors and just the horrible judgment, including the funding of Hamas. He supported the funding of Hamas right up to the attack. So please, this idea that you that you can't support Israel unless you support Bibi Netanyahu. No, please. I would say it's just

the opposite. Actually, spot on. And it's a dialectical. You can. I support the Israelis. I support the Israeli people. I support Israel. I have deep concerns about Benjamin Netanyahu. Two things can be true at the same time. Richard Haass, thank you very much for being on this morning. And coming up, Donald Trump's latest comments on funding for Ukraine, not denying what Viktor Orban said about their meeting that he would cut it right off. Plus, a contrast we expect to see more of in the months leading up to November's election. Trump was in a courtroom yesterday while President Biden was on the campaign trail talking to people, to voters. We'll show you the president's message. Trump has some money to go on the campaign trail.

In another key battleground state. That's all straight ahead on Morning Joe.