Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/19/25

Episode Date: March 19, 2025

Chief Justice Roberts slams Trump call to impeach judge

We had a judge. I would call him a rogue judge. You can call him whatever you want. I know nothing about him. I heard about this very late in the process, and I said, that's a strange order. You have local judges, local federal judges, local judges, period, and DAs and prosecutors, DAs, state attorney generals, attorney generals that want to really take over. I think some of it's for the publicity.

They love the publicity. All of a sudden, they're on the front page of every newspaper, but they have no right to be. President Trump suggesting that the judge who ruled against his administration's deportation flights and others who have held him accountable are doing so because they want publicity. It comes as Chief Justice John Roberts issues a rare statement about our judicial system in response to a Trump rant on social media. We'll have that for you and the president's response. Also ahead, the latest on the possible terms of a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine

following the president's call with Vladimir Putin, and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer faces criticism continually for his vote that helped Republicans pass a partisan spending bill, the latest coming from Nancy Pelosi. We'll play for you her comments, and the Minority Leader will join us at the table later this morning, right here on Morning Joe.

And good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, March 19th. Hope everyone is doing well along with Joe, Willie and me. We have the co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire, contributing writer at the Atlantic covering the White House and national politics. NBC News and MSNBC political analyst former US Senator Claire McCaskill is with us and former MSNBC host and contributor to Washington Monthly Chris Matthews back at the table. Joe, a lot to get to this morning. I look forward to interviewing Chuck Schumer. That's gonna be fun. You know, that's what all the kids want to do. It's like, yeah,

you can interview Bono or you can interview Billie Eilish, but can you get Schumer? And we got him today and I'm really excited about that. He's taking a lot of heat. I'm not sure I don't agree with what he did. So we can talk. We can talk. We can talk. I was talking to Willie yesterday, Mika. I know yesterday you were down in the south of France surveying your properties and your

super yachts spread out across the Mediterranean. But Willie and I were talking, Willie and I were talking about, I didn't tell you about this conversation I had with this old feller on a train about Chuck Schumer. And Willie, you and I know about that. I mean, he's a gambler and he gave me some good advice. And I think Chuck Schumer used that advice. And, you know, it's like the guy told me. I know, okay. Guy, I told you about this train ride.

Guy tells me as we're coming up on Omaha, he goes, see the lights at Omaha in the distance. He goes, son, if you're gonna play the game, you gotta learn how to play it right. Well, Chuckie knows how to play it right. I know people want to scream and yell and go crazy, but I think this old gambler was right, Willie. I forgot to tell you one other thing he told me.

Sorry Chris. This is Chris. Haha. Look at that. So as as we pass through Omaha Willie and we go now yeah, it's got to see if he wakes up. I forgot to tell you, he told me one other thing too, which I thought was surprising. Yeah.

He wakes up, he turns to me. I'm thinking he's going to talk to me about cards again. He goes, you know, he goes, I follow the markets kind of closely. I go, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yeah. He goes, I think this Elon feller, I think he's read the Art of War.

I go, what are you talking about? And he goes, well, he goes, you know, you learn from the great, the great general, you learn that sometimes when you're weak, you want to look strong. And sometimes when you're strong, you want to look weak. This is what the gambler, this is what he thought about Elon. He thought Elon knew that his company was in trouble. And he fled to the White House to look strong when he knew his company was going down in China. He knew his company was going down. Because he told me, and this guy knew a lot of facts, right?

Gosh, he really did. The stock was plum plummeting but he said, Sonny boy. I go yes sir and by this time by this time we see Salt Lake City coming up in the distance. Wow. Listen to these facts. I wrote them down. This guy told me Tesla sells down in the US, right, last year, while electric vehicle sells up. In China, Tesla sells down 49%, while EV sells for the rest of the country up 85%. In Germany, Tesla sells down 76%, while EV sells in that country, overall up 31%. His technology's not working. His driverless cars aren't working. The batteries are antiquated now

that we're supposed to be the future. And I think this old fella was right. I wish he was still around, you know? But he had a drink, went to sleep, didn't wake up again, but that's a sad part of the story. But let me tell you though, we can learn a lot from these fellers, right? And what we can learn from him,

I don't know what's wrong, I'm just trying to tell you. You just gotta see Chris's face, it's the best. But this is what I'm telling you, and Mika, if you just let me finish my conversation, I'll be done by 830, okay? Just let me finish. Sorry. Yeah. But think about this.

This guy's company has lost. Musk's company has lost close to $900 billion in market cap over the last three months. Tesla has always been a meme stock based on, you know, as the feller said, the profit to earnings ratio is horribly skewed, one of the most horribly skewed profit to earning ratios in like the history of Wall Street. the earning ratios in like the history of Wall Street. And so when the bubble bursts on the reputation, the meme stock goes down. And my only point here, his point actually, not mine, is Tesla's in deep trouble.

And it's in deep trouble not just because he's in Washington, but maybe he's in Washington because he knows it's in deep trouble. And giving Donald Trump a couple of hundred million dollars, that may have been his bailout to help save Tesla, to help save SpaceX, to help save a lot of these other companies that are struggling now, and not just because people think he's doing a Nazi salute or just because he's saying outrageously horrible things or firing veterans every day maybe it's happening. Because he knows his companies are going in the wrong

direction that was this guy's theory. Well, I know what just a dumb country lawyer what you think I remember at the end of that as the night got deathly quiet and his face lost all expression he said to you if you're going to play the game boy you better learn to play. And that was the last we heard from that sweet old man. You know what and you know how long Joe's intro to the show was? As long as Sonny was in space. Butch and Sonny are home.

Butch and Sonny are home thank God and Joe has now finished the top of Morning Joe. So there we go. A nine month odyssey. You know what he said about them? You know, because they said these people are going up in a rocket. No, please stop. And they were excited about it. He said, son, let me tell you something that could have gone good for them, but every hand's a winner and every hand's a loser.

I like the song, but I never will again. And the most you can hope for is to die in your sleep. And then that's what he did. It's a sad story, but why don't we get to the news, Meekin? You've been talking too much. It's a hot start. Thank you. Thank you so much.

That was eight minutes. In a rare move, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is rebuking comments made by President Trump. Roberts took issue with this truth social post from yesterday morning. In it, the president calls for the federal judge overseeing a case on deportation flights to be removed from his position. Quote, this judge, like many of the crooked judges I'm forced to appear before, should be impeached. Justice Roberts, who did not mention the president by name,

tackled that statement head on, writing, quote, for more than two centuries. It has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. President Trump responded in a TV interview last night and denied that he had defied the courts.

He didn't mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly. He didn't mention my name. But many people have called for his impeachment, the impeachment of this judge. I don't know who the judge is, but he's radical left. He was Obama-appointed. And he actually said we shouldn't be able to take criminals, killers, murderers—horrible, the worst people, gang members, gang leaders—that we shouldn't be allowed to take them out of our country.

Well, that's a presidential job. That's not for a local judge to be making that determination. And I thought it was terrible. Would you defy a court order? Is that—we all know that, and that was out of— No, I never did. I never did defy a court order? We all know that. I never did defy a court order. And you wouldn't in the future?

No, you can't do that. However, we have bad judges. We have very bad judges. And these are judges that shouldn't be allowed. I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge. Claire, we have to point it out. First of all, the president says that all these people are killers, murderers, rapists, etc., etc., etc. All the judge is saying is, let me make sure, let us make sure that all the people are murderers, rapists, you know, you

guys need to give us the facts, I need the information on these people that you've taken out of the country. But it bears repeating as the president continues to say, oh, this is a rogue judge or somebody else needs to be impeached because a district court judge stopped the ruling of a president. This happens all the time. And I just want to keep repeating this because we can't let that stick. You know, it's just not true. The fact is, of course, as we've said before, Barack Obama had his immigration laws stopped by a court as being illegal.

I think it was presidential signature. You can go back to George W. Bush. He had his NSA enhanced interrogation program stopped by a federal judge. One federal judge, one district court judge, just like the Obama judge. We also had an Obama directive on gender. Stopped dead in its tracks by one federal judge. It happens. Joe Biden had this happen many times.

He had it happen on student loans, stopped by a district federal judge. It happens. Joe Biden had this happen many time. He had it happened on student loans stopped by a district federal judge. He also had the vaccine mandates for federal workers. One, one judge, one judge stopped it. And then, as the chief justice said, and also as Republican Senator from Louisiana, John Kennedy said, if you're president and you don't like what the district court judge this one day, doesn't mean he's rogue or she's rogue. It means that they're doing what the Constitution says they do.

And then as Senator Kennedy says, that's why God gave us appellate court. So this idea that we're hearing out of the White House, that we're hearing, you know, by the staff members of the president screaming on cable news that this is, oh, this is the worst thing, this never happened before, it's a rogue judge, he should be impeached. No, this happens to every single president. It's just this president and the people around him are the only ones who are acting like this is the first time it's ever happened before. Yeah. And let's not forget there was a single judge in Texas that tried to say that meth of Pristone

could not be used anywhere, even in the states where abortion was legal. And let's not forget there was a single judge in Texas that struck down overtime, excuse me, minimum wage stuff that Biden put in place for federal contractors, one single judge. So, and here's the thing, as you said, Joe, it's really important to remember this. That judge did not say that you cannot remove people in the country that are here illegally

that have committed crimes. Never said that, never even came close to saying that. All this judge said was the president can't just say, I'm gonna pick up a bunch of people and I'm gonna tell you that they are an enemy force invading our country and put them on a plane and and put them in a prison in El Salvador. That's not the way America works. That's not the way due process works. That's not the way the law works in this country. The idea that a court is holding this administration

accountable to the law is something that everybody should be celebrating. Regardless of your party, regardless of whether you're left, right, or middle, it doesn't matter. We've got to make sure that people cannot be picked up and disappeared like his buddy Putin does, like his buddy Chi does, like his buddy Chi does, like his buddy Kim Jong-un does, they do this.

They disappear people and many times murder them. So we're not gonna go down that road. And I don't care how much the president screams irresponsibly about impeachment, there's no way. Remember, there's only been a handful of judges in the history of this country that have been impeached. And that's because you know what you have to judges in the history of this country that have been impeached. And that's because you know what you have to have in the Senate for impeachment, Joe?

You have to have two thirds, not 60, two thirds. And I've run an impeachment in the Senate. I know what that process is like. So this is just a way to undermine the rule of law with the American people. And the president should be ashamed of himself for it. Yeah, yeah, no doubt about it. You know, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Robert, speaks up for justice. Willie, this is the second day in a row that the Supreme Court, or the second time, day in a row that the Wall Street Journal editorial page is telling the

president of the United States. Again, this is for the uninitiated. This is Rupert Murdoch's newspaper. They say Mr. Trump will win some cases and lose others on the legal merits in the next four years, as he did in his first term. The best defense against losing is to act within the law. So the Roberts Court is saying, the Supreme is saying and the Wall Street Journal is saying all right, well, if you don't like losing. Then start acting within the law.

Yeah, and Chief Justice Roberts is statement was very brief by the way it wasn't like a long rant about president Trump he said there's an appellate process for this if you don't like the decision that you've seen you appeal you don't impeach the judge's that's just notellate process for this. If you don't like the decision that you've seen, you appeal. You don't impeach the judges. That's just not how our process works. Chris, I'm curious what you make of all this. Donald Trump's saying, the president's saying, these are bad judges, which means a judge

who disagrees with him, obviously, and effectively suggesting that they need to be thrown out. He's got the support of members of his MAGA base, of the media saying, yes, yes, he's right. You've got to get rid of judges who dare cross President Trump. But you have the chief justice of the Supreme Court stepping in saying, that's not how this works. What do you make about where this might end up? He's questioning the separation of powers.

And he's questioning whether a judge has a right to be a judge. Clearly, he's teaching again. As I said the other day, he's always teaching. He's always got a Sesame Street thing going, teaching the MAGA people what to think. They all hate this judge now. That's what he wants them to do, the MAGA people. And they're the ones that the senators are afraid of and the Congress people are afraid of, are the MAGA people, because they go to meetings, they cause hell, and they sometimes

agree with Trump, but mostly they do what he wants and they do what he see they see him doing. He trashes the judge like he trashes Zelensky and what do we think of Zelensky on the right in America? They don't like Zelensky. He's the bad guy. The good guy is Putin. The guy he cuddles up to every night in his sleep. He just loves this guy. No matter what he says he says no as Joe says, he said no. And they said, fine, I love it. So we should note a few things that Justice Roberts didn't say. He didn't say Donald Trump's name, which Trump himself made point of last night in that interview

on Fox. And he sort of deflected it because of that. He also didn't talk about sort of the systemic attacks on the judiciary we are getting from the White House and from the chief executive. But, you know, certainly it is very noteworthy that he said this at all that he did stop up against this call for impeachment because that is the underlying theme here is that we have seen that's the the undergoing foundation of this presidency is to expand executive power.

They've already pushed into Congress and the Republican Congress has happily ceded a lot of their power already to the White House, and now they're trying to move Joe into the judiciary. They're trying to push here. We're seeing the attacks on these individual judges. We're seeing these calls for impeachment that requires the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to step in. You know, it's interesting.

They're going up to the line. It's interesting that the president last night in the interview from the clip that we showed, and also you hear other people in the administration, and you hear the judges in the courtroom, the president's judges in the courtroom, saying, we're not going to defy an order. We're not going to defy an order. We're not going to defy an order. But, Mika, they're obviously dancing all around it with facts, changing the facts, arguing everything but what actually happened on those flights or on some of these other issues. But they're still saying, oh, of course, we're not going to defy a court's order. But right now you have some judges who are trying to figure out whether they actually have or not. And to Chris's point, it's not just teaching the MAGA base and members of the media that are Trump-adjacent or however you want to describe them that the judge is bad.

The line that you'll hear is Democrats want gang members to go free, which is the last thing that this is about. Joining us now, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, Jeffrey Rosen. What's at stake here? What's the bottom line? What's at stake is the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. Chief Justice Roberts' statement could not have been more serious. He has twice before rebuked first President Trump and then Senator Chuck Schumer for trying

to call for the politicization of the judiciary. But it's very important that Chief Justice Roberts said, for more than 200 years, there's been a bipartisan tradition that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement with a judicial decision. He was referring to the sole impeachment of a Supreme Court justice of Chief Justice Samuel Chase in 1804, and Chief Justice Chase was acquitted in 1805 because of the principle that you can't impeach judges because you disagree with their rulings. And that acquittal was supported by

Chief Justice John Marshall, who is Chief Justice John Roberts' hero. So this is a very serious and significant statement by the Chief Justice that for more than 200 years there has been a bipartisan agreement that you cannot impeach judges because you disagree with their rulings. This is not just some small spat. What is at stake is the fundamental independence of the judiciary and the nonpartisan legitimacy of the rule of law. Jeffrey, what do you make of the argument we've heard from President Trump, from the Trump administration, but from members of the media that support Donald Trump, that effectively Chief Justice Roberts

made a political statement yesterday when he came out and said this, that he was effectively taking the side of those opposed to Donald Trump's deportation efforts. Do you see politics in this at all? This is the opposite of politics. Chief Justice Roberts said that politics must play no role in attempts to remove judges.

And in fact, in Chief Justice Roberts' end-of-year report, which was issued before the Trump administration, he decried criticism of judges by both Democratic and Republican partisans on the basis of disagreement with their rulings. It is urgently important to recognize that the chief justice is saying, it doesn't matter if you're a Republican, it doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, if you disagree with a judicial decision, you appeal it. And ultimately the Supreme Court has the last word. This is the very, very serious attempt to keep politics out of the judiciary. Well, and Claire, you look at Chief Justice Roberts' actions, the few times that he has

spoken out in the past or visualized or verbalized anything, you see it's bipartisan. And it's when people are trying to drag the Supreme Court into American politics. And we had this statement following what Donald Trump had written on Truth Social. We had what he wrote after Chuck Schumer held a press conference that many judicial observers found to be deeply concerning. We remember when Barack Obama talked about Citizens United with them right there, and the justices started shaking their heads. And even in his rulings with Obamacare, when he had a ruling on Obamacare and

surprised a lot of people by refusing to overturn Obamacare, Chief Justice Roberts, and I think it's really the line that defines where he stands on politics, he said, don't ask us to do here what you can do at the ballot box next fall, not our job. And so he's given it to both sides. Anytime he's seen judicial independence challenged or threatened and has said, we are not Republicans, we are not Democrats, we are judges. Yeah, the difference between Roberts calling out Schumer and calling out Trump, excuse me,

is that Schumer the next day actually walked it back and said, I got carried away and basically said I shouldn't have said what I said. Obviously, we're not going to hear that from Trump. You know, Jeffrey, I'd like to talk to you about the politicization of the judiciary writ large and what impact that's having the bleed over to the federal system. I don't think enough Americans understand the difference between our Article III federal courts and our local courts.

And what we're seeing in Wisconsin right now is a full out partisan political fight for the Supreme Court in Wisconsin with Elon Musk putting hundreds of millions of dollars of his personal money to try to promote the right wing Republican judge that is trying to take a seat on the Supreme Court. Talk about the state courts and what impact that's having on this lack of trust and the politicization of the courts, because I think people don't realize the bright line and the differences between our federal judiciary, which ultimately has responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, and these local races that have become so political under the Trump era.

You're so right that it's important to understand the difference. Of course, federal judges are appointed for life. Many state court judges are elected, and therefore there's a great danger of politicization in state courts. But this is why Chief Justice Marshall thought that there was an existential threat to the judiciary if you could impeach judges because you disagree with your decisions. If you do that, then judges become political actors, and they can be literally voted out of office.

And that's why the Senate's decision to acquit Chief Justice Chase established the independence of the judiciary for the next 200 years. It's really striking that President Trump said in his attack on Judge Boasberg, no one elected him. He didn't win any electoral votes. Of course, that's the very point of the judiciary, is that they're not elected, but they can decide without fear or favor based on the rule of law. So once you have politicians attacking judges and saying they can be removed because you

don't agree with their decisions, then state court judges will become even more politicized. The federal courts will become politicized. And the one thing standing between us and total partisanship, which is the rule of law, will be under threat. President and CEO of the National Constitution Center Jeffrey Rosen Jeffrey thanks so much always good to have you on the show. Chris tomorrow marks 2 months of this administration so much has happened in just those 2

months. Curious in total what you think about what we've seen so far there was the courts are pushing back we saw yesterday that USA ID will be reinstated. The trends in the military has been reversed by a court yesterday. You go down the list, the courts are pushing back, but broadly, obviously, this administration has taken a slash and burn approach to the government firing employees.

We saw, you mentioned this Olensky meeting, this new approach to Russia and Ukraine on foreign policy. What do you make of everything we've seen? Just take the Republican Party, not even everybody. Just the Republican Party. Back in 52, Eisenhower gave up his role as supreme commander of NATO so he could run for the Republican nomination and keep Robert Taft from becoming the nominee. First of all, Taft would have lost perhaps to Adlai Stevenson, but he was definitely

an America first, or he was a total isolationist. He said, no, the Republican Party is the international party. We're going to fight the communists. And he won. And so that has held. Both parties have agreed with this. Ever since 52, they've all believed in NATO. And now this guy comes along, not only does he not believe in NATO, he doesn't believe

in containment. He's welcoming Russia to take over. He's welcoming them to grab a big piece of Ukraine. God knows what's next. And the problem he has with this guy is nothing's compared to Hitler. Nobody compares anybody to Hitler. But the fact is, Putin is not accepting it. On the phone yesterday, I will not stop being an aggressor.

I am the aggressor. Got it? I'm the one gobbling up a little country an aggressor. I am the aggressor. Got it? I'm the one gobbling up a little country next door. That's what I'm doing. And I got my eyes on Belarus. Oh, by the way, I got eyes on the Baltic states and maybe Poland. I got my eyes on that. So why would I stop here? I'm not stopping here. Hitler didn't stop here. He grabbed after he got this at Aitinland, he gobbled up Prague. He took all of Czechoslovakia. He didn't wait a minute, really.

And so this guy doesn't want a minute. He doesn't want to stop. He's Putin. And the only person in the world who doesn't know he's Putin is the president. And it's unbelievable how dumb he seems. And I don't think he's dumb. I don't think Trump is dumb. And the idea that he is stupid about Putin, and it looks like it's going to go on, and

this war is going to go on, and the destruction is going to go on of Ukraine, and it's frightening to see an American leader so misdirected. Well, it's something about Vladimir Putin that misdirects American leaders, as we've said time and time again. You had George W. Bush in 2004 saying he looked into the eyes of Putin and read his soul. Three years later Putin declares war on the West at the Munich Security Conference. A year later he invades Georgia. The United States does nothing about it. So how does Putin respond to that? He hears Barack Obama in

2012, Telmed Vedyav, the figurehead leader of the country at the time. Hey, let's wait till after the election and then we can get a lot more done. Two years later, Putin goes, OK, I'll get a lot more done. He invades Ukraine. He invades Crimea. He shoots down commercial aircraft time and time again. The United States, you know, he signs a deal in 2019, a ceasefire in 2019 that he violates time and time again.

This is what Vladimir Putin does to American leaders. That's one reason the Wall Street Journal editorial's other editorial is talking about what you just talked about, Chris Matthews, the phone call. And I just want to read just a quick portion of it. It said President Trump and Vladimir Putin talked on the phone on Tuesday, and neither side is divulging much of the details. But strip away the diplomatic pieties and the main result is that Mr Putin didn't agree to Mr Trump's 30-day ceasefire while Ukraine's Zelensky did. Have we figured out who the real obstacle to peace is yet?

And they go on. And one other thing too, Meek, I just following up on this conversation about Republicans and supporters of President Trump going, oh my God, Chief Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts is getting involved in politics. Now, again, these judges are not elected. They are appointed. But I will tell you where they do elect Supreme Court judges up in Wisconsin. And as Claire said, what is Elon Musk doing? He's pouring $10 million from two super PACs,

maybe a little over $10 million in super PACs into trying to change the outcome of that race. So on one hand, they're saying, oh, judges should not be involved in politics. On the other, Elon Musk pouring 10 million, 11 million, perhaps $11 million to try to change the outcome of a state judicial race. Mm-hmm. All right, Chris Matthews, thank you so much for being on this morning. Always good to see you. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we're going to break down the Trump administration's latest legal filing defending the president's use

of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants. And Richard Haas joins us with the latest in what we've been talking about right now, Vladimir Putin's rejection of President Trump's proposal for a peace deal in Ukraine. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. The N has a noon eastern deadline to answer a federal judge's questions about Saturday's deportation flights. Justice Department lawyers yesterday refused to provide key details about the flights that sent 261 migrants to a prison in El Salvador, many of them without due process. In a court filing yesterday, an acting field office director

within ICE stated that two of the three flights took off before the judge ordered them not to and were in international waters when the ruling came down. He admitted the third flight took off after the order, but claims the people on board were not removed based on President Trump's executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act. The judge has ordered the administration to provide answers today on what time the planes took off, when they left U.S. airspace, when they landed, and where.

Joining us now, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney and an NBC News national security editor David Rode. David, I'll start with you. I'm curious about Justice Roberts' comments and what you make of them. What are they actually saying? He's defending the institution of the courts. And I think, you know, it's very similar. It reminds me of what happened with Attorney General Garland.

Attorney General Garland really respected the system and thought his role was essentially to stay quiet and let his work speak for itself. That failed in terms of Donald Trump. Every day, Trump was out attacking the Justice Department, calling it corrupt. Now you have Donald Trump attacking judges. So Justice Roberts has a fine line to walk here. He's pushed back. It's a very short statement.

And he doesn't want to make too many statements or his words to lose their power. But how do you respond to these false narratives against your institution, the judiciary? And this is something that opponents of Donald Trump face over and over again. So David, let's talk about the hearing we're going to have later today about these deportations to that notorious prison in El Salvador. There have been activists who have come forward, a number of them more yesterday, saying that some people who have been swept up in this or cases of mistaken identity, we even have, I believe, an official suggesting that not all these people have...confirming that not

all these people have been charged with crimes, that they've been pushed out anyway. So talk to us more, we've learned about the people who are, have been deported, but also where this hearing could go. So there's more, we're looking into this now. I think Ken will have more to say on the latest stuff. But the issue is, yes, some of them, the whole point of due process just means you have the facts reviewed in your case. You, a judge decides whether you go to jail or get deported from the country.

And one of the stunning things was that these Justice Department lawyers claimed in court that somehow the information about these planes was a national security risk. That somehow, I guess these gangs have ground-to-air missiles that they're going to shoot down this plane. What are they going to do? What is the national security risk? And so you should present those facts in court. I mean I know people are you know people get frustrated on both sides of the partisan thing but this is the rule of law. This is American

democracy. Three co-equal branches of government. It's slow, it's cumbersome, there's all these appeals but that's good because these powers of the government to deport people, to potentially disappear them, is very serious. And David brings up a great point, Willie, and that is, yeah, it's frustrating to both sides. It was frustrating to the Biden administration when a federal judge in Texas stopped its vaccine mandate. It was frustrating to Barack Obama when a federal judge in Texas stopped its vaccine mandate. It was frustrating to Barack Obama when a federal judge in Texas stopped so many of his orders. One federal judge. It was frustrating to Joe Biden when a federal judge stopped, you

know, uh, you know, everything. I mean, it seems you look and it's one federal judge in a district in Texas that seems to stop so many of these Democratic initiatives and it's very frustrating to Democratic presidents just like it's very frustrating the Republican presidents whether it's George W. Bush or Donald Trump when you when you have judges that may be left of center stopping their initiatives. But it happens and they appeal and that's the way the system works

and that's the way Madisonian democracy works. It's supposed to frustrate those who want to move too quickly. That's what the checks and the balances are about to make sure things are done right. Yeah, and they don't trash the integrity or the credibility of the credibility of the judge and call for their impeachment say they're bad

judges. They appeal and that's the way the system works can want to get you on this story last night, the Trump administration released more than 80,000 pages of documents related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy could be that final trove of files related to the assassination. A person familiar with the process tells NBC News, Justice Department lawyers worked all night to review hundreds of documents before they were released.

However, historians still believe there are about 5,000 documents that have not been made public. So, Ken, it's a lot to go through, I know, and it's just coming out, but did we learn anything new? Hey, good morning, Willie. Well, one of the interesting things that tells you how uncertain everyone is about this is you just said, the White House said they released 80,000 documents. Other news organizations have counted anywhere between 30,000 and 60,000. So nobody even knows how many documents were released.

They are completely uncategorized. And so the scholars who are experts in the documents around the Kennedy assassination have been pouring over these all night. And so far the consensus is that they have not seen any major revelations in here, anything that would change our understanding of the Kennedy assassination. But of course this is going to take weeks and months of pouring over this stuff to determine exactly whether there's anything new in here. There's been some focus about documents around, a lot of the stuff has to do with the CIA because that's the stuff that was held back, things that might betray

sources and methods and operational details. And so of course, Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald, the person, the Warren commission decided was the lone assassin in this situation. He visited Mexico City shortly before the assassination and the CIA surveilled him there. And there's hope that there's going to be more information about exactly what the CIA knew about his activities. The Associated Press flagged one interesting document that does appear to be new, and it said that it was a memo from the CIA's St. Petersburg station.

And it talked, this is about Oswald's visit to Moscow. And it said that a CIA official had developed a source who was a US professor who said that there were five thick volumes of files on Oswald and that he was confident that Oswald was at no time an agent controlled by the KGB. So that appears to debunk another conspiracy theory, which is that Oswald was a Soviet agent. But look, nobody's mind is gonna be changed by these documents initially.

It's gonna take a review by scholars over many months probably to determine what exactly this release is telling us guys. Yeah and what do you expect the missing documents to reveal or you know again we had heard that there was a trove from the FBI that hadn't been released. Now you're saying there may be 5,000 documents that are still missing. Now, you're saying there may be 5,000 documents that are still missing. Where are those documents from and what could be reasonably expected to be contained in those documents that are still missing? Right. So Donald Trump said that this entire release would be unredacted, but what we are seeing

is that there are many thousands of documents that are still redacted. So there's those. Then there's another group of documents that are still held back because of grand jury secrecy or they're under a seal. So that's another category of missing documents. But look, nobody knows what's in those. But it's again, Joe, the vast, vast majority of documents associated with Kennedy assassination have already been released and are already on the website of the

National Archives. This is the last 10% or so. And again, many scholars do not believe that it's going to fundamentally change our understanding of what happened here. So Ken, why after all these years, after 60 plus years, why is there still a need to redact any document 60 plus years later? Why don't we get all these documents unredacted so we can know what happened on really probably the single most impactful event of our of our time? It's a great question, Joe.

It's a question that you're raising and people like Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson are also raising. And look, I don't have a good answer, you know, other than the fact that we all know that the US government is incredibly bureaucratic and overly cautious when it comes to classified information and particularly CIA sources and methods, and particularly names of individuals who work for the CIA, because there is a concern or worked on behalf of the CIA. There is a concern that you could put people in danger even this many years later, or their families or their relatives. But look, I'm with you on this. I mean, it's hard to imagine two generations later that there is really

anything left that's so sensitive that it has to be withheld from the American people, guys. Yeah, I mean, and those people that would be contained, and their chances are good, they died decades ago. And, Mika, of course, this morning, no news that Donald Trump's 2016 claims that Ted Cruz's father had something to do with this American tragedy was in the documents. Yeah, we didn't. I don't think it's redacted. We did not see that.

OK. NBC News. I think we're good knowing where that landed in 2016. NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney and thank you. And NBC News national security editor David Rood. Thank you as well. And coming up on Morning Joe, we're going to dig into yesterday's conversation between President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin as the White House looks to end the war in Ukraine

and word that Zelensky may be in touch with Trump. That's just breaking right now. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Beautiful live picture of the White House at 647 in the morning. President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke on the phone for more than 90 minutes yesterday, with Putin agreeing to a partial ceasefire in Ukraine anyway. Both the White House and Kremlin say Putin has agreed to suspend attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure for 30 days.

But that's far short of a full ceasefire. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky later signaled that he's open to talk about next steps with President Trump while requesting more details and to actually be involved in the discussions. The Kremlin claims it will halt those energy strikes for 30 days, but demands an end to foreign military aid to Ukraine, something President Trump says was not discussed on the call. American and Russian officials will meet in Saudi Arabia this weekend for further negotiations.

Joining us now, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, available on Substack. Richard, good morning. We can also add just moments ago we heard that President Zelensky will have a call himself with President Trump as well today, a day after President Trump was on the phone for 90 minutes with Vladimir Putin. We got a kind of a brief readout of what was on that call. What did you make of what you heard?

Not a lot, in the sense that not a lot of progress, if any, was really made. The difference is the United States seeks peace as an end. Vladimir Putin seeks peace as a means to an end. It's tactical for him. And what's really important is his goals haven't changed. He is not interested in Ukraine surviving as an independent country with close ties to the West, to the European Union, and so forth.

Hence the pressure to cut off assistance and so forth. So again, I think right now we kind of know where Putin is. We know where Zelensky is. He'll support a ceasefire in place. He doesn't want to give up any of his long-term claims. What we don't know is where the Trump administration is. So I think the most interesting negotiation now is not these phone calls. It's what happens between Trump, Witkoff, Rubio, whoever else is in the room.

That's what matters. And Richard, looking at that setup, I mean, if you look at all of his diplomatic efforts so far, he's really whiffing a whole lot of pitches here because we've got a breakout of more war in Israel and Gaza. We have no peace in Ukraine and it doesn't look close. We even have China now rearing its head about the stuff in the Panama Canal. And they can't even bring to closure selling of TikTok. And that's another frankly diplomatic effort.

They're trying to figure out how to move the ownership there. And that is meeting some opposition even from some Republican senators. So what is going on in terms of Marco Rubio and all of these other Trump players that are looking over his shoulder? Does Marco Rubio have any room to really operate here, or is he completely handcuffed to whatever Trump says that day and whatever Witkoff and the other players are doing around the globe? Okay well two separate things. One, this is a difficult administration to be Secretary of State in. You've got special envoys, the State Department is probably

the most weakened bureaucracy over the last 10 or 20 years. Power has shifted to the National Security Council. Rubio did not enter this job say like Jim Baker did with George Bush the father. They didn't have a close personal relationship. He's got a tough situation. But the larger point, Claire, is foreign policy is hard. You have, domestically, a president has more sway in terms of what he can accomplish. Foreign policy is a lot of freedom, a lot of latitude, a lot of discretion, but it's

very hard to translate power into influence. And that's what I think he's finding out vis-à-vis Putin, vis-à-vis Israel. And there, by the way, we have more, you know, let me say one other thing. We have more influence, I think, than President Trump is showing. But he's got to be willing to work through his allies. He wants to influence Putin. The best way to do is to be supportive of Ukraine. If he does that, he can leverage Vladimir Putin.

He's not willing to do that. So let's be clear. This was Putin telling Trump no, that Trump wanted the full ceasefire. Putin said no. The only thing he agreed to was the ending of strikes on energy infrastructure, which is what he wants, because that's proof that Ukraine's really doing some damage to Russia's oil and gas refineries in recent weeks. And Putin's demands, as I wrote today, for a full ceasefire are things that even if the US were

to agree to, European allies would not stop it, completely stopping all intelligence share equipment to the front, telling Ukraine they couldn't move more men to the front, things that were not going to happen. Putin wants this conflict to continue. So now the question is, the only way that's going to change, you just alluded to it, is if Trump actually puts pressure on Putin, if he for the first time is tough on Putin,

but it passes prologue, that seems like a nonstarter. Look, Vladimir Putin has persuaded that time is his friend, that the West and the United States are short of breath in Ukraine. We have to demonstrate to him that that assumption isn't true. Russia can't sustain this war forever. And what we need to show is that we are willing and able to, not because we want to, but the old line, if you want peace, prepare for war. We have got to do that.

And that's where I think the Trump administration is undermining its own policy. They want peace and they're right to want peace. Let me make that clear. And they're also right, I think they got something right, the Biden administration never did. You're never going to get an interim ceasefire based upon Ukraine liberating all Crimea and all of these. That's simply, that's a bridge too far. So the way to get there though is by being supportive of Ukraine and the short, provide them all the arms and intelligence they need and say, these issues like the territorial

dispensation, that's for final status. That's the second step. Let's get a clean ceasefire now, but we are going to continue to support Ukraine both to give them the confidence they need to enter it and to deter Vladimir Putin. And if we can't deter Vladimir Putin, Ukraine has to have the means to defend against him. That needs to be our policy. It's actually not that complicated if President Trump wants to get peace. I actually think the ball is teed up for him.

Right. And you know, Mika, this is—I mean, the past is prologue here. This is so predictable. If you look at Churchill's warnings about FDR trying a charm offensive against Stalin and Churchill saying basically that FDR was selling out Poland to Stalin, that he was selling out Eastern Europe to Stalin, that the charm offensive doesn't work. And you know I've read parts of Ed Luce's upcoming biography about your your father. Time and again you had the State

Department saying we can deal with the Soviets, we can deal with the Soviets. We can deal with them. We're working. We're working on an arms agreement. And your father, time and again, saying they can't be trusted in Afghanistan. They we need to cut off relations. What happened? We didn't. A U.S. ambassador got assassinated. The Russians invaded Afghanistan. Your father said the same thing about another tyrant that was about to go into Tehran. The

State Department was saying, we can deal with Ayatollah Khomeini. He will be a Gandhi-like figure in Iran. Your father said, no, we can't. There will be a bloodbath if he gets in power. So time again, you stand up to tyrants or as your father told President Carter, there will be a bloodbath if you don't listen to me. And time and again, they didn't listen to your father. Time and again. The worst happened in Afghanistan. The worst happened in Tehran. And yes, the worst continued to happen in the Soviet Union because he understood the only way to deal with Russians was by being tough.

That's why Ronald Reagan kept calling him into the White House during the 1980s and why Ronald Reagan on several occasions actually floated the idea of your father working as his national security advisor because both understood one thing when you're dealing with Russia you don't get peace through personal relationships you get peace through strength that was the case in the 20th century. It has remained the case in the 21st century, and we are headed to a bloodbath that will sweep across Central and Eastern Europe if we don't stand up to Russia's aggression now and negotiate for

a tough but lasting peace. President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, thank you very much for your insights this morning.