Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/20/24

Episode Date: March 20, 2024

Trump-backed Bernie Moreno wins Ohio’s Republican Senate primary

Trump is bringing back all the worst best people. You remember Paul Manafort, his former campaign manager? He was convicted of multiple felonies. He's the guy who gave polling data to Russian intelligence and then got pardoned by Trump. Well, Trump reportedly wants Manafort to help oversee the Republican National Convention, which I'm surprised he could do because, you know, when Manafort was being sentenced, he claimed he had too many medical problems to go to prison. But I guess he magically healed up. And who better to run

your election campaign than a man who isn't allowed to vote in that election? And good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, March 20th. We have a lot to get to this morning, including Donald Trump's legal team taking the absolute immunity claim to the Supreme Court. It comes as the former president could be days away from losing his assets in New York because he can't pay the bond for the civil fraud judgment against him. Where's he going to get the money? Meanwhile, a senior advisor in the Trump White House is waking up in prison this morning behind bars. We'll dig into all of that. We'll have an expert. We'll have expert legal analysis for you on all the Trump legal dealings with us. We have the host of way too early White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, former White House

director of communications under President Obama, Jennifer Palmieri. She is co-host of the MSNBC podcast with Claire on how to win 2024 and deputy managing editor for politics at Politico. Sam Stein is with us this morning. And we begin with last night's primary results and the closely watched Republican Senate race in Ohio. So NBC News projects Trump backed Bernie Moreno has won the GOP primary in the Buckeye State. Moreno beat out two other candidates by a considerable margin. State Senator Matt Dolan, who was endorsed by Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose. Moreno is a former car dealer and blockchain entrepreneur. He was endorsed by Donald Trump back in December. His win reflects Trump's ability to influence the outcome of contested

Republican primaries. Moreno will now face incumbent Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown in November. Jen Palmieri, I know possibly some Democrats think this is a good outcome. I'm always I'm always leery of gaming things out. But in a way, this is it never works when it matters. But I'm wondering, though, this is a good race for Sherrod Brown to run. Yeah. And the Brown team has been preparing for this. They you know, they were out with a video defining him last night. Like this is Bernie Moreno. This is who he is. This is where he is on on on on women's rights and abortion rights. And it's a difficult you know, Ohio is a really it's a really tough race. Biden lost their Clinton loss there.

It has been Obama was the last Democrat to win that state in a presidential race. But Sherrod Brown manages to hang on. And it's a very organic Ohioans are used to winning to voting for Sherrod Brown. You know, Tim Ryan ran a great race in the Senate two years ago and he ended up losing. But Tim Ryan had never run statewide before. And there's just there's a connection that Sherrod Brown has. I mean, he is the working class voter. Right. He has a connection to Ohio voters. He's like incredible on things like constituent services. People are used to voting for him.

And I feel like if anybody's got the chance to hang on in a state like Ohio, it's Sherrod. And, you know, Republicans there, the Republicans that do well, Mike DeWine, a kind of mainstream Republican, not really a Trump Republican. It is, you know, it's like kind of the Midwestern Republican Party establishment, a Republican Party that does well there. So, Sherrod, you know, we feel like Sherrod's got a great chance. Yeah, to the point, it's certainly mainstream Republican Party, except they also just voted for J.D. Vance as senator there in Ohio. Sam, let's talk about this race. And we should note that Senator Sherrod Brown will join us on Morning Joe a little later this morning to talk about the campaign to come. You know, this is a real pickup opportunity for Republicans. They believe the Senate is so tight and Democrats

have all but conceded that West Virginia is going to flip. It'll go red. And therefore, the Republicans only need to get one or two more. One of two, really. It's either Ohio with Sherrod Brown or perhaps Montana going after Senator John Tester. What's your read on this race on not just the Brown versus Moreno matchup, but also how this candidate shows again this is Donald Trump's party? Yeah, I mean, people really need to understand because Joe Manchin has retired in West Virginia, that seat is all but certainly gone for Democrats, which means it's basically a 50-50 Senate. And in that case, all Republicans have to do is flip one seat. And Democrats really don't have a viable pickup opportunity, as in an opportunity to flip a Republican-held seat. So to your point, Jonathan, main opportunities for Republicans right now, Ohio and Montana. But there are others. It's a tough road for Democrats to cycle, an extremely difficult map.

With respect to Ohio, yeah, I mean, if there's ever a candidate that will defy the trends of the state, and it's trending very red. It's hard to imagine, but it was the quintessential battleground state not so long ago. Now that's not the case. But it would be Sherrod Brown. Obviously, he's got roots in the state. He's won before. But those were relatively easier cycles. 2006 was a Democratic wave. 2012, he was with Obama on the top of the ballot. 2018 was backlash to Trump. This is a very different cycle for him. So it's going to be tough. I will say, you know, when you talk to Democratic operatives in D.C., you know, they feel like, you know, if anyone's going to defy it, it's Sherrod Brown. Bernie Marino was the candidate that they wanted. And they point to the fact that

Trump has a great record of picking candidates in primaries, but those candidates do not have a great record of going on to win in general elections. The last cycle is proof of this. Blake Masters, Hershel Walker, Dr. Oz, all candidates for Senate that Trump got behind, all of whom lost winnable races. That was a different cycle, but it was supposed to be a Republican cycle. This one will be tricky for Sherrod. Yes, we'll be watching this. So in a new interview with former Brexit party leader Nigel Farage, former President Trump said the United States will remain committed to NATO under his leadership as long as European countries pay up. If they start to pay their bills properly and the club is fair are places like Poland defended will America be

there yeah but you know the United States should pay its fair share not everybody else's fair share no fair enough I believe the United States was paying 90% of NATO the cost of that it could be a hundred percent yeah it was the most unfair thing and don't forget it's more important to them than it is to us we have an ocean in between some problems. OK, we have a nice, big, beautiful ocean and it's more important for them. They were taking advantage and they did. They took advantage of us on trade and they took advantage on. So if they play fair, if they start to play fair, America's there. Yes, 100 percent. 100 percent. Thank you.

OK, let's talk about that nice, big, beautiful ocean. Joining us now, former Supreme Allied commander of NATO, retired four star Navy Admiral James Tavridis. He's chief international analyst for NBC News and Admiral. I suppose Trump getting to 100 percent committal to NATO at the end there is a positive development. But there's always the couching it. It's always about the money. What's your reaction and especially the analysis that seems rather rather what's the word simple? Yeah. Hey, there's nothing an admiral likes better than talking about a big, beautiful ocean. Exactly. Let's let's talk about a big, beautiful chunk of money, which would be what the Europeans spend on defense. You know, if you listen to Donald Trump, the other 100 percent he threw

out there was, you know, NATO is funded 90 percent, maybe 100 percent by the United States. That's just ridiculous. Can we just do the numbers for a minute, the actual numbers? The United States defense budget is $850 billion. And that's because we have global responsibilities that we take on ourselves. The Chinese budget, to put that in context, is like $250 billion. And the Russian defense budget is about $90 billion. So the question is, what are those, quote, freeloading Europeans, unquote, pay? They pay three hundred and eighty billion dollars for defense, Mika. Your dad would have known this. Well, the second largest defense budget in the world is by far is that of Europe collectively when you add it all up. Now, second point, the Europeans

have stood and delivered and fought alongside us. I commanded 50,000 European troops in Afghanistan. They were never attacked from Afghanistan. We were. So Article 5 of the treaty was enacted and the Europeans came with us. And I signed hundreds and hundreds of letters of condolence as Supreme Allied Commander to European families of their servicemen and women who fell in Afghanistan with us. And third and finally, let's take on this 2% idea. Here, Donald Trump is correct that the Europeans, not all of them, spend 2% of their GDP on defense. They need to get to that target. About two-thirds of them have done so. And the pressure being put on them to conclude is actually not from Donald Trump. The reason European defense spending is rising is because of the greatest NATO salesman in the history of

the treaty. And his name is Vladimir Putin. Yeah. So, Admiral, just, you know, Trump's base, his followers, they will hear the false sort of logic that he puts together and say, yeah, yeah, that makes sense. They need to pay, of course, because we protect them. Could you talk a little bit? And I'll say where this is coming from. I've been watching this Turning Point documentary and it's a reminder, you mentioned my dad, of just what it took to put NATO together, why NATO, the alliance was created, why it's almost vital to the world's security and how easily these alliances can fall apart. Can you talk a little bit about that and how what Trump is doing almost looks like

history on repeat? It extraordinarily does. And if we can go back to that big, beautiful ocean for a second, in the 1930s, the United States believed that those big, beautiful oceans to the left and the right, the Pacific and the Atlantic, would keep us safe. How did that work out? Not very well when the Nazis swept across Europe and the imperial Japanese empire swept across Asia. Eventually, the world reaches out and finds you. And isolationism is not the answer in these circumstances. It's a danger. And so I really worry, Mika, that we're on a history repeat 1939 kind of moment here instead of the Nazis invading Poland. It's Vladimir Putin invading Ukraine, and he won't stop there. I've met

Putin. I know his mettle. He will continue until he is stopped. And final thought, NATO is crucial to all of that. We would be epically foolish geopolitically to withdraw from the NATO alliance. I think it was my brother who was on last week who said in Poland, and he's there every day, it's 1939 all over again. And staying on the of his history repeating itself or slowly seeping into our psyche and our society. Donald Trump is standing by his claim that all Jewish Americans who vote for Democrats hate their religion and hate Israel. Speaking to reporters while casting a Florida primary ballot for himself yesterday, the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee followed up on his comments from Monday. Here are his initial remarks,

followed by what he said yesterday. Why do the Democrats hate Bibi Netanyahu? I actually think they hate Israel. Yes, I don't think they hate it. I think they hate Israel. When you see those Palestinian marches, even I am amazed at how many people are in those marches. And guys like Schumer see that, and to him it's votes. I think it's votes more than anything else because he was always pro-Israel. He's very anti-Israel now. Any Jewish person that votes for Democrats hates their religion. They hate everything about Israel and they should be ashamed of themselves.

I think that the Democrats have been very, very opposed to Jewish people. That's true. And to Israel, all you have to do is look at Senator Schumer. What he did with Israel is a disgrace. And I think Israel will probably not forget it very soon. It's a very sad situation. On Capitol Hill yesterday, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer condemned Trump's comments. And we also heard reaction from a number of Senate Republicans. The former president's comments were utterly disgusting and a textbook example of the kind of anti-Semitism facing Jews, pushing the dangerous anti-Semitism trope of dual loyalty. To say you hate Israel or your religion because you have one political view over the other is sick. It's hateful. It is unadulterated anti-Semitism.

That's hateful. It is unadulterated anti-Semitism. That's highly offensive. We do not in this country attack people based upon their religious beliefs or their political views. It's a terrible mistake on his part for which he really ought to apologize, but won't. President Trump chooses words that I don't always choose, but he's not wrong about, I think, Democrat leaders failing the Israeli state. I haven't seen that. I don't know the context. I think that's a sort of broad sweeping generalization, which would be hard to justify. I don't know why any Jewish person would support Democrats. The Biden administration is not holding Hamas accountable. I guess I'd prefer to keep people's religious faith out of these discussions. But

like I said, these guys are going to litigate the campaign the way that they're going to do it. My expectation is going to be very spirited. All right. Disgusting, hateful, offensive, deeply disturbing. Listen, it's time and it's not hyperbole, it's not exaggeration, but I would say that it's time to start looking at Donald Trump for the danger that he is and looking at the history from 1939 to the present of how it happens. Jonathan Lemire, if you read books on fascism and dictatorships and how it happens, there are through lines that are happening here in America. And the choice is very real. And for people who like democracy, this is a frightening moment. Yeah, there are some dark, ominous parallels here that the language that Trump uses and is then parroted by his supporters. It is, as Senator Schumer said, deeply offensive. You can support the state of Israel and yet have disagreements with it.

You can support the state of Israel and be a Democrat. You don't have to be a Republican. And Sam Stein, it's sort of the usual collection of responses from Trump's fellow members of the GOP. Someone like Senator Mitt Romney forcefully condemns it, as he always does. Good for him. A few others have been pretty good on stuff like this. Senator Cassidy is willing to break with him from time to time. But others do the routine of, oh, I haven't seen it. Oh, I can't comment on it. And others just simply back him up and agree with what is deeply offensive, not just for Jewish people, but for anyone who loves democracy. Yeah, I think the word you used,

routine, is the appropriate one here, because there is something routine about this. It's not just the responses that lawmakers on the Hill made, which we've all become very familiar with, those who haven't had the time to see the tweet or witness the statement, and those who do, but are more often than not leaving Congress because they don't like the politics of it. But also the routine of the comments themselves. I mean, this is not the first time that Trump has used this trope. He's talked about dual loyalty before.

He's used the phrase dual loyalty before. He's questioned how Jewish Americans can vote Democratic. He's questioned how any Jewish American could be critical of the Netanyahu government. So this is not something that's new. And I think part of what Mika was getting at, although I don't want to speak for her, but part of what's alarming for some folks is that there's a familiarity with it and that we've grown almost accustomed to it. And that it becomes a routine, as you pointed out, Jonathan, and then we don't get bothered by it. And I think that's what is the worry for some folks who say, look, this comment is well beyond the pale, is anti-Semitic in nature and should be condemned. Admiral, you and Mika were discussing sort of the parallels to 1930s Europe and America.

And what strikes me is that that time in America, this country was led by Franklin Roosevelt. And we are facing the prospect of instead, rather than that, you know, we had not, you know, there were difficult, there were certainly forces within the United States that were isolationists and somewhat sympathetic to, to, there's some, somewhat, somewhat isolationists, let's say. But we didn't have things like January 6th happening here, right? We didn't have, we weren't facing the prospect of a leader that had aligned himself with Hitler as Trump has aligned himself

with Putin. So process that for us, that in the U.S., what has taken hold in the United States, what it can mean in the United States, what it can mean for a Trump presidency when you look at the parallels between now and Europe in the 30s? Jen, I, when asked, as I often am, what are the implications of a Trump presidency in my wheelhouse? I'll let the domestic politics to the excellent Morning Joe

team. But internationally, I get the question constantly from all around the world. And I think the two dangers, you put your finger on one, is isolationism. It would not serve this nation well over time. And I think the 1930s are instructive. We tried that. We pulled back to the United States. We rejected the League of Nations, the predecessor to the UN. We erected massive trade barriers, tariffs, holly smooth tariffs. How'd that work out? Well, we cracked the global economy. We were attacked at Pearl Harbor. And Nazi Germany, by the way, declared war on us. So history will find us. Isolationism doesn't work. And the other thing I worry about a lot, and you're seeing it here, is the unpredictability, the erratic behavior that bleeds into foreign policy. The world wants stability and guidance and a central set of thoughts from the United

States of America. And it's hard to see that from Donald Trump, going back to what we just talked about, because his comments are not only erratic, they're incendiary and they're divisive, incredibly divisive. And last thought, think how all of this is received in Moscow, in Beijing, in Tehran, in Caracas, in Pyongyang, North Korea. They are thrilled when they see us divided and arguing and driving stakes between different segments of our population. Those are the big three dangers here.

It's the erratic, it's the isolationism, and it's the division of our society. All of those things are causing people to do high fives in the nations that oppose us and hate us. A very heavy conversation to have about the big three dangers and the threat from within first thing in the morning. But we need to have it. We need to face it. We need to notice this every day and not be numbed by it because this is the risks are high here and they're right in front of us. Retired four-star Navy Admiral James Tavridis, thank you very much. The Admiral's new book entitled 2054, a novel, is available now. And still ahead on Morning Joe, the latest on Donald Trump's immunity fight as his lawyers

issue a new plea to the Supreme Court. Plus, Fox News explains why wealthy Republicans aren't helping the former president post bond in his New York fraud trial. Where are his friends? You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 60 seconds. Trump's lawyer said that he's asked 30 different insurance companies to help him cover the four hundred sixty464 million, but they all said no. And check out how they did it. For instance, when Trump asked Nationwide for help, they said, Hell no, dude, you're on your own. I mean, come on.

When Trump asked Liberty for help, they said, Bankruptcy, bankruptcy, bankruptcy, bankruptcy. And finally, finally, Trump asked farmers and they said we are suckers. No. See, but my that's funny, but my instinct is someone someone will be. Donald Trump is running out of time to secure an appeal bond for his civil fraud case. The former president has until Monday to come up with the cash for the four hundred and sixty four million dollar judgment with interest. If he doesn't, New York Attorney General Letitia James could start seizing his assets. His lawyers on Monday asked an appeals court to stop the collection proceedings

because they have not found a bond company that is willing to back Trump. According to his lawyers, the former president would actually need to put up nearly $557 million worth of collateral. As the New York Times points out, most of Trump's wealth is tied to his real estate assets, which bond companies will not accept as collateral. Yesterday, senior Fox Business correspondent Charlie Gasparino explained why Trump's billionaire friends have yet to help him out. What is behind their reluctance? It's as of now. So let's see. Are they afraid that they might not see it anytime soon?

The money, if he even succeeds on appeal, what's what? Yeah, I mean, that's that's one thing. I mean, I think I don't want to you know, I don't want to speak for Bernie Marcus. That's for sure. But but just generally, Donald hasn't doesn't have a great record of paying back banks over the years and Donald Trump. So you you know, you can sort of surmise from that what you what you will. Joining us now, I'm a CNBC legal analyst, Danny Savalos, also with us, NBC News legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissman.

He is co-author of the new book on the Trump indictments. Question for you both. Andrew, I'll start with you. I would think a judgment in a civil trial would finding the defendant liable means the consequences that he has to pay with his own money. That's pay the consequence.

Are there rules around who pays these judgments or can anyone jump in and bail them out? And inevitably, is Trump going to get that? You know, some political supporter perhaps could help him. So anybody can jump in to answer your question. There's no restriction on getting a friend. It can be an American. It can be somebody overseas there. Anybody can can come in. It can be somebody overseas. Anybody can come in.

But so far, that hasn't happened. I think one thing that we have learned is Donald Trump simply, in spite of what he has been telling the public, does not have the money. His story is that he does not have liquid assets. He doesn't have cash to put up to satisfy the bond. And the bond, by the way, is typical. That's a standard thing. And his claim that, well, he can't do that because all of his real assets are in real estate, which is illiquid, that doesn't really make any sense. If he really had real estate with equity in it, he would do what many, many homeowners do, which is get a mortgage. And he can use that money to put up the bond. So he also clearly does not have equity in either cash or in the real estate to put up the amount of money. So I think on Monday, absent the court

lowering the amount or somehow staying the bond requirement, we're going to be seeing Tish James seizing assets. And she will find out everything. But here's the thing. Yeah, here's the thing on seizing assets. Andrew's exactly right. But the challenge here is actually what that looks like. And this is why ordinarily plaintiffs, attorneys and private firms aren't really big fans of being

able to seize assets after a judgment like this. They'd much rather go after a company or an individual who's covered by an insurance policy that usually has liquid available to pay a judgment. Most plaintiffsiffs attorneys are not that interested in the trouble of seizing assets. It's not fun. It's not easy. I imagine Donald Trump has protected himself with layers and layers of protection that we haven't even seen yet that Tish James may not even know about. So it's not going to be an easy process. It won't be as simple as just freezing assets or walking in with a giant padlock in front of one of the Trump buildings and getting that money within a week. It's going to take some time.

Most plaintiffs attorneys are not really that interested in executing judgment. But if you're Tish James and you're a government agency, then those are the kinds of things you're not too worried about. Andrew, what are the chances, though, he doesn't have someone come up with the money for him and get away with this and everything else he seems to be getting away with? Seems to be. I know the legal process moves slowly and they don't listen to people like us. But Jared Kushner walked away from Saudi Arabia with two billion dollars. He's buying land in Eastern European countries and building. I mean, there's just, I think, a slight chance he has access to the money.

Well, that is everyone's national security concern, is that there will be somebody just hypothetically like an Elon Musk here in the United States or sort of maybe equally or more scary way, somebody like an MBS or a Russian oligarch who's going to think this is a very good investment, because if he becomes president, there will be four hundred and sixty four million reasons why Donald Trump will favor that person in terms of his policies. So I agree with you. I think that his best strategy is best exit strategy so that there isn't the seizure of assets and also the disclosure of just how fragile his empire is. To keep that all under wraps, his best strategy is to find that third party, even if it is a foreigner who will loan him the money. OK, we need to continue this conversation because I

want to understand more about how that's possible. Also, Trump adviser Peter Navarro is in prison as of now. He went to prison yesterday. And also why Donald Trump is telling the Supreme Court he's basically immune to everything. And he just might be. We'll be right back. I am the first senior White House advisor in the history of our republic that has ever been charged with this alleged crime. And I say alleged because for hundreds of years, this has not been a crime. Executive privilege goes back to George Washington and his remarks to the Congress regarding the Jay Treaty. And he said very simply and clearly, succinctly, elegantly,

that to write to the Congress, he said, I cannot command you as members of Congress to come to me. You cannot command me to come to you. And the reason is the Congress is separation of powers. All right, and he will be reporting to that prison 2 p.m. Eastern time there in Miami to serve his four-month prison sentence. He began by saying, not about me. He said this is about a crippling blow to the justice system. To fact-check there, it is no longer an alleged crime that he'll be serving this four-month sentence for. by saying not about me. He said this is about a crippling blow to the justice system. To fact check there,

it is no longer an alleged crime that he'll be serving this four month sentence for. He has obviously been convicted and there was no evidence that did that would have excluded him per executive privilege from testifying. So John Roberts just on Monday refused to delay his prison time.

He continues to appeal his conviction, Peter Navarro, for refusing to testify before Congress for his involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Fox News anchor Sandra Smith interrupting former Trump adviser Peter Navarro's press conference with a fact check. Navarro turned himself into federal prison yesterday to start his four month sentence after being found guilty of Manafort goes to jail. January 6th, rioters and insurrections inspired by Donald Trump. They go to jail for years. And yet there doesn't seem to be consequences heading Trump's way. And I want to bring up the documents case and how that's going. And wow, the decision making and the lack of organization on the part of the judge there appointed by Trump, just saying it just seems like the only place where Donald Trump will face consequences. Maybe Andrew Weissman, you can correct me if I'm wrong, would be in these civil cases.

Well, I agree with you. Certainly in the civil cases, we're seeing real bite in terms of what's been happening in various New York cases with, as we've discussed, over a half a billion dollars in penalties. There is a criminal case that is in all likelihood going to start next month in Manhattan that the DA here, Alvin Bragg, has brought. But you are certainly right that we are seeing signs of the criminal justice system not adhering to normal rules and the rule of law, whether we're talking about the Florida case with Judge Cannon, which doesn't have any sign of that it's going to go to trial before the general election, or Donald Trump being helped by the Supreme Court's, let's just say, lackadaisical scheduling of the immunity argument that isn't going to even be heard by the court until the third week in April. So there certainly are extensive delays going on in his other

criminal cases, which is unlike what happens to any other defendant who doesn't have sort of the wealth and power of a Donald Trump. And Andrew mentioned the Supreme Court for President Trump is asking the U.S. Supreme Court that denying him broad immunity would, quote, incapacitate every future president and leave them open to things like blackmail and extortion. Trump's lawyers also argue that as a former president, Trump should have absolute immunity for any official acts that he took while in office because, they write, the president cannot function and the presidency itself cannot retain its vital independence if the president faces criminal prosecution for official acts once he leaves office. The filing lays the groundwork for the legal arguments that Trump's

attorneys plan to make ahead of oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court scheduled for April 25th. So far, Trump has lost his presidential immunity argument in two different lower courts. So, Danny, we see what the Trump legal team is trying to do here. They've got their eye on those Supreme Court oral arguments about a month out. He's lost twice before. What do you think happens before the highest court in the land? The arguments are no surprise. We've seen them for months now from both sides. And the argument is actually pretty straightforward from the Trump team. It's number one, that a president is absolutely immune even after he's out of office for official acts that he undertook while he was in office. And they go beyond, they say anything that's if you're defining official acts, anything within the outer perimeter counts as an official act for purposes

of immunity. But then they're continuing with what I call the impeachment judgment clause immunity argument, which is this. You may remember the idea that only a president who is impeached and then convicted may thereafter be prosecuted. And there's some internal inconsistencies here because on the one hand, they say president absolutely immune for official acts. Well, the impeachment judgment clause says in so many words that a president impeached, there are situations where he may be convicted or charged criminally thereafter. And this has been pointed out in the courts that there's an internal inconsistency in their argument. How can you say a president is always immune, but then sometimes he can be prosecuted after he's impeached? To take just a simple example, I always go back to Vincent Bugliosi,

a famous prosecutor, wrote an entire book about wanting to prosecute George W. Bush for murder for waging war. And waging war is something that presidents are involved in. And obviously, I don't think a lot of people would think, well, that's a pretty official act. I don't know about prosecuting a former president for acts of war. America's been in wars, unfortunately. But in a situation like this, let me give you an example of the official acts that Trump's team is citing. Tweets and statements that the 2020 federal election was tainted by fraud. Communicating, communicating with DOJ officials about investigating fraud and just talking about whether to appoint a new acting attorney general.

We remember all that. Does anybody doubt that any of those actions were anything other than self-motivated? Did any of those actions feel like anything that was presidential? Would you put that on the same level as an act of war or deciding to send troops to a hot zone? That's the point here. The problem is these facts for Trump are bad, but there really is an issue about immunity. I almost think this whole impeachment judgment clause argument is now kind of a burden for the Trump team because it's just internally inconsistent. All right. I'm sorry, Mika, I didn't jump in, but I had a question for Andrew. I mean, the sort of backstory of all this and what's kind of overshadowing it all is that, you know, Trump was always going to throw sand in the gears.

He was going to try to delay this past the election. And I think this, combined with the appointment of Robert Hura, special counsel in the Biden documents case, has really sparked a reassessment among a lot of Democrats about Merrick Garland and the decisions he's made at DOJ. And I'm wondering if you've had a similar reassessment, if you think Merrick Garland moved too slowly or was maybe even too naive about the politics of this. Great question. So I do think that there are two ways in which I have criticized and I continue to criticize Merrick Garland, not because I think he's a bad person or ill-intentioned or, you know, in the uptake. And one of the reasons we're having this watching the clock and we're in this sort of time crunch is because of, I think,

a certain amount of sloth in the way the department began its investigation. I don't think that that can be said with respect to Jack Smith. I think he has dealt the hand he was dealt and has gone very quickly. The other, with respect to the appointment of Rob Herr, I do think that that bought into this idea that you have to appoint a Republican to investigate a Democrat, and you also need to appoint a Republican to investigate a Republican. And I think that buys into this idea that prosecutors and judges and jurors and witnesses can't act out of principle. And I don't think there's anyone who would say that Rob Herr was the best person for

the job. And that should really be the criteria, not the political party of the person. Yes, you'll take a short term hit because people will say, you know, you appointed a Democrat to do this. But, you know, I think you have to sort of that's what you're why you're paid the big bucks is to sort of stand by the principle that that shouldn't matter. People, regardless of party, can do the right thing. Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissman and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalas. Thank you both. I am sure we will see you both again very soon and still ahead on Morning Joe. The CDC is now urging vaccination amid rise in measles cases around the world. We'll check in with a leading health expert about

what precautions to take ahead of a busy spring break travel season. Plus, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio will be our guest as he is now set to face off against Trump-backed Republican challenger Bernie Moreno in what is expected to be one of the nation's most competitive races this fall. Also ahead, we'll talk to Oversight Committee member Democratic Congressman Daniel Goldman about what to expect from today's Republican led impeachment inquiry into President Biden. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Welcome back in the San Francisco Bay Area. Health officials are warning about a possible measles exposure at a restaurant over the weekend. The warning comes just days after the CDC issued an alert over the growing number of cases in the U.S. This year, 58 cases have been reported

nationwide. That's the same number of cases reported for all of 2023. And that number is expected to rise as families travel for spring break. And joining us now, NBC News medical contributor Dr. Vin Gupta. A couple of things to talk to you about this morning, doctor. But first, what do you make of this uptick? Well, Mika, good morning. This uptick is not surprising. When we talked about it a few weeks ago, we expected at the time that this number was going to increase it's going to continue to

increase because there is now a growing number of parents that are not have decided not to vaccinate their children and there's these spots but luckily for the country there is widespread immunity against measles because most of society has been vaccinated. So a chance of a major outbreak is unlikely. But the fact that we were even talking about this and that this number continues to climb, already exceeding in about three months, 2023 numbers, is worrisome. And just to counter this notion that parents should make their own decision about whether they should get their child vaccinated, we're really talking about pediatric cases here because kids are really at the highest risk if they're unvaccinated from this virus. What's really worrisome, Mika, is one in five unvaccinated kids who contract measles

end up in the hospital. So to any public health official who's saying and making this voluntary like the Surgeon General in Florida, that is a number that needs to worry us. 20 percent of people can end up in the hospital. So is obvious, are we making a connection to politics here or less people getting, bottom line, less people getting the vaccines they need? Yes. And we're not just seeing this when it comes to measles. We're seeing this with flu. We're seeing this, of course, with any number of respiratory viral vaccines here. This is a problem here. It's going to get worse over time. But again, with measles, the high hospitalization rate, if you're unvaccinated, unprotected, Mika, if we can share them. For those that don't need a vaccine, if you were born before 1957, you're likely protected. If you already know you got two shots, you're protected. Prior measles, you're protected. That's important to know, whether or not you've had that two shot or whether or not you have protection antibodies in your

blood. For those that have only received one shot of the vaccine, talk to your medical provider. If you're unvaccinated and pregnant, critical to talk to your medical provider. And especially important, if you're traveling for spring break and you have a child and they're two and they've gotten one shot, it's okay to get that second shot earlier. Normally that happens at age four. Okay to get a little earlier, Mika. So I want to ask you, doctor, about Ozempic and other weight loss drugs. There is a study from Johns Hopkins that points to shortages for those who need it because these drugs are not specifically for weight loss, but they're being used for them. Can you give me a sense of what is happening?

This study was 1,800 people. Are these shortages real? And what is the drug? What are these drugs used for, for their primary use? Absolutely, Mika. This is really important. And the other leading health story, really, that we're talking about across the country, these medications, they're called GLPs for short. They can treat, effectively, they can treat type 2 diabetes. What we're seeing here is that the major indication here is if you have type 2 diabetes, or in some cases, if you are overweight, have a BMI greater than 30. So now we have these medications like Zepbound that are on the market that can, that are actually the indication is weight loss. The problem here that you're highlighting, Mika, is that the list price here is a thousand dollars a month, 10 times of what we're seeing in other countries that have these exact same medications. It's just being

marked up here in the United States. It's unfortunate, but that's what's happening. That is causing people like in this study in Johns Hopkins, that looked at people that would qualify for these medications. Only about 2% of them were actually getting affordable access to these meds. So here we are talking, the pharmaceutical companies are releasing press release after press release talking about how amazing these drugs are for so many people. We're talking about maybe 100 million people in America, across the country, could benefit from these meds. And yet a very, very small percentage of people actually have durable, affordable access to them. That is the problem. And it's because the list price is so darn high. Insurance companies are saying we're not going to

cover it. So the price is a big issue. Just one last question about this, though, because is it a balance here? Because the obesity crisis is so severe. It's an epidemic and it, too, is a serious health problem. So does something more uniform on the grand scale need to happen with the price of these drugs and their availability? Absolutely. A critical question. The Inflation Reduction Act is going to allow potentially Congress to talk about negotiated drug pricing. It's not going to happen until about 2027, towards the end of the decade. So there's a few years there. Mika, critically, we're going to have oral versions of these drugs. That's going to lower the price point as well. So to your point, is there a balance? Yes. If the entire country that is otherwise has diabetes or if folks that are overweight start on these medications at the current list price, it's going to cost a trillion dollars a year. Not sustainable, but there's going to be off ramps here in the form of new oral medications that do the same thing that will

lower the price point. But we also do need to consider federal action here to regulate and negotiate these drug prices. NBC News medical contributor Dr. Vin Gupta, thank you very much for coming on this morning. We'll be following both those stories.