Morning Joe - Morning Joe 3/25/24

Episode Date: March 25, 2024

Trump expected to be in NY for hush money hearing as he faces deadline for $464M bond

They're trying to put my father out of business. They're trying to take all his resources that he would otherwise put into his own campaign for presidency. This is New York State. This is what we're seeing. Letitia James campaigned on this promise, and now they're making him do something that's not physically possible. Putting up a half a billion dollar bond, bonds that size don't exist in this country. Eric Trump complaining yesterday on Fox News about the massive bonds his father needs to pay in the civil fraud against him. But it's not the only legal issue today for

the former president. We'll get into all of that in just a moment. Also ahead, the latest on a potential deal between Israel and Hamas that would free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for dozens of hostages. We'll also go through the Republican led chaos in the House after a far right lawmaker laid the groundwork for possibly removing Speaker Mike Johnson. And the former head of the RNC says she was just taking one for the team for not speaking out against Donald Trump's extreme comments tied to January 6th. And that's not all. We'll be talking about her hiring here at NBC as well and MSNBC. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, March 25th. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico,

Jonathan Lemire, U.S. Special Correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kaye, former U.S. Attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg, and Rogers Chair in the American Presidency at Vanderbilt University, historian John Meacham is with us this morning. And we'll dive right in, beginning with a huge day legally for Donald Trump. He is expected to be in a New York courtroom this morning for a hearing on the hush money case against him. The trial was supposed to start today, but it was delayed earlier this month after federal prosecutors turned over thousands of documents, which the Manhattan District Attorney's Office says are largely irrelevant to the case. The judge is now expected to set a new start date for the criminal trial. Meanwhile, today is also the deadline for Trump to put up a bond of nearly

half a billion dollars in the civil fraud case. The bond would prevent the New York attorney general from collecting on the judgment while he appeals. Trump's attorneys have asked an appellate court to reduce, delay, or waive the bond. But as the Washington Post reports, the appeals court generally issues rulings on Tuesdays and Thursdays. So there is very little chance it will act today. So, Chuck Rosenberg, what should we be expecting this week? How significant will it be for the former president? Well, it could be very significant if the attorney general of the state of New York, Joe, begins to move against his assets. But let me add a note here, if I may. Just because a prosecutor can do something doesn't necessarily mean that

she should do something. We know that Mr. Trump has asked an appellate court to either reduce or waive the bond that he would have to pay. We may have a decision from that appellate court soon. It might be prudent in this case for the attorney general to wait to see what the appellate court says before she starts moving against the assets. You know, again, prosecutors have a lot of authority and a the amount of the bond and whether they're going to reduce it. Because you can always move against the assets on Tuesday or Thursday or Monday of next week. And it might make sense to wait and see. Jonathan O'Meara, obviously, this is a massive bond and obviously makes a bad situation much worse for Donald Trump. But there was also and man, I don't I'm not exactly sure how his truth social deal is going the way it is.

But it looks like a Ponzi scheme to me. I don't, but I don't, I don't understand it. This is though a social media network that doesn't appear to be successful. And yet people are throwing around $5 billion here, $5 billion there. Does that provide Donald Trump an economic lifeline in the short term? Yeah, well, first of all, there's certainly,

nothing's going to be able to materialize by today. You're right about Truth Social. It's a website that, frankly, no one uses. It has very little traction outside of the extreme MAGA right. And it is where Trump continues to post since he was kicked off of Twitter after January 6th. I believe he's only posted one thing since, which was his mugshot when he was indicted in Georgia last summer. So he's still trying to drive interest to Truth Social. It's not really working. There have been merger deals rumored for a couple of years now that all kind of fell apart. Where does this massive valuation come from? I'm curious. In a free and open and fair market, I mean, if you're just talking about economic considerations, who would invest in this company unless you were trying to curry favor

with somebody you think might be the next president of the United States? Well, I think you hit it right there. It's someone trying to curry favor with the next president of the United States. You know, We certainly have seen a number of people do that of late. And this is one with True Social where it's not. It's not a success by any measure. But yet there seems to be money coming, or at least it's not done. But there's rumors of money coming there that could really change Trump's financial picture. Now, it wouldn't be coming in the next few weeks. It wouldn't arrive in time to stave off this bond. So this is still a separate issue for Trump, but it could come down the road. It

could allow him to reset his financial footing. And there's also talk about what will happen today is just going to lead to Trump to declaring bankruptcy, which, of course, is a tool he's used before. And that won't get him out of, experts say, that won't get him out of having to pay this judgment, but it could delay things. Now, it would be a black eye politically for a former businessman who touts himself as a master of the corporate universe. It's part of his deal when you're trying to make his pitch for the presidency. But that could, if he does that, that could buy him some time. And maybe, Joe Mika, this financial lifeline for True Social or another one would emerge. All right. Hey, you know, I'm reading right now in in the Wall Street Journal editorial page, an editorial. And it's not like the Wall Street Journal is late to this game, telling Republicans that they really should try to govern instead of acting like a minority.

But, John Meacham, I'll just close here with this op-ed. It says, honey, we shrunk the GOP majority. It says conservatives have long had a strong anti-Washington impulse, which is useful given the federal government's relentless strive to expand its own power. But breaking that drive and rolling back power requires calculation and often incremental gains. All the more so in a divided government. The posers of the House GOP remind us of a comment former Senator Jim DeMint said that he'd rather have 30 senators who agreed with him than a Republican majority.

Congratulations to Mr. DeMint. The current House GOP is close to realizing this ambition. John, Republicans keep quitting. They want no part of this. The chaos continues. It gets worse. Republicans themselves are saying we've accomplished absolutely nothing this session. And and now they're talking about vacating the chair again. I just the the incompetence, the political the political insanity is just again, it's just beyond I can't imagine voter and the Wall Street Journal editorial page agrees. I can't imagine voters and contributors aren't looking at this going, we didn't pay for this and we're not going to vote for this or support this for two more years.

Yeah, it's the distinction, isn't it, between a political party and the way we understand them as governing elements within a constitutional structure and a cult, Right. I mean, if you're going to be ideological, if you want to be so pure in your loyalty to the whims and appetites of one person who tells you what to do and then you do it no matter what versus a party that I think let's let's go ahead and just do Edmund Burke here on Monday morning. You know, a body of men united, you know, a body of men united for a kind of common purpose. And that's what he meant was a governing purpose. And the governing purpose here is not in many all in all, this once noble party has become a vehicle for the appetites of one person.

And it's these moderate Republicans who are just bailing. What point does the party itself begin to put interests of of ideas and governing above the slavish following of one person? So diving into that for the second time this year, House Republicans have launched an effort to remove their elected leader. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, introduced a motion to vacate House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday. She and other hardline conservatives have expressed anger at Johnson, ushered through the federal funding bill to avoid a partial government shutdown. There's no vote for Johnson's ouster yet, but the threat will now hang over his head, just as it did for Kevin McCarthy. And speaking of, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had this to say about the situation yesterday.

Speaker Johnson is doing the very best job he can. It's a difficult situation. But look, the one advice I would give to the conference and to the speaker is do not be fearful of a motion to vacate. I do not think they could do it again. Focus on the country. Focus on the job you're supposed to do and actually do it fearlessly. Just move forward. That's just Republican. Interesting. It's interesting, Katie Kaye, that he would say that when he actually was actually courageous on January the 6th and then folded. And that seems to be the problem with with with the majority of people in this caucus. They you know, they passed up a chance to get signed into law. The toughest border bill ever,

because Donald Trump told them not to. Everything they do, as John Meacham said, is affected by this shadow that Trump casts over the House. And if you look at recent history, this is a guy that cost Republicans the White House, cost Republicans the Senate. A couple of years ago, cost the Republicans house the house. And it looks like he's going to do it again. So Monday morning lessons in political courage from Kevin McCarthy is almost as good a way of starting the week as Burke.

I think that we could we could go there. That same op ed that you read from the Wall Street Journal one has another one that I think is kind of indicative of all of this. Just a couple of paragraphs down, Joe. It says, after we, the Wall Street Journal, criticized that October coup as destructive and self-serving, Matt Gaetz wrote us a letter saying that in electing Johnson, the GOP now had a real conservative as leader. So what's wrong with Mr. Johnson now? Apparently, because he's not willing to indulge in kamikaze acts like shutting down the government, Mr. Johnson is a sellout too. And I think that gets to where the party is. It's almost that kamikaze is the point, that chaos, not governing, fighting, all of those things actually that Donald Trump

loves to do, right? Donald Trump has always actually that Donald Trump loves to do. Right. Donald Trump has always said it's all about the fight. It's constantly about the fight. It doesn't really matter what the fight is about. And I think for for Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, it's about showing their supporters back home that they are fighters governing. Well, hell with that. That can come later or never. But the fight is what is what is important. And that's the tone that was set by Donald Trump. And it's certainly the tone that they've adopted.

It's all it's all about gesturing. We've talked about this for some time. It's governative by gesture there. And also just as John said, almost like a cult-like fealty to a fearless leader. And so time and time again, you do things against your interest. When pushed, you, in the words of somebody we're about to talk about, you take one for the team. So why don't we go there? Okay. All right. Let's talk about the hiring of former RNC chair, Rhonda McDaniel. Well, she was on Sunday's Meet the Press. It was her first appearance since NBC News hired her as a political analyst.

I know you won't be surprised to know that we've been inundated with calls this weekend, as have most people connected with this network, about NBC's decision to hire her. We learned about the hiring when we read about it in the press on Friday. We weren't asked our opinion of the hiring, but if we were, we would have strongly objected to it for several reasons, including but not limited to, as lawyers might say, Ms. McDaniel's role in Donald Trump's fake elector scheme and her pressuring election officials to not certify election results while Donald Trump was on the phone. To be clear, we believe NBC News should seek out conservative Republican voices to provide balance in their election coverage. But it should be conservative Republicans, not a person who used her position of power to be an anti-democracy election denier. And we hope NBC will reconsider its decision. It goes without saying that she will

not be a guest on Morning Joe in her capacity as a paid contributor. Here's why. But to the question, though, do you disagree with Trump saying he's going to free those who've been charged? I do not think people who committed violent acts on January 6th should be freed. So you disagree with that? He's been saying that for months. Ronna, why not speak out earlier? Why just speak out about that now? When you're the RNC chair, you kind of take one for the whole team, right?

Now I get to be a little bit more myself, right? Well, this is what you said a year ago to Chris Wallace. I want to tell you what you said a year ago to Chris Wallace. I want to play you what you said. Are you saying as the chair of the Republican Party that you still have questions as to whether or not Joe Biden was the duly elected president? Joe Biden's the president. No, I didn't ask you whether he's the president. I don't think that I think he won the election. I think there were lots of problems with 2020.

Do you think he won the election? But ultimately he won the election. But there were lots of problems with the. Do you think he won the election? Ultimately, he won the election. Pardon? Ultimately, he won the election, but there were lots of problems with the 2020 election. A hundred percent. And that's fair. But I don't think he won it fair. I don't. I'm not going to say that.

So you didn't say he won it fair at that point. Can you say as you sit here today, did Joe Biden win the election fair and square? He won. He's the legitimate president. Fair and square, he won. It's certified. It's done.

But I do think, Kristen, let me just say something. Why has it taken you until now to be able to say that? I'm going to push back a little because I do think it's fair to say there were problems in 2020. And to say that does not mean he's not the legitimate president. So, John Meacham, we don't need to sort through a lot here. Let's just focus in on what I think history will focus in on, if you don't mind me stepping into your lane for a minute. Because she really summed up the sickness in the Republican Party when asked by Kristen Welker, why do you go along with the whitewashing of political violence? Why didn't you speak out against those who tried to overturn American

democracy, those who beat the hell out of cops, those who rioted at the United States Capitol, at the instruction of Donald Trump, at the instruction of Donald Trump, at the guidance of Donald Trump, the inspiration of Donald Trump. Why not? She said, sometimes you have to take one for the team. I suppose that's what Lindsey Graham will tell us after all of this is over, what Marco Rubio might tell us after all of this is over. I could go down. What team are we talking about?

I could go down the long list of people that used to be conservative Republicans who are now a member of Donald Trump's cult. But but I do think those words take one for the team. When you're asked why you didn't stand up and speak out against political violence that was focused on overturning American democracy. I think those are words that unfortunately. Describe the Republican Party over the past seven years. It encapsulates the central problem of the age and it encapsulates in many ways the existential question that we face. If it's your team and it's not reason, logic, decency, and the Constitution, and it's the team that's the most important and you're in the arena, then, in my opinion, you are not being true to an American tradition of constitutional consensus where we fight about issues. We try to come to a resolution for a given period of time.

And if you lose, you run in the next election and you try to win and you endure and you don't actually put you marshal the forces of violence and the forces of just reflexive disruption because you want to win. And, you know, that it's you know, it's not simple, but it is straightforward't just take one for our team. We would try to take one for the Constitution. And I think that's the stakes of the age. And I, you know, and I don't mean to be preachy about it. And Lord knows I make mistakes all the time. So I'm not, you know, I just but I think this is just this is it. And I think you're exactly right. And the thing that drives me crazy or that I usually am is if you and I know, let's not even say dozens. We know scores of people in public life, most of whose names most of the folks who are listening to us right now would know or be dimly aware of who if Donald Trump were a Rockefeller Republican would be Rockefeller Republicans today. Right.

It's not about the merits of the argument. It's about maintaining power. And when that becomes your central question that's the failure john it's it's not ideology it's not ideology there are a lot of conservative republicans that serve for donald trump that i disagree with but but they stood up on january the 6th They spoke out. I mean, it's this inverted pyramid. And again, taking one for the team, it's such a clarifying statement. I, you know, one thing I've been struggling with, John, and I know you have too,

I've been struggling really, really hard. And Mika will tell you this, for years, but especially as we're moving into this new election cycle on trying to understand a lot of people that I grew up with in the church, a lot of people that I go who are unrecognizable now when you talk politics, because I'll tell you the team, I guess it's how we define the team. For me, the team, it's a pyramid. It's God, country, constitution. For me, conservatism.

For others, it's being progressive. It's liberalism. And that's how it goes. Politicians and parties, for me, have always been at the bottom of of of that that list. And for some reason, it's been inverted. So instead of God, country, constitution, conservat, and then politicians and party, it's been inverted. And now it is Donald Trump. Personality.

It's Donald Trump. And everything flows from that. So when I guess I shouldn't, when I hear that, I, again, it's very clarifying. I guess I should, I guess I shouldn't be staying up trying to figure out what happened to them. This is what happened to them. Their value system flipped and Donald Trump's on top. And everything that's done goes through that filter. And everything is justified. filter and everything is justified.

Everything he does is justified. Political violence is justified. His lifestyle is justified. His hatred is justified. His racism is justified. All the things my friends would have spoken out about when I was growing up, when Bill Clinton was president, when they were so shocked and stunned and deeply saddened by Bill Clinton. Now, the pyramid is flipped. And instead of God on the top and then country and constitution and conservatism, it is Donald Trump and everything's inverted in

the opposite direction, I suppose, all in pursuit of power. It's what I think it is. I mean, and I think it's very elemental. I think it's ultimately a moral crisis. And I mean that not in a Sunday school way, but you have to choose. Do you believe that American democracy, as imperfect as it is, is worth preserving? And if you do, then you have to acknowledge the legitimacy of an opposition. And what ultimately what happened and the legacy of the post 2020 election is that an

American president for the first time in 240 years attempted to violently thwart the transfer, peaceful transfer of power. And therefore, therefore, I believe and I never thought, never thought I would say this. I think there is a moral duty if the choice is between Donald Trump and President Biden to vote for President Biden, despite any policy disagreements you might have, because whatever else you want to say about President Biden, he believes in the Constitution. And let me tell you just a quick story about somebody that I won't name, but you and I know. And this is this is in the take it for the team zone. A year ago or so, I was making this point in a private conversation. I was just saying, look, I never thought I'd say this, but you got to vote. This was probably right before 2022. I think this is a place where you have to vote in a partisan way to preserve the constitutional

order, which sounds, if you're just thinking about it very quickly, as taking one for the team. But it's not really that right. It's a comparative question. I said this, I said, and it just comes down to, you know, Joe Biden didn't try to sack the Capitol, you know, or some sort of moderately, you know, casual colloquial formulation. How's that? And the person I was talking to said, yeah, but, you know, casual colloquial formulation. How's that? And the person I was talking to said, yeah, but, you know, Joe Biden tried to forgive student loans and that might be unconstitutional. And at that point, I wanted to take my lighter and just set my hair on fire because. Right. That's that was right. And you look, you and you, you've had these conversations and it's like, oh, OK, so you're telling me that January 6th and a policy decision that's being litigated over student loans, that's the same. And I just think if that's the thinking.

Yeah, I. That's a great example. That's a great example. And forgive me for being personal. Let me give you my favorite example. After Donald Trump called me a murderer 12 times and tried to get me thrown in jail and said I should be prosecuted after the 2020 election. I asked one of my friends why they voted for Donald Trump. It was just like, I'm curious.

You know, he did accuse me of murder and wanted to throw me in jail and have me executed. I'm curious. Why did you vote for him? This is a very close friend who, again, I've said this on the show before, if I needed a lung for a transplant, he'd give it to me. Right. He just would. But I asked him, I said, you know, this guy tried to put me in jail and have me executed. I'm just curious. Why did you vote for him? He

thought for a second, he goes, regulations. John, what do you say? I mean, seriously. I was like, OK, great. Yeah. OK. Regulations. Yeah. OK. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Yeah. That continuing resolution is real. A real. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, it's just, you know, we're just in a different zone. And I want to be clear. I'm not whatever NBC that that's a whole different thing. I'm not commenting on that. I am commenting on a culture of election denialism. Right. And a reflexive partisanship and a reflexive loyalty to a person. Partisanship is fine. We're supposed to be partisan, right?

Jefferson said parties have always divided themselves into that's all fine. But when the partisanship becomes reflexive instead of reflective, then we're headed down an illiberal path. And we are way down that path right now and we have to turn back well and again it is it it's not about not wanting conservatives on the air uh i'm conservative and check my record i'm probably more conservative i'm a lot more conservative than so many people that criticize me from the Trump right. And but I was in politics.

I'm here. John, you helped the president from time to time. Speeches. You're here. We've had other people on that that are involved. Jen Psaki is, of course. Nicole Wallace has worked for George W. Bush and McCain. They bring value to the table. So, yeah.

So, again, we encourage people to be partisan and fight for what they believe in. About election denialism, though, Chuck Rosenberg, just bringing you into how history will look at the legal aspect of this. Some of this is still ongoing, especially Jack Smith cases with fake electors. And I also feel like we run into on this issue of Ronald McDaniel, Daniel issues with that that are still not resolved. Understanding that you're not here to talk about her. But do tell us, where's the fake electors case right now? Where is it procedurally? Yeah, procedurally, Joe and Mika, the fake electors case, the one indicted in federal court in the District of Columbia, is on appeal to the Supreme Court on the question of absolute immunity. And I don't know when we're going to have a resolution there. It should be relatively soon because I think it's a relatively easy issue.

But that remains to be seen. But if I may add one note, and I know I'm not here to talk about politics, but I've been in public life for many years. And I've always put it this way. This is my formulation, that you always want to create an environment. You always want to look for people who are courageous enough to say no in a sea of yes. And that's an extraordinarily hard thing for people to do. But that's the kind of leader you want to be. And that's the kind of leader you want to work for. And I think some people forget, right, where their values lie, where their loyalties lie,

what their obligations are, what their duties are. But saying no in a sea of yes is not only appropriate, it's freeing. If you want a job more than you want your reputation or your income, then it leads you to say what everyone else is saying. This notion of taking one for the team, I think, is extraordinarily dangerous. I don't mean to sort of engage in a parade of horribles, but all she had to do, all Ms. McDaniel had to do was say, no, that's not what happened. And if it costs me my job, that's okay, because I will leave with less income, but more of my reputation intact. And creating an environment in which everybody can

say no in a sea of yes on either side on any issue is an absolute imperative. And I'm afraid we're not very good at it sometimes. It's beautifully put. Well said. Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, thank you very much. And John Meacham, thank you as well. We appreciate you both coming on this morning and still ahead on Morning Joe, what we're learning about a potential ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas that would trade hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for the release of dozens of hostages. Plus, we'll have the latest from Moscow following Friday's deadly terror attack that has led to conflicting reports from the U.S. and Russia about who to blame. Also ahead, former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will be our guest this morning. We'll talk to him about his stance on the Dobbs decision, the future of the high court, and much more. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. U.S. officials say ISIS is responsible for a deadly terror attack in Moscow.

On Friday night, four men stormed a concert hall, killing at least 137 people with guns, knives and explosives. The suspected terrorists have since been arrested and charged, along with seven others believed to be involved. In the aftermath of the attack, ISIS claimed responsibility for the violence without providing any proof. But speaking to his country on Saturday, Russian President Vladimir Putin made no mention of ISIS, whose Afghan affiliate ISIS-K claimed responsibility for the assault and instead suggested that Ukraine was behind the massacre. Those accusations were quickly rejected by the U.S. National Security Council, which noted the U.S. quote shared information with Russia about a planned terrorist attack in Moscow later this month.

Let's bring in retired CIA officer Mark Palomaropoulos. He's an NBC News security and intelligence analyst. First, Mark, I was just thinking over the weekend as I was reading about the aftermath of this just absolute tragedy, horrific tragedy outside of Moscow, that the United States warned Iran of a deadly ISIS attack a couple months back. And then the United States warned Russia that this attack was coming. Of course, Vladimir Putin roundly criticized the United States for those warnings, saying that we were just trying to scare them. But, you know, I'm I'm so I'm just so exhausted. Sixty years in, I'm so exhausted hearing people trying to paint the United States and Russia and China and everybody else with the same broad brush. The moral equivalency has been revolting for years with the United States and those of us in the West

compared to dictators and tyrants. And I only say that to say, would Russia warn us? Would Iran warn us if they knew that there was about to be an explosion in Times Square? I mean, these are people who say death to America. These are people who consider us their sworn enemies. They are defined by their hatred of us. And yet the United States of America feels like they have a duty to warn and warn others that their people's lives may be in peril. I don't find that extraordinary

because I'm an American. That's what we do. I find it extraordinary that people still preach moral equivalency between the United States and other tyrannical countries. It's just disgusting because I doubt they would do that for us. Well, Joe, you're right, because they would not do that for us. And I've been involved in some of these. You can call it an exchange or maybe a one way passage of information, because what we have is a is a duty to warn. And that's a moral, ethical obligation. When U.S. intelligence community, it's actually it's it's policy. It's called Intelligence Community Directive 191 for kind of the intel geeks out there, present company included. But it's the notion that when we collect information which civilians may be harmed, we're going to pass it not only to friends, but also to even our most bitter adversaries.

And we do it because it's ethical. It's moral. Perhaps there would be U.S. citizens who could be caught up. But it's something that just if you're in the counterterrorism world like I was, it's moral. Perhaps there would be U.S. citizens who could be caught up. But it's something that just if you're in the counterterrorism world like I was, it's just something we do. But you're 100 percent right, Joe. That doesn't mean that the Iranians would do it for us. It certainly doesn't mean that the Russians would do it for us. And one of the other things, too, is when we do pass such information, we don't always see that countries who receive this actually action it. And in this case, on March 7th, when we pass this information, it looks like that Vladimir Putin and the Russians did not take it seriously, really with catastrophic consequences. Yeah, Mark, there seems to be a real

disconnect between Vladimir Putin, even though his government was given intel suggesting that an attack might happen, in his inability to protect his civilians from this kind of a security attack. And yet his intense laser focus on protecting his own government from political opposition. And I'm just wondering, do you think he suffers any kind of backlash for that in Russia? I mean, any other leader, you know, even Benjamin Netanyahu will face an investigation and will probably face removal from office for his own security failures when it came to the attacks of October the 7th. Do you think there'll be any blowback against Vladimir Putin for the fact that he failed to heed the warnings and protect his civilians? And yet he does such a good job

of clamping down on political opposition. Right, Katty, you know, at the end of the day, the Russian security services, which should be the preeminent organ that protects Russian civilians, the Russian people, instead, they're solely focused on pushing down dissent. They're solely focused on keeping Vladimir Putin in power. So this was a, yet again, a catastrophic intelligence failure. The question of whether they will face any sanctions is something that's hard to judge. I would think actually not. And, you know, at the end of the day, what you're seeing right now is this move, whether it's Vladimir Putin himself or Russian propaganda, to try to blame Ukraine. You know, the terrorists were kind of moving towards the border of Ukraine. And this is kind

of the narrative that's being put forth, which, of course, there's no evidence that it's probably nonsense. Last point on this, too, you see some pretty barbaric behavior by the Russian security services. And this is going to be hard for people to hear. But on Russian Telegram, there's video of this where the Russians take one of the terrorists. They actually cut his ear off and they try to stuff it in his mouth. The same individual was then paraded in front of the cameras as one of those that they caught. So the storyboard, what we're going to try to what they're going to put forth and what occurred, you know, based on brutal interrogations, I don't think we can actually believe whatever they say on this. And of course, the last piece is there's no Western press in

Moscow as well, essentially. So we're never going to really see the Russians kind of come and admit these kind of failures are going to blame Ukraine. And ultimately, I don't think the Russian security services are going to face any sanction, at least not in public. And certainly U.S. security officials fear there could be a rise of ISIS-style attacks elsewhere in the West. And we should note, as Putin blames Ukraine, reports this morning of air raid sirens over Kiev and other Ukrainian cities. Mark, let's turn you, though, to the situation in Gaza. Reports that a deal might be close for Israel to release a few hundred Palestinian prisoners, some involved with previous terror activities in exchange for some hostages there in Gaza.

Israel has signed off on this deal, which was pushed by the U.S. in meetings in Qatar a few days ago. Now, those meetings, those talks have stopped, but the offer remains on the table for Hamas, and they would resume if Hamas signals they'd be into it. Hamas has yet to do so. What's your read here? We've been here so many times before where there are these prisoner ceasefire agreements seemingly on the doorstep and Hamas keeps saying no. What's your take? So, Jonathan, I think this is a really critical moment. You know, we've talked so much on this show about the humanitarian catastrophe that's occurring. Obviously, we've talked quite a lot about the diplomatic rift between Israel and the U.S. A ceasefire right now would help alleviate a lot of these issues. Obviously, they could rush aid into Gaza. The temperature goes down dramatically between the

U.S. and Israel because aid comes in, and then the hostages come home, and then the U.S. and Israel, because aid comes in, and then the hostages come home, and then the U.S. and Israel can talk about this Rafah operation, which, and I've said many times before, is a ways out, but still a point of contention. But I think a key point on this for everyone to understand is that Hamas is the one who is now holding up this agreement. The Israelis actually have moved quite a bit. They've talked about relocating Palestinians back to the north of Gaza. There's issues of the north of Gaza. There's issues of the number of Palestinian prisoners to be released. But ultimately,

Israel, I think probably because of U.S. pressure and a lot because of the efforts of CIA Director Bill Burns, Israel has has moved forward on this. So question is, what will Hamas say in return? I think the answer is expected in a couple of days. A really important moment. Retired CIA officer Mark Polymeropoulos, thank you very much. We appreciate it. And coming up, NBC News Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainslie joins us ahead of a key ruling today on a controversial Texas immigration law. Plus, we'll discuss Kate Middleton's cancer announcements after weeks of speculation about her health. And Pablo Torrey coming up next to talk about March Madness. Morning, Joe. We'll be right back. Ian Bounder looking to bounce Garcia. a.m. with one of the big moments in the second round of this year's men's March Madness tournament. Unfortunately for the Aggies, though, that big shot to send the game into OT last night

would be in vain as the top seeded Houston Cougars would ultimately prevail and advance to the Sweet 16. Let's bring in the host of Pablo Torre Finds Out on Metal Arc Media, ESPN's Pablo Torre. Longtime columnist and best-selling author Mike Lupica joins us, along with MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle. Good to have you on. Pablo, you know, I'm reminded every spring why I love college basketball so much. You know, I may not know all the players. As Larry David once said, I cannot be held responsible for knowing all the names of the players on Drake. Who's on Drake? Yeah, exactly.

Who's on Drake? I don't know. Who's like Gonzaga's point guard, like third or fourth string? We can't be held responsible. But still, there's this magic in seeing a team like Yale go up, be a giant killer. The A&M shot at the end. I mean, there have been so many surprises.

Oakland beating Kentucky. My father rolled over in his grave when that happened. But we could go down the list. I'm curious, though, in this crazy tournament, what's your biggest surprise so far? Yeah, I was on the show talking to you guys last week and I was saying, I see an Iron Bowl in the final four. I see Auburn, Alabama. And Joe, your crimson tide has survived. But Auburn, they lost to Yale. Like that part. I just think we need to say that aloud.

I'm supposed to be the dude who sees the Ivy League snobbery, you know, victorious. I'm supposed to prophesize that. Instead, I had it totally backward. And the surprise, though, overall, right, beyond my bracket already being destroyed, is the fact that you've got a team like NC State. So Oakland, you mentioned. Oakland beats Kentucky. NC State beats Oakland. NC State has now won, I believe, seven games in a row. They went to the ACC tournament. They beat Duke. They beat Carolina. They beat Virginia. And now they're into the tournament on one of those runs like Larry David is right. Knowing too much about this is actually a disadvantage. I'd even take it a

step further. Because you get fooled into thinking, ah, okay, I'm going to take the whole sweep of the season in context here and just take the hot team, NC State, going as an 11 seed to the Sweet 16. By the way, four ACC teams in the Sweet 16? That to me is shocking and also, for me personally, humiliating, given that I saw none of that. Yeah, you know, Mike Lupica, it's, again, just talking about March Madness. I'm reminded by NC State this year getting in only because they won the ACC tournament.

If I'm not mistaken, that's how Jim Valvano's NC State team got into it, I believe, in 84 and produced one of the greatest upsets in college basketball history. Anything can happen in this tournament. What's your takeaway so far? Well, NC State is the only Cinderella team, and they kind of invented Cinderella when my late friend Jimmy Valvano was the coach. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the tournament, this has become a very chalk event, Joe. There are 12 teams left who are either one, two, three, or four seats. All of the ones are left. All of the twos are left. The Big East has won six games. The ACC

has won eight games. So the seedings have really held and it's as hard as they sell Cinderella at this time of year. It's like Spike and Barkley and Samuel L are selling it. OK, there's a curfew for the best tournament. And the curfew is the first weekend because now the better teams are still left. And I love the NC State story. I mean, they're one through a crazy three in the middle of the ACC tournament of being out of business. They would have never made the tournament, the NCAA tournament, if they had not won the ACC tournament. But this is a very, very blue-bloody sort of tournament that we have left now. Yeah, it's a lot of chalk.

And I will say that UConn, number one team in the nation, handled its first two games with ease this weekend. But Mike Barnicle, for you and I, as much as we love March Madness, more importantly, opening day is on the horizon. Thursday, our Red Sox are on the West Coast. Chalk that up to 0-1. But that's not the biggest story right now in baseball. And that's the game's biggest star, Shohei Otani,

involved in a very weird moment where his team has now accused his interpreter, who's also his closest friend, has been with him for years there in Southern California, of stealing $4.5 million from Ohtani in order to pay off some gambling debts. Now, that story has changed. Initially, there was some reporting that Ohtani had given him the money. Now, it was the interpreter who took it from him. None of it great. But what is your sense right now about this tale and how it's a story that baseball simply can't afford? Well, there's a whole thread to this story. First of all, it's a major, major peril for Major League Baseball. Major League Baseball is obviously alert every day, all day in every

clubhouse to gambling because of Major League Baseball's history with gambling. The other aspect of it is Otani's interpreter. He could well star in The Great Impostor. He's clearly made up entire parts of his background, including working for the Red Sox at one point, which he did not. The third part is Major League Baseball and every baseball fan should really be praying that the greatest star that has appeared in the Major League Baseball stage over the last, maybe since Babe Ruth, Otani, did not bet on any games. That's the hope here. The other aspect of that is, and Pablo referenced this earlier when we were talking off camera, you would be stunned.

I think everyone would be stunned at the number of professional athletes who make in the gazinga millions of dollars per year have no idea of what happens to large sums of money that belong to them through agents, through friends, no questions around them. No idea what would happen. Yeah. And certainly, Joe, the leagues are very, very even as the rise of sports betting throughout society, every leagues have embraced it, but they still don't want players anywhere near it. No one's accused Otani of that yet, but we will hear from him for the first time. He's going to address the media about the situation later today. Well, you know, again, I say it all the time as I tell my kids, if something doesn't make any sense, there's a reason it doesn't make any sense.

And it doesn't make any sense to think that an interpreter who's been friends with Ohtani would steal four and a half million dollars from him. Nobody would notice it. That four and a half million dollars wouldn't go into a bank account or to purchase a home, but immediately go to to pay gambling debts. I'm sorry, Pablo, but I'm afraid if they really dig deep here, it looks like baseball's biggest star and a guy who's inspired millions, including my son, may be in the middle of a career challenging gambling controversy. Oh, it's a modern nightmare. I mean, Mike alluded to it. Gambling money is what is fueling so much of sports right now everywhere. And so the reason baseball is now, of course, reacting even with some sort of measured caution as to how do they deal with it reflects two things,

as you said, number one, the star power of Otani, and number two, the reality that gambling money is everywhere. This is not how it used to be. Ask Pete Rose how it feels to be accused of gambling on sports. Baseball, in in this case is not the accusation betting on baseball. But my God, the existentialism around this, if Otani gets caught up in this, the only saving grace is that he got scammed by his best friend. This is a man, Otani, that we don't know. We know less about the interpreter. So we are learning all of this live. And that is also terrifying to everybody. I mean, does it make any sense, Mike Lubica, that he got scammed by his best friend? Or does it make far more sense that he had to pay off gambling debts of four and a half million dollars and his best friend did it for him?

Who again, who does the thing that concerns me is that whether it's the Dodgers, Major League Baseball, the powers that be, understand there's so much money in Otani being successful that they allow the interpreter to be the fall guy. Does that story make any sense to you? No, Joe, I don't know if we're going to learn much from Otani today. But if the story changes again, they're going to name a figure skating move after it. OK, first, it was a loan to help a brother out, by the way, in five hundred thousand dollar wire transaction increments. And then overnight, Otani's people was like Casablanca, Joe. They were shocked to discover gambling was going on in here because they had they had understood how serious

this story was. The feds are involved now. Baseball can only do so much because they have no subpoena power. But but we know so little about this story, even as much as we think we know. It's a mess. Yeah, it's a total mess. Before we go, let's all embarrass ourselves, which I do every day. And I'll start with you, Pablo. I'm going to have you embarrass yourself first on tape. Who's going to win the NCAA title? I think it's Mika's UConn Huskies. I've watched them.

They haven't trailed for a second so far. See? Mike Lupica. He's smart. I think UConn is going to be the first team since Florida, nearly 20 years ago, to win back-to-back titles. Joe, they shot three for 22 from threes last night, and it didn't make any difference.

They still blew out Northwestern. Yeah. Jonathan Lemire, who's your pick? Oh, this is deeply boring, and I'm disappointing everyone here. But, yeah, also UConn. I don't think there is a necessarily great team in the tournament, but they're the best of this lot. Yeah, I was before I asked, I was going to say UConn. I just they have they've looked like, you know, just they've been giants. I don't see anybody out there. Mike Barnicle, is anybody there's anybody out there

that can keep up with UConn? No, I'm hoping Marquette could because they're a Catholic college. That's it. There it is. There we go. That's opening day. Well, we will. So that has it. UConn will be defeated next week in the grade eight. We have just doomed them. I'm a Husky fan. All right, ESPN's Pablo Torre, thank you. Mike Lupica, thank you as well. Always good to talk to you guys.