Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/10/24

Episode Date: April 10, 2024

Arizona Supreme Court rules a near-total abortion ban from 1864 is enforceable

Trump's lawyers, they argued that he can't get a fair trial in Manhattan, so the judge should postpone the trial indefinitely while they seek a change of venue. Nope. Sorry, it's wedding rules. You put down the venue deposit, you're getting married in a rustic barn. Okay, that's how it is. You sign the thing. I don't care. I don't care that all of a sudden your fiance is worried about his allergies.

Too bad, Derek. Take a Zyrtec and put on the damn tux. Trump's lawyers argued that the former president couldn't get a fair trial because the jury pool has been polluted by news coverage of Trump's other recent cases. So are you saying members of the jury can't have seen any news about Donald Trump's crimes? His crimes are the news. Yes, there's that. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, April 10th. We'll have the latest on the hush money case, which is now days away from jury selection and an update on Trump's classified documents case. Also ahead, President Biden's new comments on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

They come as Vice President Kamala Harris meets with the families of the hostages still being held by Hamas and on Capitol Hill. Mike Johnson's speakership hangs in the balance over funding for Ukraine as far right Republicans are threatening to give him the Kevin McCarthy treatment. With us, we have the host of Wait to Early White House Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, NBC News National Affairs Analyst John Heilman, NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hilliard and former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance is with Willie and me. And the big news this morning comes two days after former President Trump again took credit for ending Roe v. Wade and said states should decide their own abortion laws.

Remember this. Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights, especially since I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides wanted and in fact demanded be ended. Roe v. Wade. My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both. And whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case, the law of the state. Like yesterday, Arizona giving the nation the latest stark example of the consequences of leaving the issue up to individual states. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled a 160 year old near total abortion ban still on the books in the state is enforceable. The decision, which could shutter abortion clinics across Arizona, adds the state to the growing list of places where abortion health care is

effectively banned. The ruling allows an 1864 law to stand, making abortion a felony punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who performs one or helps a woman obtain one. The Civil War era law, which was enacted half a century before Arizona even was a state, does include an exemption to save the life of the mother. Arizona's attorney general came out against the ban moments after the ruling. Let me be completely clear. As long as I am attorney general of the state of Arizona, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law. No woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this law as long as I am attorney general. Not by me, nor by any county attorney serving in our state. Not on my watch. And she'd be our guest at 9 a.m.

And so, Willie, let's do the math here. Monday morning, President Trump says, I am the one who overturned Roe v. Wade. I'm proud of that. And number two, it should be up to the states. And then Arizona says, OK, hold our beer. Yeah, Arizona answering the call from President former President Trump very quickly there. As you said, Mika, this is a code written by a judge named Howell in 1864. How old is this? That judge was nominated by Abraham Lincoln. It was codified into law in 1901.

And now here we are in 2024, making this the law of the land, according to the Supreme Court there. So President Biden, as you can imagine, condemned the Arizona ruling just minutes after it came down. The president calling the decision, quote, a result of the extreme agenda of Republican elected officials who are committed to ripping away women's freedom. President's statement also highlights that the ban has no exception for rape or incest, none. On social media, Biden blamed Donald Trump for the ban, posting a news headline of the ruling writing, Trump did this. Vice President Kamala Harris now will travel to Arizona on Friday. She was in Phoenix just over a month ago as part of her Fight for Reproductive Freedoms tour, as it's called.

The White House says the vice president has held more than 80 events in 20 states since the Supreme Court overturned Roe just under two years ago. So, Joyce Vance, we'll talk about the politics of this in just a second. But let's talk about the legal side of this. How did we get from a code in 1864 to a Supreme Court uphold ruling in 2024? So yesterday, the Arizona Supreme Court confirmed what we know about these zombie laws. These are pre-Roe laws that banned abortion in 1973 when the Supreme Court decided Roe versus Wade. They were no longer good law. But instead of removing them from the books in many conservative states, they were permitted to stay looking forward to a day where Roe versus Wade would be overturned. And that's precisely what's happened. We've seen a series of these laws. You know, I think this is the oldest one we've looked at come back into effect. And Willie, here's the

problem with these laws. Even when you have an attorney general who says she won't enforce the law and she'll try to keep all of the county attorneys in Arizona from enforcing it, too. There's risk. There's fear. There's uncertainty. Doctors in Arizona, clinics, people who help women access reproductive health care, they don't know whether that attorney general will remain in place. And Arizona has a long statute of limitations. Might someone come on board in two or three years who will prosecute them for a felony crime and send them to prison for up to five years. This is essentially the end of access to abortion in Arizona. OK, so, Joyce, a couple of questions. And by the way, Kamala Harris heading to

Arizona is definitely symbolic support for abortion health care. She has shown up at abortion clinics and, of course, the Biden administration doing everything they can to support women and their right to these choices and to this health care. But legally, this law, now that this has happened, does have some challenges. It doesn't immediately go into effect. Can you explain the different steps that are being taken to try and push back at least? Right. So there's a grace period of about two weeks before it can go into effect. And that's typical in this sort of a situation. The problem is, Mika, and there will certainly be efforts to challenge the law. The Arizona Supreme Court referred to what they were doing as enforcing the mutable will of the voters, meaning that the will of voters can change over

time. We know that there's strong support in Arizona for abortion rights. There's a strong libertarian streak in the state. So Barry Goldwater, former presidential candidate. When George W. Bush adopted an anti-abortion platform in the Republican Party's plan when he was running for election, Barry Goldwater, Arizona's favorite son, said it's wrong for us to be anti-abortion. Abortion has been around for a long time. It'll always be here. This is a death knell for the Republican Party. And so even among Arizona Republicans, there is some support or at least not this sort legislature, if it in fact is willing to go there, adopts new laws that supplant this one. There is no clearer example of how toxic this issue is, and this ruling is, for Republicans, particularly within the state of Arizona,

than Carrie Lake. The Arizona Republican Senate candidate yesterday, came out strongly against Arizona's Supreme Court ruling. She wrote in part, I am the only woman and mother in this race. I understand the fear and anxiety of pregnancy and the joy of motherhood. I oppose today's ruling and I'm calling on Katie Hobbs and the state legislature to come up with an immediate common sense solution that Arizonans can support. Well, that is not what Carrie Lake was saying just two years ago when she was running for governor, promising to support whatever the state Supreme Court decided. I don't believe in abortion. I think the older law is going to take and is going to go into effect. That's what I believe will happen. I don't think abortion pills should be legal. We have a great law on the books right now. If that happens, we will be a state where we will not be taking the lives of our unborn anymore. I'm incredibly thrilled that we are going to have a great law that's already on

the books. So it will prohibit abortion in Arizona. And I think we're going to be paving the way and setting course for other states to follow. Von Hilliard, you have covered Arizona very closely. You've covered Carrie Lake, interviewed her a number of times. This really just puts into stark relief that as her position two years ago, whatever the state Supreme Court decides will be good with me. And now that the state Supreme Court says an 1864 territorial code is enforceable in 2024. She's running from it, as are, by the way, many Republicans within the state of Arizona and across the country. Right. I think Carrie Lake somehow finds herself being the character that is going to be looked at across all 50 states here, because Carrie Lake is somebody who back in 2022, right, was looking at the

hypothetical of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Those comments just a couple months prior to the Dobbs decision when she called the territorial ban a great law. But then fast forward several months later, it was in October of 2022, three months after the Dobbs decision. And I had a back and forth exchange with her about whether she would stand by if she had actually won the race for governor and defended the territorial ban, which bans all abortions in the state of Arizona, except for when a woman's life is in danger

and could imprison an abortion provider up to five years. And notably, she sort of softened a little bit. And she told me that she would stand by and defend whatever law the courts decided on behalf of. Well, fast forward, this is where for all these political figures now, you know, somebody may hold deeply true convictions about abortion. But suddenly we're at the juncture here almost two months, two years after Dobbs, where the real life impact and the political consequence are coming to a head. And in the state of Arizona, exit polling in 2022 showed that more than two thirds of

Arizonans wanted to codify abortion rights in the state of Arizona. And Carrie Lake is well acknowledging that seven months from now, there very likely is going to be a referendum on the state ballot that would grant abortion rights, reproductive rights in the state of Arizona as a constitutional amendment up to 24 weeks. And that is where you see her statement yesterday saying she opposes the territorial ban is so noteworthy, as well as other Republicans in the state, because not only are there real life stories of women and families, they're going to continue to come out. But there's also the political consequence that it's so much tied to their own. You know, it's so interesting.

First of all, this law, if and when it goes into effect, will cause immediate pain, trauma, suffering and danger for women, for countless women across Arizona. It's denying them health care and it will have terrible, very specific impact on women and their families. Having said that, listening to Vaughn's coverage of Carrie Lake and her twisting and turning on this and running to the hills is very typical of Donald Trump, who's trying to twist and turn on this as he does on everything. And we have some polling and focus groups coming up in the next hour that will show that this behavior is beginning to take a toll on Trump's support. John, my question to you is right now, even though this is terrible news for the women of Arizona, this is an opportunity for the Biden campaign to really show the differences here. First of all, Mika, you're right to underscore

the human impact here of this decision on Arizona's women. I'll also note that as Carrie Lake called for Governor Hobbs to not enforce this, remember, Carrie Lake never conceded defeat to Governor Hobbs. And it's the first time she sort of did by suggesting that, hey, I'm not governor. She is. But you're right. This is a huge moment, especially coming two days after Donald Trump said that states should set their own abortion policies. And well, now Arizona has. And the electoral impact here, John Howman, going to be significant. Whether this rule law is in code is enforced or not. It is injected into the political conversation yet again with how the Republican Party views abortion, views women's health care. It was just about a week ago that we all had a conversation here. And I talked to Democrats, too, who felt like Joe Biden's best and maybe only path to 270 electoral

votes was Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. And they were pleased that the one vote in Nebraska could be preserved. He could win that as well. That's precisely 270. A lot of Democrats were feeling pretty pessimistic about Arizona, like Georgia, Arizona, harder this time around. Polls suggest the president trailing Donald Trump there. But this, this puts this back in play. And if it's back in play, that opens up Biden's map significantly. I was in Arizona over the last weekend. And even before this ruling, there was a lot of discussion about the fact that abortion rights groups were trying to get this ballot initiative on the ballot uh for november uh they said they had the signatures already there's a july deadline um that's when we're gonna know for sure but they they were already

even before this they had the signatures to get that on the ballot uh or so they said uh so it was looking like an abortion rights there's something enshrining abortion rights in the in the arizona constitution was going to happen anyway. This is a this is we all we're going to be saying this a lot between now and November, which is the human cost of this huge, at least in the short term to Arizona women. If this goes into effect in any short term way, the political effect of this could not be better for Joe Biden. That is just a fact. And it's not just about the contrast. It's not just about where Donald Trump is. This is now in these states, Jonathan, you know this, this is a turnout game.

How do you get, what is Joe Biden worried about most every day? Democratic constituents not turning out for him, people who are not thoroughly as enthused with Joe Biden as he thinks they should be or or as they could be, or as they were in 2020? What is the biggest thing that has energized the Democratic base and a lot of not Democratic base voters, but some marginal voters in the suburbs all over swing states? It has been, since Dobbs, has been the threat to abortion rights. Constitutional amendment on the ballot, a ballot initiative in Arizona, is the way that Arizona comes back in play for Joe Biden, despite all of the other problems he has. That doesn't mean he's going to win it, but Democrats look in Nevada, too, where there's

another one of these ballot initiatives. You get these ballot initiatives, whether it's in Florida or Arizona or Nevada, get them on the ballot. The Democrats have a reasonable case to hope that that will supercharge enthusiasm, supercharged turnout in the fall. And all of a sudden you have a lot of some places like Arizona, the Joe Biden one in 2020, people were like, oh, no, normal. So it doesn't look that great. It just resets everything in terms of what the electorate is going to look like in that state. Absolutely. All right. Everybody stay right there. Coming up on Morning Joe, another one of Donald Trump's delay tactics gets shut down by a judge ahead of next week's hush money trial.

We'll have the latest on the former president's legal troubles. Plus, Vice President Kamala Harris meets with families of some Israeli-Americans being held hostage by Hamas. We'll talk to a Democratic lawmaker who has firsthand insight on the ongoing hostage negotiations. Also ahead, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron is our guest. He's in Washington calling on Congress to pass funding for Ukraine. But are House Republicans listening? You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in just 60 seconds. What, in your view, constitutes the primary threat to freedom and democracy at home?

Donald Trump. Seriously, Donald Trump talk uses phrases like you're going to eviscerate the Constitution. He's going to be a dictator on day one. He has a very, very, I think, jaded view of the Constitution. He made it clear that he doesn't plan on abiding by parts of it if he thinks it's not appropriate. And it's just, at least he's saying it out loud. President Joe Biden again warning about the threat he says Donald Trump poses to democracy. An appeals court judge has rejected another attempt by Trump to delay his upcoming hush money trial set to get underway next week. It's a criminal trial. Trump's attorneys tried to argue yesterday that the proceedings should be postponed while his team challenges a court imposed gag order that they call unconstitutional. The judge swiftly rejected that argument, and jury selection is still slated to begin on Monday. If it starts on Monday, Willie, that would be history. Yeah, so that is a criminal case from a former president of the

United States. A trial set to resume Monday. That's the hush money trial. Meanwhile, special counsel Jack Smith has earned a partial victory in the classified documents case against former President Trump. Yesterday, Judge Aileen Cannon granted the request from federal prosecutors to keep the names of government witnesses sealed. However, she also ruled significant portions

of witness statements to investigators can be made public. Judge Cannon said redacting the names would address the special counsel's safety concerns for potential witnesses, making it unnecessary to grant what she called wholesale requests to seal non-identifying substantive witness statements. Judge Cannon also criticized Smith in her ruling, saying his arguments and evidence should have been raised earlier. So, Joyce Vance, on balance here, a good day for the prosecution or not so much? You know, I'm in the not so much camp on this one, Willie.

And this is a very surprising decision. Something that judges are typically very good about, it's not viewed as an issue that's pro-prosecution or pro-defense, is protecting witnesses in trials, people who come forward to do their duty. In many cases, they don't have a choice about doing it. They're under subpoena. And so when there's any sort of a threat to their safety or security, even one that's not as serious of a threat as what we know exists here, because we've seen how Trump is able to rally his base. Even in those more modest cases, judges are very protective of witnesses when necessary. And here, even though their names

may be redacted, the special counsel may have to fight that on a case by case basis. But some of the details of their testimony that will be released may make it possible to identify them. And so now we're in a moment where there's a game about the identity and the safety of witnesses. It's something that no federal judge should permit to happen in her courtroom. Yeah, of course, the context of the testimony people can deduce probably in some cases who is giving it. So let's go back to the hush money case briefly, Joyce, if we could. Jury selection now after yesterday's decision slated to begin on Monday in a historic criminal case against the former president of the United States.

Do you see anything between where we sit right now and this trial actually getting underway on Monday. The former president looks increasingly desperate to keep this one from going to trial. And Willie, I know we've gotten into the habit of calling it the hush money case, but Judge Juan Roshan issued a series of rulings earlier this week talking about how he would conduct the jury voir dire, the jury selection process. He will read a description of the case to jurors that will explain that it's about interference in advance of the 2016 election. And that's where this case is properly positioned. That's why Trump is so desperate to keep it from going to trial. Look, I've seen defendants who really don't want their case to proceed to engage in a

full display of delay tactics late in the game. We might see someone become ill. Certainly that won't benefit Donald Trump politically. But, you know, when the stakes are this high, maybe he'll decide it's time to develop an illness. He might try firing his lawyers. But what has seemed clear in the last few days is that the courts are on to what's going on here. And these New York appellate judges have said, look, you can appeal your issue about venue or the gag order. But what you can't do is delay the trial in order to do that. So, Vaughn, on another Trump legal front, his civil fraud case here in New York, Allen Weisselberg, former CFO of Trump organizations, to be sentenced today for lying under oath since five months in Rikers Island after he pleaded guilty to two counts of perjury. You'll

be at the courthouse this morning for this. Remind viewers why this matters, who Weisselberg really is, the role he played, and what should we look for today? Alan Weisselberg is such a striking figure in all of this. But to date, he has still yet to testify against Donald Trump. And that is what makes him so striking. He already spent 100 days at the Rikers Island jail complex as part of the tax scheme in which he took perks from the Trump organization. And during that trial, he testified against the Trump organization, but not Donald Trump. Now,

fast forward, this has everything to do with his testimony related to the civil fraud trial over the repeated financial fraud claims that were made last year. And what he has already admitted to the court is that he perjured himself by lying about the extent to what he knew about the valuation of Donald Trump's penthouse here in midtown Manhattan. And so we are looking at him being potentially sentenced up to five months in prison. But as part of this plea agreement, he did not have to commit to testifying in the hush money payment case. So again, we see Alan Weisselberg, this key figure for more than 50 years to the Trump organization, not directly testifying against

Donald Trump. Yet at the same time, you go back and you're talking about Michael Cohen. Michael Cohen says the one other person that heard Donald Trump directly tell him in 2016 to go and set up that financial arrangement with Stormy Daniels was Allen Weisselberg. And so part of the struggle with the trial is if you don't have Allen Weisselberg agreeing to testify and instead going out to Rikers jail at the age of 77 years old, that is a difficult witness here in somebody who is clearly agreeing to stand on the side of his old boss and willing to go to jail instead of truthfully testifying against him. Mika, you know, when I see someone like Donald Weissenberg headed out to Rikers, 77? 77 years old? Is that right?

Yeah. 77 years old. I mean, one of the great mysteries of our modern political era is why anybody would be willing to go to Rikers for Donald Trump. But as we look at this case about to get going, and this is the case a lot of people have said over and over again, this is not the case you would want. If there was going to be one Donald Trump case, let's do the insurrection case first. That would be better. That's more important, significant for democracy, maybe more political. I know you have a view about this, I think, about the way in which this case kind of picks a Donald Trump psyche and maybe more destabilizing in some way than some of the other cases. Talk about that a

little bit. Well, I think there's two things. I don't think you can decide which case is more important than the other. It's not ours to decide. This one's going first. Was a crime committed? That is what is going to be proven or disproven in court. And as one of our earlier guests pointed out, it has more to do with interference in an election than hush money to a porn star. But it does have to do with hush money to a porn star, which hits him on two fronts. First of all, finances. Second of all, his personal behavior. Thirdly, embarrassing his wife, Melania, who just by all appearances, no knowledge here, seems pretty done with him. And so it embarrasses him. Trump doesn't like to be embarrassed.

He doesn't get jokes. He doesn't understand being mocked. He can't even make fun of himself. We've seen that over and over again. And I'm speaking from personal knowledge of this man, from time spent with him when he was the host of The Apprentice and before he began his run for the presidency. This trial drives him nuts, just like the civil trials. They were expensive. They caused him to bleed money on many levels. They embarrassed him. They drive him crazy and they embarrass him, which is more important to Trump in some ways than others. But having said that, this is going to make history.

This is a criminal trial. There isn't a case like this that's ever happened before, where a former president goes to court for criminal charges against him. And I think we have to watch the law and and follow the story as it happens and not make judgments on which one we think should go first. They all may tie together in the long run. We will see. NBC is Von Hilliard. Thank you very much. Former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance. Thank you as well. And coming up on Morning Joe, our next guests are leading a new effort to rein in a president's ability to deploy U.S. troops on American soil. We'll talk about their push to reform the centuries old provision known as the Insurrection Act.

That's straight ahead on Morning Joe. It is 34 past the hour. A bipartisan group of former senior national security and legal officials is asking lawmakers to consider imposing new limits on a president's power to deploy troops on home soil, arguing the centuries old Insurrection Act gives any president too much unchecked power. Joining us now, Harvard Law School Professor Jack Goldsmith and NYU Law Professor Bob Bauer. They are co-chairs of the Presidential Reform Project. We'll start in order. Jack, I'll start with you, professor. Explain what the Insurrection Act is and what your concerns are. What are the problems with it? The Insurrection Act is a statute that

dates back to the 1790s. It's it exercises it gives the president a power that's contemplated by the Constitution to use the militia and the armed forces in the domestic sphere in cases of insurrection, rebellion, and extreme breakdowns of law enforcement and extreme violence. The problem with this, and the statute has been amended many times since the 1790s, the essential problem with the statute is there's a need for the president to have this authority in extreme cases. The essential problem with the statute is that the triggers for the president's use of the authority are much too broad and use antiquated language. And most importantly, there's no limit on the president's ability to use the power. Congress is basically out of the game. And so we proposed, a bipartisan group proposed a set of reforms to try to change those things, to narrow the uses of the statute and to make sure there was a time limit on its use without congressional authorization. So, Bob, we know that former President Trump has talked about

using the National Guard, using troops to fight crime, for example, to squash dissent. We know he's talked about that. So what is the timing for you all of coming out with these proposed amendments to the current law? It is a bipartisan effort, and it recognizes that whoever controls the White House could be in a position to make misuse or abuse of this statute. No question, obviously, that some of the reports about considerations of the use of the Insurrection Act in the Trump administration have focused attention on this statute. Our emphasis is on

trying now to deal with something that is now drawing the attention and to do so in a bipartisan way. This statute on the books is a temptation to abuse for any precedent that Donald Trump, of course, has brought a lot of attention to it. And I think appropriately so that we now pay attention to it does not mean that we should not consider this a broad problem about the absence of constraints on very serious potential abuses of presidential authority. So, Jack, what role were this to go forward with the Supreme Court play, and particularly a court with its current conservative composition? Well, the Insurrection Act does not expressly provide for judicial review, but we believe that there would

be some form of judicial review of the statute. The precedents going back to the 19th century suggest that the court would give deference to the president's use of the statute. So while the presidents have some, excuse me, while the courts and the Supreme Court has some role, this is ultimately about the political branches and about Congress constraining the president. Hey, Bob, it's John Heilman here. Let me go back to the comment you just made. I think you said made a second ago, which is that, of course, this has got a context, right? The context is we heard about Trump thinking about invoking the Insurrection Act on multiple occasions in the course of his presidency. Let's focus on one of them and

tell me whether or not the reforms you're proposing would have, how they would have impacted that situation, which was famously when he talked about invoking, according to AIDS, when he talked about invoking the Insurrection Act in the wake of the civil unrest after the George Floyd, after the George Floyd murder in right out in front of the White House when he walked across there and ultimately held up the Bible. What are the changes you guys are proposing would have impacted that in what way? Are these kinds of changes would have made that impossible for him to do or would have put limitations on it? What's the what would be the not hypothetical scenario or not hypothetical scenario? What

would the impact of the changes you're suggesting be? Yeah, the key issue is accountability, that the president has to, under much more sharply defined terms, invoke clear authority to use the act. And then there involves a consultation with the Congress, reports to the Congress, limits on the deployment, and the need for congressional authorization if the president chooses to go beyond those limits or believes that going beyond those limits is necessary. Right now, none of those kinds of requirements, none of those constraints are built into the statute. So any president in circumstances like that would face much higher bars,

significant accountability that is currently absent from the law. All right. Co-chairs of the Presidential Reform Project, Jack Goldsmith and Bob Bauer, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. We appreciate it. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we continue to cover the clown show on Capitol Hill. Marjorie Taylor Greene threatens Speaker Mike Johnson's job. The question is, could we be speakerless again? Also ahead, we're getting some insight on what undecided voters in key battleground states are really thinking. We'll break down what a new survey shows ahead of the crucial 2024 election.

Plus, Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey will join us fresh from his visit to Qatar and Egypt, where he spent time with lead negotiators working day and night to bring Israeli hostages home. Also ahead, we'll speak with Arizona's attorney general, Chris Mays, as the political fallout there continues to rock the state following the Supreme Court's near total abortion ban ruling. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia is ramping up her threats to oust House Speaker Mike Johnson from his post. In a letter to colleagues, Greene slams the speaker over last month's government funding fight and his plans to address aid for Ukraine.

She writes that Johnson's actions have, quote, angered our Republican base so much and given them very little reason to vote for a Republican House majority. If we win the House this fall, it will only be because President Trump is on the ballot, not because we have earned it. Last month, Greene filed a resolution to remove Johnson as House speaker, but said it was merely a warning. But we've seen this happen before, John Howman. And I mean, she is I don't know, just as an American, she's embarrassing to me on so many levels. But in terms of aid to Ukraine, what the heck? I mean, how long are Ukrainians going to have to wait for something that you would think a true Republican would be for when it comes to our national security? I've given up, Mika, making predictions

about when the Republican Party will do what the old Republican Party used to do or when the Republican Party will get its stuff together and behave like a governing majority or a governing minority or anything else. I will say this, the notion that this inexperienced speaker who got in as much by fluke and the fact that the Republican Party couldn't figure out anybody else to put in this job after the fall of Kevin McCarthy. The fact that this would we would get here where his speakership would be in peril, that people on his right flank would be talking about wanting to oust him and do to him what they did to Kevin McCarthy is like the least surprising piece of political news in the history of the world. I think you could have seen this coming from almost and people predicted it really from the day that he won the speakership.

People thought that this was was in the offing at some point. And he is, you know, whatever else you think about this, this guy, there's a lot to say. He's not a person. He's not experienced. We did not have the kind of experience in the lower chamber, not the kind of legislative or political savvy that seemed like he would be able to navigate what is genuinely a difficult political circumstance given the nature of the Republican caucus. So here we are. And as you say, unfortunately, this is a place where literally lives are on the line in Ukraine and they are the ones who are going to be paying the cost of this kind of Republican dysfunction. And Jonathan Lemire, what a commentary in the state of the Republican Party that is Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene from a small district in North Georgia who appears to actually be running the show

on behalf of Donald Trump and her complaint in that letter where she says she will not tolerate this kind of leadership as though she's the one who decides and maybe she does is the Ukraine aid and also that the speaker dared look across the aisle for a few Democratic votes to get legislation passed. That is where we are in this Republican Party in the House. That dynamic has been what Republicans have privately been saying for months now, that Marjorie Taylor Greene is the power source in the lower chamber on the GOP. It's in part why so many Republicans are retiring, who aren't even going to finish their terms,

giving up committee posts, powerful positions, because they just don't want to do this anymore. And look, our friends at Punchbowl News, who are as plugged in as anyone on the Hill, their newsletter this morning suggests that it's a binary choice for Speaker Johnson. He either does Ukraine aid or he keeps his job. He can't have both. That if he's going to actually go for Ukraine and try to bring the package to the floor, whether it's the Senate bill, which most people think would pass and is the best chance of success here in sending desperately needed aid to Kiev or creating his own measure, which likely wouldn't get back through the Senate. But if he were to do either of those things, he'd lose his job, that he would be ousted.

But the only thing that could potentially save him is so many Republicans remember the chaos of October when McCarthy was ousted, how painful and embarrassing that was for the party, and frankly, that they don't have anyone else. There's no one there who seems like able to step up into that position. But this is an extremely important moment, not just Republicans in the House, Mika, but also, frankly, for the future of USA to Ukraine. As we know, so many European leaders are warning that if the U.S. doesn't step up. We heard this from Zelensky himself yesterday. Ukraine could really fall in hard times in that war.

Yeah, they've been waiting too long. Coming up, former President Trump yet again repeats an anti-Semitic trope about American Jews who vote for Democrats. Plus, President Biden calls Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the war in Gaza a mistake. We'll show you his new comments. Morning Joe is coming right back. Fifty three past the hour, Vice President Kamala focused on securing the release of the more than 130 people still being held captive in Gaza. The family members thanked the White House for its efforts and called on both sides to agree to a deal. We have just come out of a very productive meeting with Vice President Harris, who carved out time to meet

with us hostage families. We're very grateful for that. We discussed a lot of different things, and one of the things we talked about is that there is a possibility of holding two truths. You can believe, as we do, that it is horrible that innocent civilians in Gaza are suffering and at the same time you can also know that it is horrible and against international law for hostages to be held against their will. There are 133 cherished souls who are being held there. And it is time. We don't want any more progress. We want results.

Jonathan Lemire, that's Rachel Goldberg, the mother of a young man named Hersh, who's being held as one of the hostages inside of Gaza. We had her on the show just a few days ago, and she was rightly outraged that there wasn't more of an emphasis on the hostages in that phone call on Thursday between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu. So yesterday, getting that meeting with the vice president. Yeah, she and her husband sat down next to me here on set a few days ago. They were viscerally angry. There was a fury there in the aftermath of that conversation between President Biden and

Prime Minister Netanyahu last week, where Biden used tough language and pushed Netanyahu to make some changes. And they have opened up new paths to aid their into Gaza. But the hostages weren't at the forefront of that conversation. They were discussed, I'm told, but not at the forefront. And there was real anger that they weren't. Now, there have been more negotiations over the last few days in Cairo, some optimism from Israeli officials that a deal could be close, but talks then stop without one. Now, Hamas is still say they're considering this proposal. They haven't given their final answer yet. We'll see what the coming days hold. But right now, we've been here before. There have been a few moments where negotiations seem close

and then falling apart. We're still awaiting that breakthrough. And then there's this on the question of Israel. Donald Trump says any Jewish person who votes for Joe Biden does not love Israel and, quote, should be spoken to. Those are the words of Donald Trump. The presumptive 2024 Republican nominee made those comments during an interview with the far right network on Monday. He then went on to offer an opinion about why he thinks Jewish and black Americans historically have voted for Democrats. They don't want to talk about the attack of October 7th on Israel because Biden is is no fan of Israel. Any Jewish person that votes for Biden does not love Israel and frankly should be spoken to Jewish people by habit. And it's changing. They vote for the Democrats and black people by habit vote for the Democrats.

But now the African-American population is we're at the highest level anyone's ever been at as a Republican. It still should be much higher because of what I've done with criminal justice reform, with funding the black colleges and universities, with all of the opportunity zones. Nobody's done more than I have. I say nobody's done more since Abraham Lincoln. I actually wanted to go beyond Abraham Lincoln, but some people thought that wasn't a good thing to do. So I left it at that. Trump made similar comments about Jewish Democrats last month, saying they, quote, hate Israel and their religion. In February, he claimed black voters were flocking to him because they related to him being criminally indicted and, quote, embraced his mugshot more than any group. Let's bring in the president of the National Action Network, the host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton.

NBC News and MSNBC political analyst, former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill. She and Jed Palmieri are co-hosts of the MSNBC podcast How to Win 2024 and the deputy managing editor for politics at Politico, Sam Stein. Good morning to you all. Rev, I'll start with you. A lot to chew on in those comments. Sadly, it's nothing new for Donald Trump. We've heard this before. We heard what I just said, which is that he believes black voters relate to him because of the mugshot. He thinks they like the sneakers that are $400 that he put out there, just trafficking and all kinds of stereotypes on that side, of course. And on the other side, suggesting you're not really Jewish

if you vote Democrat and you hate Israel. I'll open it up to you, Rev. Well, there's a lot to chew on if you're going to spit it out, in my opinion, after you chew. Even in his condescending, insulting statement, he can't help but offend black Americans. When at the end of his statements, he says, I could have done more than Abraham Lincoln, but a lot of people thought it wasn't good. But what does that suppose to mean? Who are a lot of the people and what are the good? Let us remember that we did get the Civil Rights Act of 64 under Lyndon Johnson and the 65 Voting Rights Act of 65 under Johnson, both of which Donald Trump's appointed Supreme Court has done a lot to chip away.

What they've done to the voting rights bill in this Supreme Court has just about neutralized it. he put those people on the court. He has supported, including now with abortion states rights, which the whole civil war and civil rights movement was about. So what did he do for black Americans? I think Joe Biden has given as much or more to HBCUs, if that's what he's saying, and criminal justice reform. I think it was Joe Biden that said support the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act. And when the Republicans blocked it, he went ahead and did an executive order. Donald Trump was saying when we were protesting around George Floyd, when the looting starts, the shooting starts rather than, yes, this is a shame what happened to Floyd and we need to deal with police reform as part of criminal justice reform. So, again, I think that not only does he miss the runway, he missed the airport when it comes to decency and civil rights.

Sam Stein, two threads for you. Once we know the Trump campaign openly talks about their efforts to win over black voters, they think they're having success there. Do we think that's real and will persist between now and November? And then also, just feel free to weigh in on the blatant anti-Semitism from Trump again, who suggests that if you were a Jewish person and to vote for Democrat, then you don't love Israel or your own faith. Well, let's start with the last one first. I mean, we've been here before, I believe, you and I were having a conversation on your show a month ago

after the almost verbatim remarks. At this point, it's terribly unsurprising that he says these things and a complete overgeneralization of how Jewish Americans should think, how they should conduct their religion, how they should vote. The idea that if you're Jewish, you must support the government of Israel, which is what he's really saying, is absurd. And of course, the association that every Jew must be a fan of the Israeli governance reeks of the type of anti-Semitism that you're talking about,

dual loyalty, a phrase that he talked about in a past context, too. On your first question, that's a much more complex one, right? I mean, it's undeniable that Trump has gained a significant amount in the polls with African-American voters. It's just true. Why that is the case and whether it persists is another question entirely. Now, the Trump campaign hasn't done necessarily the type of gritty work that you would expect a campaign to do to win these voters. It's not like they're doing an immense amount of outreach or targeted advertising. It's plainly that they're just saying Joe Biden is bad. And we did, you know, X, Y and Z. In this case, Trump's pointing to the First Step Act, for instance, in Opportunity Zones.

I don't know how much that persists, but I will just say the thing that you should know is that it's not necessarily a universal. It's much more generational. So older black voters tend to be consistently more Democratic now than younger black voters. And the reasons why are being studied aggressively by the Biden campaign, because they need to reach that populace if they want to win. You know, President Biden is ramping up his criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, calling his handling of the war in Gaza a mistake. The president made the comments in a pre-taped interview with Univision and condemned the Israeli strikes that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers. Take a listen. What I will tell you is I think what he's doing is a mistake. I don't agree with his approach. I think it's outrageous that those four or three vehicles were hit by drones and taken out on a highway where it wasn't like it was along the shore.

It wasn't like there was a convoy moving or etc. to just call for a ceasefire, allow for the next six, eight weeks total access to all food and medicine going into the country.