Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/13/23

Episode Date: April 13, 2023

Appeals court partially blocks ruling that imperils access to key abortion pill 

Boy, that's a beautiful sunrise over New York City as we come up on six o'clock in the morning. Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, April 13th. I'm Willie Geist, and we've got a lot to get to this morning, including new developments overnight in the legal fight over the abortion pill. We'll dig into a new ruling just hours old now from an appeals court that blocks part of a decision from a Trump appointed judge. We'll explain what the ruling says. Also ahead, both lawmakers who were expelled from the Tennessee Statehouse for protesting gun violence now have been reappointed to their seats. We'll explain why this is not the end of the partisan turmoil in Tennessee. And Louisville police

released a chilling 911 call from a woman who told the dispatcher she was the mother of the old National Bank shooter. We'll play for you her frantic call and have the latest in that investigation. Plus, Donald Trump is back in New York this morning for a different legal issue, this one with the state's attorney general. We'll take you through what's happening today in that case. Meanwhile, there are new developments in the investigation into the former president's handling of classified documents. We'll look at the reporting on a map Trump may have taken with him to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House. With us this morning, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle, U.S. special correspondent

for BBC News, Katty Kaye, White House editor for Politico, Sam Stein, doing a bang-up job on Way Too Early this week. Also, White House correspondent for Politico and co-author of the playbook, Eugene Daniels. We'll see him shortly. And attorney and contributing columnist for The Washington Post, George Conway. A very busy morning. Good morning to you all, Mike, though we do have to start with coming up on history here at Major League Baseball. The Rays won again last night. They're 12-0, beat the Red Sox last night. They're now knocking on the door of the record for the best start in Major League history, which is 13-0, held by a couple of teams.

And they're just mashing, scoring nine runs again last night. The Rays are an amazing story, an amazing franchise, actually. They do what they do each and every year. They renew their roster incredibly well. They do it at half the budget of big teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, other teams. It's a tribute to their minor league system. It's a tribute to their scouting, to their analytics people. And unfortunately for them, they could have the best team in Major League Baseball, and they still can't get a third of people to come and fill that ballpark. Yeah, it's not a great ballpark, but that's not really an excuse when you have a team this good.

Mike, just for casual fans or people who aren't even baseball fans, how do you explain this exactly? I mean, the Yankees and the Red Sox and all these other teams have all the money, but the Rays, as you said, they have to do it every two years. They can't go sign Aaron Judge to $400 million contracts. They have to find guys, bring them up through the farm system, knowing they're probably going to go sign with the Red Sox or the Yankees in a couple of years. You know, I think this is just conjecture, obviously, but part of it is it's a two-part thing. One, their renewal system, where they renew their roster every two or three years,

is based upon really excellent eyeball scouting and excellent analytics. A lot of teams have both. But one of the keys is they don't have a real genuine fan base. I'm sure they have a solid 8,000, 10,000 people who go to games year in, year out. But the idea that they could let go of people who were participating on their team and doing very well, that they could let them go like overnight with no fan base uproar, as would happen in Boston, as would happen with Mookie Betts, as would happen in New York if Aaron Judge had ever signed with the Giants. There would be none of that. So they can do what they do with basically no penalty from the fan base because the fan base is so inadequate.

And the Rays can go for that record of 13-0. They play the Red Sox again this afternoon at one o'clock down in Tampa. All right, let's turn to the news. Overnight, we learned a federal appeals court has partially blocked a ruling that halted approval of the most widely used abortion pill in the United States. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Justice Department's emergency request to put on hold part of a ruling made last week by a U.S. district judge in Texas that suspended the FDA's approval of Mifeprestone.

That approval dates back to the year 2000. However, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled part of the Texas judge's ruling could go into effect. First, changes the FDA made to the drug's approval used in 2016 will be suspended. That includes a rule that reduced the number of in-person visits patients are required to make from three to one. Second, the FDA's finding in 2021 that the drug can be distributed by mail also would be paused. The Fifth Circuit Court was divided in its decision two to one. Both appointees of former President Donald Trump were in the majority. The other Circuit Court was divided in its decision two to one. Both appointees of former President Donald Trump were in the majority. The other judge, an appointee of

former President George W. Bush, said she would have temporarily blocked the Texas judge's entire ruling. The Department of Justice still can ask the Supreme Court to intervene to completely block the original decision by the Texas judge. So, Eugene Daniels, obviously, this is something the White House has watched with keen interest, as you cover every day. This is kind of a split decision as we parse through. This just came down a few hours ago as we sift through it, which is that the abortion pill will still be available, but with some of the restrictions called for by this Texas judge. No, that's right. I was at the kind of announcement in the meeting of the task force on reproductive access for

the White House, where Vice President Harris, the attorney general, secretaries across the administration, where they're talking about this, what they were expecting, giving people updates, and more importantly, talking about how much they're going to fight on this. Right. And it does seem kind of probable that they might still want to take this to the Supreme Court, because they don't want to be seen as just kind of accepting the dismantling of this pill that's been available for 23 years. One of the things I think that's been really fascinating is hearing an administration that

doesn't have a lot of tools to do much about abortion and trying to do those things at the same time. They introduced a—they took a guidance and turned it into a proposed rule when that—going to get in that comment period soon that would allow—have some privacy—attack some privacy concerns that they have. So they're trying to nibble around the edges on this issue, because, one, they know that they feel very—they feel very—they feel like it's very important. But also, and probably something that we all know politically, this is something that was a big part in the midterms.

They see it as a winning issue for them as they move forward. And they honestly think that Republicans on the right have kind of overplayed their hand. And one thing that's really interesting is that we haven't heard from a lot of the top Republicans on this issue. They're out of town, obviously, but also the Republican presidential candidates, folks that might be there. You're not hearing a lot from them on this or abortion in general. I think that is something that this White House and Democrats writ large are kind of watching with glee because they know that they think Republicans feel they don't really know where to go with this issue. So, George, reading the three judge panels ruling overnight here about this, basically what they're saying is the statute of limitations is up on this. You can't

go back to a 2000 FDA approval and change that 23 years later. But they did leave in place some of those restrictions. You can't get it by mail anymore for the time being anyway. So what do you make of this ruling? Well, I think there are a lot of other issues with the decision that are going to come out when the case gets heard on the merits. And for example, I don't understand on first reading or second reading how it is that these particular plaintiffs who are doctors who do not prescribe this drug have in any way a legal standing to challenge either things that happened in 2000 or things that happened after 2016, which was what the Court of Appeals last night allowed, upheld at at least temporarily, against the challenge. So I think this lawsuit in the end is going to fail by the anti-abortion plaintiff doctors. It may take a few weeks to get it done, but I just don't understand it, how this decision ever came about.

And, Katty K., that's kind of the case that was made by the one judge, the George W. Bush appointee, who said, I would have voted to just block this ruling entirely. There's no standing. There's no the statute of limitations is up that this should remain as accessible as it's been for 23 years. Yeah, I mean, those in favor of abortion rights say that just from a historical and medical perspective, this is a very safe drug. It's been proven to be safe. It's approved in other countries and has been for decades. And they felt pretty confident that they would be able to overrule this case. But I think the bigger issue is that time and again, it looks like we're going to see from the anti-abortion movement

attempts to chip away and make an abortion ban federal from both a surgical and a medical point of view. They may not be able to do that, but the fact that they've moved this fast, despite what you pointed out, Willie, the politics of this being in Democrats' favor and states around the country doing what they can to enshrine abortion rights, there's still a movement from the anti-abortion crowd that they're not satisfied with the Dobbs ruling. They never were. They made it very clear immediately after Dobbs that they were not satisfied with the Dobbs ruling.

That was just the beginning in their eyes. And so this is set up still to be a political, legal, and medical tussle going forwards. And it's not clear that that's going to stop. John Garry, what's your sense of—let's the legalese that's going on from from this particular issue. What's your sense of the fact that at ground level, this what this means is you're taking something away from people, specifically women. You're taking a right away that they have had for decades. What's your sense of the impact of that sole loss of a right away that they have had for decades. What's your sense of the impact of that sole loss of a right? Look, America prides itself on being in a country that expands people's rights, that expands rights of access to those who have not traditionally had power and opens doors to

them having it. And so that that's why the Dobbs ruling, I think, was such a blow, not just within the United States, but not to get kind of 250,000 feet about this, to America's image around the world. I mean, here was a rollback of a right. And that seemed to go against the perception of what America stands for. And I can't tell you, as I've been traveling around Europe the last few months, the two things that people raise as concerns about the U.S. at the moment, first is guns and the second is abortion. And even in kind of Catholic countries in Europe, even in Ireland, which has made progress on rights of access to abortion, it's really striking the degree to which America is an outlier at the moment compared to other Western democracies in allowing people

rights to abortion. So that's the abortion question. On the other issue, Katty raised guns. It ties in here was both Tennessee state lawmakers who were expelled from the legislature last week now have been reappointed to their seats. Remember, they were protesting over gun safety laws. NBC News correspondent Blaine Alexander has the new developments. The vote happened in less than a minute. That impasses. Ousted state representative Justin Pearson is headed back to his seat in the Tennessee State House. The decision was in the hands of the Shelby County Commission.

Among the seven members who showed up, a unanimous decision to reinstate Pearson, one of two lawmakers whose unprecedented expulsion has become a national rallying cry. They tried to expel the people's choice and the people's vote, and they awakened a sleeping joint. Last week, Tennessee's Republican-led House voted to expel Pearson and fellow representative Justin Jones, both Democrats, after they broke House rules while protesting gun laws. This is what democracy looks like. Surrounded by a crowd of hundreds, both lawmakers gathered at the National Civil Rights Museum before marching with supporters to fill the commission chamber. What does that say to you that so many people are supporting you?

Justice happened in the state of Tennessee today, tomorrow, and into the future. Republicans say the expulsion was fair punishment for violating House decorum, speaking into bullhorns on the House floor. But critics say it sets a dangerous precedent. Now, a group of Senate Democrats are calling on the Justice Department to determine whether that expulsion violated the Constitution or federal civil rights, writing, unless the DOJ steps in, anti-democratic actors will only be emboldened. NBC's Blaine Alexander reporting for us from Tennessee. So, Eugene Daniels, in less than a week, you have both of the Justins, Pearson and Jones, reinstated to their seats. Now,

all three of the Tennessee, three are back where they started inside the House of Representatives. I had a Democrat say to me, the Republicans who made this decision last week might as well have been Democratic plants for what they gave the party, overturning the will of the voters, expelling them for a peaceful protest and then allowing them then they just come right back without realizing they could come right back in a few days later and giving all this energy to the gun rights movement and to the Democratic Party. That's exactly right. When you talk to Republican political strategists, especially here in D.C., they talk about how much of a misstep this was for Republicans in Tennessee. Right. They you galvanize these folks. You make both of these men national figures.

They spend days on television all across the spectrum talking about this. And also, you get called racist for days and days and days. And then it was very obvious from the very beginning, both of these gentlemen will be right back where they started, like you said. And so, kind of a political misstep for Republicans in Tennessee on how they handled this. And I think you haven't seen Republicans, national Republicans, saying anything about this because they want to stay out of it. It wasn't a winning issue, and it isn't a winning issue for them. And then you also have Vice President Harris going there, right?

So it has created this kind of, as Justin Pearson said, kind of awakened the sleeping giant in Tennessee. It doesn't mean that there's going to be any gun legislation, gun safety legislation that's going to move forward in the state. It's obviously still a very red state. But that means that the movement has more oomph in it. And you're going to have a lot of these young people continuing to protest, the three folks who were censured or the two that were kicked out and the one woman who was not voted out. They're going to continue to fight this fight as we continue.

I think they have like a month or two left in session. And so Republicans misstep here. You know, let me just add to that. You know, we wouldn't know who these people were a couple of weeks ago if not for the actions of the state Republican Party. They absolutely elevated these protesters, these lawmakers, in ways that they never could have imagined and are probably grateful for the elevation. The money they raised, the attention they brought to the cause of gun violence in Tennessee, all were amplified by the fact that

the state Republican Party took an extraordinary step to expel them from the chamber. And I guess I have a question for George as the sort of resident Republican on the panel here, if you still deem yourself one, I suppose. But is this just kind of indicative of modern Republican politics in your estimation, this notion of shoot first, aim later? Try to take out your opponent. And if, you know, it backfires, so be it. You just move on to the next fight.

Well, in my defense, five years ago, I left the Republican Party because I decided to become a personality cult. But I absolutely agree with what's just all it's been said. I mean, it really was just a stupid, thoughtless reaction to something, you know, to something that angered them. And I think it's just meant to pitch to the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. And this is just something, look, I mean, obviously, you have to have decorum in the legislature. There's no question you should have decorum in the legislature. You want to have peaceful debate. You want to have debate where people can hear each other and listen to each other. But to expel these legislators, particularly when they were going to get reinstated,

just was completely and utterly counterproductive. And as was just said, I mean, nobody would have heard about these people but for the fact that that they were expelled and then they expelled the two black guys, but not the not the white woman. So it's really just an amazing, amazing degree of stupidity that we're seeing by Republicans in this regard. And actually, the Republican governor of Tennessee yesterday signed an executive order aimed at strengthening background checks. So maybe nibbling around the edges. But that's the Republican governor of the state of Tennessee saying we have to do something to make guns safer and the people who get them not have the kind of backgrounds that might cause them to do harm. We'll come back to the story in just a moment. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors are looking into whether Donald Trump or his advisors made false claims about voter fraud in order to raise money and scam campaign donors after the 2020 election.

That's according to The Washington Post, which cites several sources familiar with the probe. Special Counsel Jack Smith is investigating Trump's election fraud claims and his role in the January 6th insurrection. The Post reports his office sent subpoenas to Trump's advisors, former campaign aides and other consultants. Some of those people reportedly have testified in front of a grand jury. The probe focuses on the money raised between November of 2020 and January 20th, 2021. Sources tell the paper Trump's appeals to supporters during that time generated more than $200 million in donations. Also new developments this morning in Jack Smith's investigation into Trump's handling

of classified documents. The New York Times reports federal investigators now are asking witnesses whether Trump showed off a map that he took with him after leaving office to aides and visitors. Four people with knowledge of the matter say the map contains sensitive intelligence information, but the exact nature of the map and the information it contained remains unclear. The Times also reports investigators have been gathering evidence about whether Trump had aides bring him boxes to sift through after a grand jury subpoena was issued for the return of any government documents in his possession last May. George Conway, dealer's choice. We can go back to the first Trump investigation or the Mar-a-Lago if you want. But the but the the when we talk about the January 6th insurrection,

this is something that the select committee on January 6th looked into, talked about during the hearings as well, which is the hustle, the shakedown to raise $200 million at least off of Trump supporters based on the lie that the election had been stolen. Right. And it was hundreds of millions of dollars that they couldn't have possibly used to bring 60 of those lawsuits that were that were summarily thrown out of court. It's just an amazing I mean, one of the things that always has struck me about political fundraising is that you can almost say anything and get away with it. Whereas if you are advertising toothpaste or something and you have people send you money for toothpaste that rots your teeth out or something like that, you'd go to jail for mail or wire fraud. I don't, I've never

understood that. And I think this is going to be a very interesting case for that reason, because the First Amendment does not protect people from to protect speech that is designed to fleece hundreds of thousands of people of hundreds of billions of dollars. And that's essentially what happened here. They just they lied saying they needed this money to to to to challenge election fraud. But they were the only ones that they were who were committing fraud and they were committing fraud on all these people who sent in these checks, thinking that they were somehow going to uncover fraud when everyone in the Trump campaign was telling the president of the United States that, you know, there's no there there. So, George, so they raised over $200 million around there from Election Day, November and January 6th, 2020, 2021.

What would the charge be for this six-week period of raising $200 million? What would the legal charge be? The legal charge would be mail and wire fraud and those are very it's when you if you deprive people of money in property through the use through through through false pretenses through the mails or through the wires and here obviously they used email which is the wires and it's interstate commerce, that's illegal under 18 U.S.C. 1341 and 1343, the mail and wire fraud statutes. And those cases are, you know, those cases are prosecuted all the time. I mean, the Steve Bannon case was an example, the one that was dropped because of Trump's pardon of Steve Bannon.

I mean, that was exactly where they said, hey, send us this money and we're going to build a wall. Of course, they didn't build a wall. I mean, they were just using it to line their own pockets. So that's, you know, stealing money, lying to get money is illegal and it isn't protected by the First Amendment. It shouldn't be. By the way, former president's up to it again. Remember claiming he was about to be arrested, send me a whole bunch of money to stop this injustice. Continues to do it. George, before we let you go, Mar-a-Lago documents case, just based on what we heard yesterday, it's clear that the special counsel, Jack Smith, is able to do two things at once, looking at January 6th and also looking at what happened down at Mar-a-Lago.

How strong is your sense of the case building now against the former president there? Well, my sense of this case has been almost since the date of the search warrant execution at Mar-a-Lago that this is the shortest, this case is the shortest distance between Donald John Trump and an orange jumpsuit. And I still adhere to that view because it's just very clear that he, I mean, if a quarter of what we've read is true, he obstructed justice. He was trying to avoid producing these documents. He lied to his lawyers about the status of the documents so that they would, in turn, misinform the government, which is why Judge Howell in the District of Columbia held that the crime fraud exception applied, the crime fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applied, so that therefore Trump's

lawyers ended up being witnesses against him and are witnesses against him. And if he was moving documents around himself, if he was trying to hide them so that he could show them off to people, well, you know, that's obstruction of justice, even apart from the illegal retention of the documents, which he essentially stole from the American people because he just claimed they belonged to him when they didn't. We'll keep an eye on this. And by the way, George, you passed Mike Barnicle's pop quiz when he asked you what the charge was, giving the specific number, the letter of the law about what the citation was. There he is. George Conway, thanks so much. Great to see you. Still ahead on Morning Joe, police in Louisville released the

audio from 911 calls that flooded dispatchers as Monday's deadly mass shooting unfolded, including a chilling call from the gunman's own mother. Plus, an update on the federal investigation into child labor across the country. It's something NBC's Julia Ainsley has been covering very closely, and she has some new exclusive reporting. Also ahead, we are watching out for another key economic report today after data yesterday revealed inflation appears to be cooling a bit. Steve Ratner joins us with charts pointing to some more positive signs for the economy. You're watching Morning Joe on a Thursday morning. We'll be right back. So I walk up on high, and I step to the edge, to see my world below. And I laugh at myself. Welcome back to Morning Joe.

We're expecting some more key inflation data today after yesterday's Labor Department report revealed consumer prices rose just 0.1 percent in March. That marks a sharp slowdown from recent months as the Fed weighs its next move on interest rates. Joining us now to make sense of the numbers, former Treasury official, Morning Joe economic analyst, Steve Ratner at the big wall with his big charts. Steve, good morning. What are you looking at? Good morning, Willie. Well, we had inflation numbers, I'm sorry, yesterday, as you said,

and the news was basically pretty good. So let's look at it a couple ways. First, we have what we call headline inflation, which is all the prices put together. And you can see that we climbed that mountain. These are year-over-year numbers. And then we came down that mountain. You can see the monthly increases coming down. This decline is heavily driven by things like energy, gas prices having peaked after that terrible time about a year or so ago, food and so forth, and coming down from 6% to 5% in

just one month. So that's really good news. The thing that we need to be a little bit concerned about is what we call core inflation, where you take out food, energy, and the things that do move up and down so quickly and look at literally the core of the economy. And there, the news wasn't quite as good. It ticked up a little bit to just over 5%. And this is the challenge for the Fed. Got to get from there to there. And that's going to be still hard work, maybe at least one more interest rate coming in early May. And then we'll see what happens from there. Is that the sense, that they will make one more interest rate hike at the Fed before kind of leaving things steady? The market is jumping up and down on that based on every little indicator. Right now,

it's at about a two thirds chance of another 25 basis point, quarter of a point increase. And then the Fed pausing to see what happens after that. All right. Let's move down the wall to your next chart and some really good news. In fact, a record for black unemployment in this country. Yeah. So last Friday, we had the jobs numbers, 236,000 new jobs, about as expected, continuing that pace of very steady strong job creation but the really interesting news as you suggested is what's been happening to black unemployment black unemployment has historically been much higher the red line here than white unemployment you can see back in the early 80s it was over 20

after the GFC it was about 17 spiked up again during covid. And now look, we're down here at five percent, the lowest ever recorded. And actually, white unemployment didn't move barely at all last month. Black unemployment still coming down. This is what happens when you run what's called a hot economy, a strong economy that basically employers need job, need workers so much that they, in effect, suck into the labor force, people who haven't been able to find jobs in less robust economic times. So a record low of 5 percent, as you said, just to put that in perspective, during the financial crisis of 2010, black unemployment was at 17 percent. So 5 percent is a good number. Let's look at your third chart and some more good news, Steve, about income gains strongest at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Yeah. So we've talked a lot over the years about income inequality and how bad it is for people at the bottom. And you can see particularly after the GFC, this red line, the bottom quarter of Americans, people earning thirty five thousand dollars or less or not a lot of money. You can see what happened to their incomes. You can remember all the angst that created when that happened. And then it can and then it climbs back up steadily. And again, a strong economy before COVID brought it up, brought the rate of increase up here, COVID. But then look where it's come to now. And so since the beginning of 2020, real meaning after inflation increases in incomes for people

at the bottom have been up 7 percent, whereas for people at the bottom have been up 7%, whereas for people at the top, only up 2%. And so obviously a long way to go to address income inequality. But as we run this hot economy, we're making a bit of progress on that front. So Steve, do you have any explanation for the three charts that you've shown us, the sort of three smiley faces on the economy? And yet national polls indicate that people are upset about the economy. They're worried about the economy. And yet if you ask individual people, one by one that you encounter at a grocery store or wherever, how are you doing? They say, hey, I'm doing OK. Why the disparity between the national number on people worried

about the economy and a lot of people, individuals who say, hey, I'm doing fine? Well, that's a great question, Mike. And it's one that certainly politicians and economists and all have been thinking about. I don't have a great answer for you. I think the best I can say is that there's a lag effect and we've had a tough economy for a long time, including during COVID, that people still aren't feeling economically secure, feeling like they're in good shape. And even though people at the bottom are doing better, as I said, you're still talking about people earning $35,000 or less, not a lot of money in an economy that has just been through a really tough inflationary period. But that's the challenge for incumbent politicians to convince the voters that they're actually on the case and trying to make things better.

Steve Ratner with his charts breaking down the numbers for us. Steve, thanks so much. Eugene Daniels, let's talk about that incumbent politician, Joe Biden. He looks at these numbers. He says, OK, inflation probably moving in the right direction. Black unemployment is at a record low. We're doing a little bit better with income inequality based on the numbers Steve just showed us. And yet I'm still underwater in my approval rating. How do they push out the message? How do they change the narrative around

the economy that Steve was just talking about? Yeah, I mean, one, they have been talking about how much they've been focusing on black unemployment rates, how much they have been hoping to deal with income inequality in this country. And that is something you're going to continue to hear them talk about. They're going to keep saying, and they have continued to say, that that has been a focus of theirs. So, they're celebrating those numbers, right?

They've talked about how, you know, the president has continued to say, like, his—from the middle out and from the middle up and by the middle out, that they are going to continue to work on these kinds of things when it comes to the economy. And on inflation, inflation is cooling because we're doing everything right. But at the same time, like you just talked about, they're not seeing those same numbers in polling, right? Americans still feel like things aren't going well in the economy. And part of that is just that historically, people in this country see Republicans as better on the economy, whether or not the facts actually bear out that actual case. But that's been something that they've been having to deal with. And also, there's so many other issues that are going on in this country that people just feel beleaguered, right?

This is a country that feels under siege a lot of times because all of the things we've been talking about today, right, abortion, gun rights, more mass shootings, an economy that's giving confusing information to folks. And that doesn't seem like it's going to stop. But this administration feels like they have a handle on the economy. That could change, right? There was a time where we weren't even talking about inflation. I remember, you know, the White House kind of laughing at us for asking whether or not they really believe that inflation was going to be transitory,

if it was going to be something they'd be dealing with for a long time. So they're also very cautious in trying to say this is something that we're dealing with, this is something that we're working on. But they are celebrating these little wins because you kind of have to when you're in a White House. Yeah. Unemployment at historic lows. And if inflation continues to tick down, maybe a message the president can take with him on the campaign trail. Eugene Daniels, thanks so much for your reporting as always. We appreciate it. Coming up, we'll have an update on a troubling story about migrant children who are working at slaughterhouses in the Midwest. NBC's Julia Ainsley has been following that story and she joins us next. Also ahead, Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut will be our guest.

We'll talk to him about the future of gun reform following the latest deadly mass shooting in America. Morning Joe's coming right back. Two months ago, a U.S. Labor Department investigation discovered more than 100 migrant children cleaning Midwestern slaughterhouses. As a result, their employer was fined and agreed to stop employing children. But NBC News spoke with one 16-year-old who says he still is cleaning that Kansas slaughterhouse months later. Joining us now, NBC News Homeland Security correspondent who has broken so much news on this important story, Julia Ainslie. Julia, good morning. What else did you find here? Well, Willie, as you know, it's a problem that officials, federal officials suspect is industry-wide. We know that DHS is looking into multiple companies across the country where they believe some children may have been brought to the United States as part of a human trafficking scheme to work here. But what we haven't seen until this point is an individual who was brave

enough to speak to us about their experience. We actually met a 16-year-old boy working in Kansas who was still working for this company and was willing to share his story. Now, I will warn you, some of the images we're about to show you could be disturbing to some viewers. In a small Kansas town, an undocumented 16-year-old we're calling Pedro to protect his identity is heading to work the overnight shift to clean a slaughterhouse. That hazardous work, illegal for anyone under 18. This is the slaughterhouse floor after it was scrubbed down. And this is what it looked like when workers arrived before their overnight shift. What was work like last night?

Well, it was very tough. What do you clean? Where they kill the cows. I have to clean all the blood of the cows until I finish and I have to leave my area clean. Pedro tells us his shift starts around 11 p.m. and ends around 6 a.m., giving him just enough time to shower and get to high school. Pedro says he has been working there since he was 15, up to seven days a week. Did you have trouble staying awake and learning? Yes, it takes a toll. It's very tiring and also because of the sleepiness. Pedro works for Packer Sanitation Services, Inc., or PSSI. In February, the company settled with the

U.S. Labor Department after investigators uncovered more than 100 children, some as young as 13, working illegally. As part of its settlement, PSSI pledged it would no longer hire children and paid a $1.5 million fine, a tiny fraction of its revenues. Nationwide, children were fired at multiple PSSI locations, according to some company employees. But Pedro is still on the job, a dangerous job. Like other child workers, he told us he'd been severely burned from powerful cleaning chemicals. I noticed you were coughing. Is that from the chemicals? Yes, it's because the chemicals are strong.

Pedro says he fled poverty in Guatemala two years ago. He relied on a smuggler to illegally cross the U.S. border and bring him here alone to find a job. He says he sends almost all of his salary to his parents more than 2,000 miles away. They thank me because there are a lot of people here. We spend the money as they please, and we earn the money the hard way. PSSI would not grant an interview, but has said it uses the government's E-Verify system to confirm employees' work eligibility and suggest responsibility lies with underage employees that deceive the company about their age.

Pedro told us he used fake papers that say he is an adult to get the job. These kids are living in fear that these kids will do anything. Pastor Joel David Tuches says he knows of more than a dozen children, mainly Guatemalans, who were told by their smugglers and the people they live with they had no choice but to clean slaughterhouses at night. You wish you could take all of them in and figure out a way to let them live their age, let them enjoy what other kids their age are enjoying here in the United States.

Because they weren't allowed to be? That was robbed from them. When you work in that slaughterhouse? Yes, you have to act like an adult. And if you mess up, you get treated like an adult, which none of these kids have the maturity to handle that emotional stress. Meanwhile, with the money Pedro earns,

he continues to pay off his $2,500 debt to that smuggler. We have only enough for our food and the rent. Only that. Like many child migrants, he lives with a relative that charges him rent. We asked him what he misses most. I am alone. I miss my parents, my family. Now, PSSI has asked NBC News for Pedro's real name, saying they would fire him

immediately for working underage. We're withholding his identity because we want him to be able to speak freely without the fear of losing his job that he says he needs. PSSI said that they would redouble efforts to identify him. Julia, how does he pass as over 18? I mean, I'm assuming now that PSSI knows that it's under scrutiny, it's on the lookout for underage employees. I mean, does he look much older than his 16 years? How does he do it? Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, before this investigation, before the Labor Department finished their investigation, a lot of former employees said that, look, PSSI was just looking the other way. It was a well-known secret there that there were children as young as 13 working there. But after that, after they've become so much under public scrutiny, we understand now that basically Pedro is able to get an ID that

says that he is of age. And in fact, what happens often that employees at places like this aren't only just proving that they're of age, they're also proving that they are able to work here. But many of them are undocumented immigrants. And in fact, they often use IDs that have been stolen by Hispanic Americans who are living here in the United States.

And a lot of those Hispanic Americans have had trouble getting their identities back. And in fact, some of them have seen our reporting, and now they realize it's not just an inconvenience for them to have their identity stolen. It could be that their identity has been used to help an underage child be exploited and work. And so some of them have now come forward, and we're sharing more of that tonight on NBC Nightly News. So, Julia, first of all, thank you for this excellent report.

Secondly, Pedro is not the only one. I assume there are several other people underage, men, boys and girls working. PSSI paid a one and a half million dollar fine. That was it? No criminal exposure? Just a one and.5 million fine? And I will say, we don't have evidence of other children working there, but certainly could be a possibility. We don't have evidence one way or the other. We just have this one child that's

come forward at this point. But that's right, a $1.5 million fine. That's based on the statutes. That's the maximum the Labor Department could fine them based on the fact that they found over 100 children working in eight facilities. But yes, there could be more penalties to come. But a lot of people have raised questions that a lot of times in these investigations, the real people who suffer here are the children, the children who are having to work these jobs to pay the person they're living with, to pay the smuggler that brought them here, to send money back to desperate parents in Guatemala. It's really a whole system. It's not just the companies.

It's also the U.S. government that lets these children go to sponsors who really can't take care of them because they're in such a pitch to try to get them out of the care of Health and Human Services. It could also be the fault of federal investigators who let this go. We know that child labor is now on the rise. On top of that, you now have state legislatures that are reducing penalties for child labor, who are trying to make it easier for children to go to work. So you have a number of systems here that are coming together that really aren't serving these children or instead allowing companies to basically get by with less punishment than some people think would be necessary.

Just a reminder of the extreme lengths people go to just to be in this country. And as you say, get money back to their families and take care of them. And I know your reporting is putting pressure on people who can do something about this. NBC's Julia Ainsley, thanks so much for your reporting. We appreciate it. Still ahead, nine days after Donald Trump was arraigned on criminal charges, the former president back in New York City this morning to sit for a deposition in another lawsuit against him. We'll get a live report from Lower Manhattan. Plus, what might have been the best free throw defense in NBA history

from a nine-year-old sitting courtside at last night's Eastern Conference play-in game who had a very specific interest in the game. We'll tell you about her next on Morning Joe. I'm out, down three, 2.8 left. Plenty of time to get a pass and a shot off. Jones looking, finds McCollum, oh, and he throws it away. Oh no, oh no. They're only down three, and the Pelicans throw away their playoff hopes with an errant pass in the final seconds. New Orleans now eliminated from the Western Conference play-in tournament in a 123-118

loss to Oklahoma City. Thunder now move on to Minnesota to play the Timberwolves tomorrow night for the right to enter the NBA playoffs as an eight seed. Over in the Eastern Conference, Zach Levine rallied the Bulls back from a 19-point deficit in the do-or-die game, scoring a game-high 39 points in Chicago's 109-105 win over the Toronto Raptors. But it was the daughter,

the young daughter of Bulls forward DeMar DeRozan, who may have helped to tip the scale in favor of her dad's team. Watch this. That is the daughter of DeMar DeRozan. And here's the voice you're hearing when Raptors shoot. She's screaming. That time it didn't work.

It's the thought that counts, trying to help daddy out. It's his daughter, D.R., making a difference in the game, screaming at the top of her lungs at every Raptors free throw. The Raptors on the night, 18 for 36 from the line. They shot 50% because of DeMar DeRozan's daughter. She put them into the playoffs. DeRozan said after the game, he was glad he let the 9-year-old skip a day of school to watch the Bulls play, adding, quote, I owe her some money for sure. She's not expected to be there tomorrow night in Miami where the Bulls will play the Heat for a chance to make the playoffs, which frankly seems like a mistake. I say give her another day off.

Sam Stein, before we let you go, a story that we're going to be talking about a little bit later in the show, but fascinating up in the United States Senate. And that is Dianne Feinstein, the 89 year old senator from California who has been away now, hasn't cast a vote in two months. She has a very important seat on the Judiciary Committee. Now, yesterday, for the first time, a Democrat, one of her colleagues, Ro Khanna, the congressman from California, calling for her to resign altogether. Where is this headed? Well, it's a really delicate situation, to say the least. We reported yesterday there's real concerns mounting among Democrats that Feinstein will simply not get back to Washington, D.C. She's been out for many weeks now with the shingles.

There's a backlog of nominees in the Judiciary Committee where she has a seat. Her office has put out a statement saying she's asked Senator Schumer for a temporary reprieve from serving on the Judiciary Committee and having someone temporarily replace her. That requires the consent of either all the senators or 60 votes. So it's to be determined whether they can even get that. And as you know, when you have a lawmaker like Ro Khanna and another lawmaker, Dean Phillips, another Democrat calling for her resignation, it just underscores the mounting frustrations that Democrats have over the situation. On the flip side, we now have two lawmakers, Democrats again, who have said that

this is unfair to her to call for her resignation, that they would not do this if she were a male lawmaker. And so we're seeing tensions really mount here. Yeah, and this is coming to a head because there is a long list of judges the Biden administration is trying to get approved and up on the bench, and they can't get the votes without Diane feinstein in the senate sam stein thanks so much we will see you tomorrow what time you setting the alarm by the way for way too early i'm always curious you know i'm i'm wondering if i'm doing it wrong but i'm going at 320 is that too early should i should i push it and try to let you 45 go 45 345 let yourself sleep every minute counts at that moment you know you gotta you got to get in those minutes. Don't we know it. All right, Sam, go take a nap. We'll see you tomorrow on way too early.

Thanks so much.