Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/15/24

Episode Date: April 15, 2024

Trump’s historic New York hush money trial begins today with jury selection

I'm testifying. I tell the truth. I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there's no case. They have no case. On Monday in New York City, I will be forced to sit fully gagged. I'm not allowed to talk. Could you believe it? They want to take away my constitutional right to talk. I have a crooked judge. This has never happened before, by the way. You do know that, right? With all of the things they did with millions of pages of study, they found nothing, which makes me perhaps the most honest guy almost in the world, I think. They found nothing.

Well, he's right about one part of that. This has definitely never happened before. Today is an historic day as Donald Trump becomes the first former president to face a criminal trial. We are hours away now from the start of jury selection in the hush money case against Donald Trump. Thousands of New Yorkers will be a part of that process. The self-proclaimed most honest guy in the world is accused of having an affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels, then coordinating a hush money payment to her prior to the 2016 presidential election. The scheme has Trump facing 34 felony charges tied to falsifying financial documents, which prosecutors say he did to conceal the reimbursements he made to his former attorney and fixer, Michael Cohen.

We're going to have expert legal analysis on this case throughout the morning. And of course, it starts at 930 Eastern Time. And we'll be covering the proceedings live and get reporting from the courthouse. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, April 15th. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, U.S. special correspondent for BBC News. Katty Kaye is with us and Rogers chair in the American presidency at Vanderbilt University. Historian John Meacham, we have a lot of breaking news over the weekend to get to on the world stage globally. But first, John Meacham, if you could just give us a sense of the historic nature of what's going to be happening with Donald Trump's trial today,

given that this has never happened before, what's the historical context you can put it in? The historical context to me is, is anyone above the law in the United States of America? Before the Republic even began, Thomas Paine wrote, people ask, you know, in America, where is the king? Well, the king is the law and no one can be removed from it. And so this is a test of our democracy. It's a test of the role of truth. It's a test of an ancient right of trial by jury. It's a test of do we have faith in our institutions to deliver justice? Yeah, we're going to get to our expert legal panel in just a moment to look at the details about that. But first, our top story this morning, the fast moving and significant events over the

weekend out of the Middle East. On Saturday, Iran launched more than 300 missiles and drones toward Israel, marking the first time Iran has directly attacked the Jewish state. An international military coalition led by the U.S. was able to shoot down 99 percent of the missiles before they reached Israel. Israeli defense forces released this video of some of the missiles being intercepted. The U.S. Defense Department called the attack unprecedented, saying the drones were launched from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Officials say only a few missiles fell inside the country, causing slight damage to an Israeli airbase. A young girl was the only person who was injured in the attack. Iran says its attack was in response to Israel's strike earlier this month

on an Israeli consulate in Syria. That strike killed two generals and five officers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. In a statement, Iran said it now considers the matter concluded, but warned of a more severe response if Israel, quote, makes another mistake, adding that the U.S. must stay away. It's not clear if Israel will respond to the attack or what that might look like. The war cabinet met yesterday, but provided no details. Officials have said Israeli forces remain on high alert and that leadership has approved both offensive and defensive action. In a statement from war cabinet Minister Benny Gantz, he wrote Israel will, quote, exact the price from Iran when the timing is right. They do promise a response.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is advising Israel to choose a limited response as opposed to an all-out armed counterattack. A senior Biden administration tells NBC official tells NBC News the president told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the U.S. will not participate in offensive operations against Iran. Another administration official told reporters yesterday the president wants Israel to, quote, think very carefully and strategically about how to respond to Iran, adding that Israel got the best of the exchange since most of the missiles were intercepted. And that's, I think, where one of the biggest stories of this lies. Let's bring in the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away, available on Substack.

And former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. He is chief international analyst for NBC News. And Admiral, if I could start with you on exactly what happened during the interception in the hours before, who got together, who led it, the U.S., and how important was it that most of these drones and missiles, rockets were intercepted? I mean, the message about Iran and to Iran seems to me to be vital here. I agree. And I spent much of my career at sea in command of guided missile destroyers and cruisers. This was the mission, shooting down missiles directed at our carriers, at our allies. And I can't imagine a better day for the air defenders than to knock

down 350 drones, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. It's a remarkable feat of military arms. And it also speaks to the military mismatch, frankly, between Iran, which has, you know, reasonable technology in those zones, but the capabilities on the allied side in terms of how this was put together. Think of it as a defense in depth. So it begins with satellite coverage that sees these launches at great distance, command and control that's lashed together by the U.S., Israel, NATO partners and Arab partners significantly. Jordan, for example, was participating in shooting down some of these some of these capabilities.

So all of that gets knit together, Mika. And then individual targets are apportioned to the launcher systems. So that's a long way of saying very good performance. And then individual targets are apportioned to the launcher systems. So that's a long way of saying very good performance. Now, having said all that, let's be honest here. Tehran telegraphed this. It had a bit of a performative feel to it. I don't think they wanted to end up in a situation where 200 Israelis got killed by a cruise missile or a ballistic missile.

And so at the end of the day here, that's why I think the international pressure landing on the Israelis not to respond excessively makes a lot of sense. Look for cyber, maybe going after Iranian maritime assets, perhaps special forces, if you will, back to the status quo ante. I think that's how we're headed. Let's hope the Israelis don't choose a massive military response. That really would escalate the situation considerably. Jonathan Lemire, the Biden administration responded immediately. President Biden rushed back to the White House over the weekend, met with his national security teams, and then the

collective effort began, was put together. That led to these interceptions. Fast, effective, but now comes the task of what's next. Yeah, the president was at his beach home in Delaware over the weekend, cut short, Mika, as you say, his time away, met with his national security team and certainly made clear the United States would stand with Israel as it defended itself against Iran, papering over the differences, at least for now, that we have with Israel about what's happening in Gaza. seven leaders yesterday really push for a path to diplomacy here. And he spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu and encouraged Netanyahu to, quote, take the win. To the admiral's point, your defense capabilities with help from the U.S., the U.K., Jordan and others did such a marvelous job defending what Iran did. This is a historic first attack from Iran to the Jewish homeland, to the nation of Israel itself from Iran. And it was a wild failure from the Iranian point of view. And the president telling the prime minister, hey, that should be enough. So, Richard Haass, let's talk about what

could be next. To the admiral's point, look, there were 300 missiles and rockets, but it was telegraphed. It was slow moving. U.S. officials told me over the weekend they knew Iran had to do something, but they did something that could be pretty easily defeated without this turning into necessarily a wider regional war. So we know Tehran doesn't want an escalation. We certainly know President Biden doesn't want an escalation. The wild card here seems to be Prime Minister Netanyahu. What do you think happens next?

Look, for the Israelis, they've got a real dilemma here. The fact that this was unprecedented, Jonathan, if you want to say a homeland on homeland attack, there's powerful voices in Israel saying we cannot let this stand without response. There's such a dangerous precedent. We've got to restore deterrence. Now, Israel's under all sorts of pressure from the United States. And one thing you've got to do as an ally is take the views of your patrons, shall we say, into account. So what can Israel do? They can do nothing. I don't think that's going to happen. They can go back and find Iranian targets around the region, essentially go back to the war in the shadows that Iran and Israel have been fighting for years. But there's two other possibilities. One is they would, for example, attack the places in Iran

where they're storing or making drones or storing or making missiles or an attack that would be discreet, targeted and germane to what just happened. And then last, you're going to have people in Israel saying this is the moment we've been waiting for. We have to attack Iran big, once and for all, even go after the nuclear program and so forth. So there's going to be a menu of options in Israel. And I actually think it's going to be hard or difficult for the Israelis simply to say, do nothing. It's a question, again, of what they do, when they do it. They've got time on their side. They don't have to respond tonight.

They've got their hands full in Gaza. But my sense is they are going to do something. This idea of restoring deterrence, not allowing Iran to think it can attack the Jewish state with impunity. I think Israel is going to be looking to do something. Yeah. And you've even got voices here like John Bolton saying that that Israel should go big right now. It was clearly a military win, Admiral Stravidis, for Israel. But to some extent, do you think it was also a political and diplomatic win? I mean, we've seen for the first time since October the 7th,

the narrative shift to the Israeli military doing something right and being powerful once again in a way that it had lost some of that veneer after the attacks of October the 7th. And there's this big diplomatic coalition. Israel was looking isolated over its activities in Gaza. And now that narrative, at least in the short term, has shifted to that we are standing by Israel, not just the United Kingdom,

which also we see David Cameron this morning urging the Israelis to be smart, but also tough, but emphasis on the smart there. But the Jordanians joining that coalition of countries that was helping Israel out. So politically and diplomatically, this looks like a good moment for Israel. How does it capitalize on that and not risk jeopardizing that? What a good point. And I'll just add to your list of voices speaking up the G7, which represents well over half the world's gross domestic product,

squarely behind Israel on this one. And let's face it, a lot of those voices want to avoid a wider war, not only because we all want to avoid state on state conflict, but also the effect on the global economy. Iran's first move in a big regional war, my view will be to close the Strait of Hormuz. There goes 25 percent of the world's oil bottled up in the Persian Gulf. So there's a lot of motivation here. In terms of your point, Caddy, yes, this does shift the narrative somewhat. And let's observe that this was the Israeli military defending its country and doing it very effectively.

And compare that to the, frankly, the debacle of October 7th, when Israeli women and children were slaughtered in their numbers due to a failure by the Israeli Defense Forces and the intelligence services of Israel. So to Richard's excellent point, they will be looking at a menu of options here. And I hope they consider the importance of that global narrative, which they have been losing terribly because of their activities in Gaza. Here is a chance to get some of that dialed back in favor of Israel. Definitely a possible opportunity there. Let's go live to Jerusalem. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel is there. And Richard, any sense of a response by Israel coming anytime soon? I'm hearing schools have reopened. So perhaps that's a sign that calm is potentially persisting

for now. So this announcement came last night that Israel was lifting the restrictions that it didn't put in place. It actually changed its policy. As of yesterday evening, schools today were supposed to be closed. All public gatherings still banned. And the Israeli military was keeping it fairly vague. And then late last night, I think because there was a lot of confusion here, there was a lot of concern. Why was Israel keeping these restrictions in place?

There were some reports on Israeli television, even as of late last night, that a new Israeli response was coming that quite late in the evening. Israel changed the policy and said, no, schools can go back. Gatherings can go back. Gatherings can go back. We're lifting those restrictions. And I think that eased some tensions. We were out doing interviews this morning, talking to Israelis on the beach in Tel Aviv. So people here are going back to life as normal.

So I think the lifting of those restrictions late last night at the 11th hour did eliminate some of the confusion. But as you were just talking, there is not a sense that we are out of the woods. Had some of those ballistic missiles, more of the ballistic missiles gotten through, the drones gotten through, caused significant damage, caused significant casualties, I think we would have been we would be having a very different conversation right now. The fact that 99 percent of the drones and missiles were knocked down, almost all of them before they even entered Israeli airspace, gave gave this country a degree of confidence and allowed it to step back from the brink, at least for now. But to the point you were just making and to Richard's point, this country still has a credibility gap, a deterrence gap that it is trying to restore in Gaza with Hamas after the

October 7th attack. And now one would assume that it will have to prove that to Iran after Iran crossed a Rubicon and launched a military style assault all across this country unsuccessfully. Richard, good morning. It's Richard Haass here. To what extent where you are, does this look like Iran threw Bibi Netanyahu a lifeline? Does he seem now stronger in Israeli politics? Almost the narrative has changed. And on the other hand, to what extent is he coming under real pressure from some of his right wing colleagues in his government to do what we're talking about, essentially that he's got to attack Iran or that some of them will actually threaten to bring down his government. What are the politics of this on Bibi Netanyahu?

The politics on Bibi Netanyahu are immensely complicated because if you remember before October 7th, there were massive protests on the streets of Tel Aviv. They were shutting down the highways. They were shutting down the road to the airport. Some demonstrations in Jerusalem as well, but almost all of it in Tel Aviv and the Tel Aviv area. After the war started, those protests went away because this country was on war footing. People didn't necessarily rally around Netanyahu,

but Netanyahu formed this broader war cabinet, which gave him a degree of cover. Now, six months into it, those protests are starting to come back and they're starting to come back in large numbers. On the eve of this attack, so 24 hours before Iran launched the attack, there were tens of thousands of people on the streets of Tel Aviv. They were expecting over 100,000 people protesting Netanyahu. And many of the protest leaders are members of the hostage family community. So this protest movement against Netanyahu is growing again. Now, whether this attack or this thwarted attack at Israel's defense, backed up by the United States and other countries, will give him a bit of a lifeline

is difficult to know. The protesters truly despise Netanyahu, and many of them believe that he's responsible for the security failure in this country. And you could even say that what happened over the last 48 hours was a security failure. Look, look at what has happened in the last several months. You had Hamas emboldened enough to send thousands of fighters across the Gaza border into Israel to carry out a massacre. And now Iran felt confident enough to launch hundreds of drones and missiles. Yes, they were shot down. But these two things still happen.

And many Israelis say that under the watch of Prime Minister Netanyahu and his quite extreme government, the overall security in this country and the overall impression of this country around the world has has deteriorated significantly. NBC's Richard Engel live in Jerusalem. Thank you very much. Retired Admiral James Savridis, thank you as well. And up next in 60 seconds, jury selection and Donald Trump's hush money trial will get underway in just a few hours. It starts today. We'll get a live report from outside the Manhattan courthouse where the historic proceedings will take place. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in just one minute. Gettysburg, Gettysburg, what an unbelievable battle that was the battle

of Gettysburg. What an unbelievable, I mean, it was so much and so interesting and so vicious and horrible and so beautiful in so many different ways. It represented such a big portion of the success of this country. Gettysburg, wow. I go to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to look and to watch. And the statement of Robert E. Lee, who's no longer in favor. Did you ever notice that? No longer in favor. Never fight uphill, me boys. Never fight uphill. They were fighting uphill. He said, wow, that was a big mistake. He lost his great general and they were fighting. Never fight uphill, me boys. But it was too late. That was former President Trump on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania on Saturday.

I'm thinking, John Meacham, is there anything to say about what he said? Or maybe we should just move on. I don't think Shelby. I don't think Shelby Foote put it exactly that way. I think that's a fair way to put it. You know, Trump delivered that history lesson just outside Allentown, where at times he sort of stumbled along with his speech. Just this week, it was reported that an illegal ad and you just look at this, what's happening. So in just hours, jury selection is set to begin in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial in New York City.

It is the first time in U.S. history that a former president will be on trial for criminal charges. Two sources with direct knowledge of the situation tell NBC News that 6,000 potential jurors will be subpoenaed to Manhattan criminal courts this week. Usually about 4,000 jurors are called in a week. More than 1,500 will be called today. Not all of these potential jurors are intended for the Trump trial, though, but the increase in number can be attributed to the former president's trial at a manufactured event at Mar-a-Lago with Speaker Mike Johnson. Trump said he intends to testify at the trial, though Trump's attorneys have yet to confirm or deny whether he'll do so. That's the speaker of the House with President Trump at Mar-a-Lago. And there's D Stormy Daniels. Trump is accused of coordinating a hush money payment to that adult film actress, Stormy Daniel, during the 2016 election to keep quiet about an

alleged sexual encounter. Trump was charged with falsifying documents to cover up that payment. He denies the charges and denies having had sex with Daniels. Joining us now, former deputy chief of the criminal division for the Southern District of New York, Christy Greenberg. She is an MSNBC legal analyst. Thanks for coming on this morning. I think let's start at the very beginning. A lot of people are going to really be focusing now that the trial is actually beginning. Can you explain what this is really about and then how jury selection could really impact the process here and even the outcome? Sure. So just to level set on a few things, making a hush money payment on its own, not illegal. Falsifying business records, that is a misdemeanor under New York state law.

So the way we get to a felony here is that these falsification of business records, the checks that he signed, the general ledger entries, those falsifications happened in order to commit another crime. And here that was in order to conceal an agreement among Trump and others to unlawfully influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. So what I am going to be looking for in this trial is not necessarily the falsification of business records. I think the documents are very good. The deception just kind of leaps from the page of some of these documents. They're using fake names, fake settlement agreements, fake invoices.

You're really going to be looking for witness testimony to get you to that criminal intent, that these payments were there to influence the outcome of the election. So that is going to be a focus as we go through this trial. In jury selection, what are you looking for? You're looking for the person who could potentially hang this jury. In Manhattan, I think it is unlikely you're going to get an acquittal, but you could get one or two people who don't agree and hang this jury. So you are going to be looking for people that exhibit any kind of political bias in favor of Donald Trump. Have not, have they voted for him? That's not a question, not what their political party affiliation is, but have they attended a rally? Have they, you know, do they follow him on social media? What is their media diet? Various questions about whether or not they think that he's been

treated unfairly in this case, that it is unfair to, you know, charge, criminally charge a former president of the United States. So that's going to be first and foremost what both sides are going to be looking for, as well as people who have a distrust of the law enforcement and the justice system, people who are very opinionated lawyers who want lawyers off the jury. So those are the kinds of people that they're both sides will be looking for. Prosecutors want to keep those people off the jury and the defense will want them on in the hopes of a mistrial. All right, let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin from outside the courthouse in New York City. Lisa, finally, you've been leading up to this and giving us context,

but today is the day that it begins. What will you be looking for? Well, Mika, a lot of what I'm going to be looking for is what happens before the first prospective juror even walks into the courtroom. We understand that because over the weekend, Trump was on his true social account, making numerous posts about prospective witnesses. There could be this morning some discussion about those posts and what the consequences could be for any violation of the gag order. We also expect, based on correspondence that Trump's lawyer sent late last week,

that they could say to Judge Juan Roshan, hey, we know that you finalized your jury instructions and your protocol for selecting the jury, but we still don't think it's fair because you're going to allow anybody who says they're unable to serve to walk away scot-free. And that's not good enough for us for appellate purposes. We need to be able to distinguish between the person who says I'm unable to serve because I've got a three-month-old at home and the person who says I'm unable to serve because I couldn't possibly be fair and impartial here.

So look for those morning proceedings to take up a good and healthy amount of time this morning. And of course, where the gag order is at issue, you know that the former president is very impassioned about that. So I'm also looking to see, can he control his temper even in this first day of trial? Lisa, talk about the jury selection a little bit more, because it's really hard to believe that there are 12 and 6 alternates out there who actually don't have an opinion about Donald Trump already or have an opinion about this case already. So how are they going to try and—what are the kinds of questions they're going to be asking them to try and get to people who really could be fair jurors in this trial? And also, what happens to that person who wants to sit on the jury in order to try and

swing it one way or another and may lie about their own background? How do they weed them out? Well, let's start with your second question first. How do you suss out the people who are lying? Sometimes people can't help themselves and they will answer questions even against their own self-interest of getting themselves on a jury. I am reminded of the second E. Jean Carroll trial, where there was a prospective juror who exactly met that description. Person very much wanted to serve on the jury, but had to answer truthfully a series of questions that revealed that on balance, that person couldn't be fair and impartial.

There were just too many different factors that showed not only a feeling one way or the other, but having an intensity of feeling. And that's really what this selection process is designed to ferret out. It's not, can you find 12 people and six alternates who are not biased in some way or another walking in the door? Everybody in America has a feeling about Donald Trump. I think you would be, as you noted, hard-pressed to find someone who's neutral. The question is, can people set those feelings aside and be fair and impartial when they join with 11 others on a jury? The questions on balance are designed to help the lawyers and the judge ferret that out so that there are very few questions on this jury questionnaire in and of themselves that would be disqualifying. One that I can think of is the question about, do you belong, for example, to the three percenters

or to the boo-hoo boys? That may show a disinclination toward, first of all, the government, but also a feeling about former President Trump and the 2020 election, et cetera, that may make it hard for a person to serve. But very few others of them by themselves would disqualify someone. What you're looking for is someone who answers a battery of questions in a way that you can say, given this person's answers to questions X, Y, and Z, they cannot be impartial as a member of the jury. All right, Lisa, hold on. I have more questions for you, but I want to turn to John Meacham for some perspective here. Obviously, this is a major moment in history. This has never happened before, and I'd love to hear more about that.

But also, given recent history, I mean, recent history with President Trump and post-President Trump and January 6th and the way he's treating the people who are in jail right now for the insurrection at the Capitol, the way he's whitewashing what happened and getting other Republicans to do so. Can you also talk about how Trump could and is already using this to foment ambiguity and anger in this country? Yeah. In one of his first public speeches, Abraham Lincoln said that if the American Republic were ever to fall, it would not fall to a foreign foe. It would fall to a tyrant who rose among us. And I think that's essentially where we are. You're exactly right. is part of a larger story about Donald Trump, his behavior, his view of whether or not American democracy exists for the good of the country or for the good of Donald Trump. And I know that's

not what the jury is deciding, but there are lots of juries here, right? There's a national jury, there's the jury in the courtroom. And ultimately, you have this trial. You have the Supreme Court preparing to hear arguments on Trump's really wild claim that presidents are totally immune from anything, as if we are creating this sort of superhero who has immunity for all things, which is totally contrary to the rule of law. And as you say, an attempt to basically run a coup d'etat four years ago, three and a half years ago, to overturn an election that was adjudicated again and again, often by judges appointed by Republicans. So in the broadest sense, what's on trial is fact,

is truth. And then the second thing that's on trial, which is vital, is half the country has essentially decided that whatever Donald Trump does is fine because of X, Y or Z, whatever that reason is. Right. There are there is a strong base. Then there are his enablers who think that they're going to have lower taxes and more conservative judges. And it doesn't matter that he's trying to rip up the Constitution. That's a decision that a lot of folks have made. The question is going to be, as we head into this presidential election, is will a sufficient number of those people stand by Donald Trump, come what may, including a felony conviction, including possibly convictions, certainly trials about overturning

an election that he just didn't like, right? That's on trial. So truth and democracy are on trial this year. And I don't, it's, it's, it's, I have no pleasure in saying this. I'm not trying, I'm not being hyperbolic. You know, this this isn't like history nerd sweepstakes. You know, it's not that this is the fact of the matter. And American democracy in many ways is being tested here. You talk about truth and democracy being on trial. I also think the question is going to be ultimately whether truth and democracy matter because, and we'll show you later when we get to politics, Sununu answering the question to George Stephan Lathus, do you care if he's convicted of all of this? Will you still vote for him? And painfully, and he looked pained,

he said, yes, meaning the truth and democracy don't matter? That's an interesting question. So Lisa Rubin, I want to ask you a dual question, and it's about process first. How long could jury selection be dragged out by those who want to drag it out? Or are there any parameters around it? And then ultimately, who is set to testify and who among those set to testify are the most concerning to Donald Trump? Well, let's start first with the parameters around jury selection. We are hearing that jury selection here is expected to last one to two trial weeks. And Mika, as you know, this judge, Juan Merchan, doesn't convene court on Wednesdays. But to what extent could Donald Trump's lawyers drag out this process?

They certainly could. And there are two reasons why. There are two types of challenges that can be posed to jurors. One is called a peremptory challenge. That's a challenge for essentially whatever unstated reason that side wants to give. In a New York state for the type of felony for which Donald Trump has been charged, each side will get 10 peremptory challenges, meaning there are 10 jurors that they can strike right off the top for no reason whatsoever, at least not any that they have to state. Then there are what are called challenges for cause.

And here's where I would keep my eyes on the Trump lawyers. A challenge for cause can essentially be this person cannot possibly be fair to me for X, Y, or Z reason. Look to them to try and further understand jurors' answers to the jury questionnaire and then exploit any loopholes whatsoever to try and get people kicked off the case. That's also because they have unlimited challenges for cause. The second part of your question, I think, was about the witnesses here and who poses the greatest danger to Donald Trump, right? I think that while we are all fixated on Michael Cohen, who is a character we know very well, there are a number of other witnesses here who are going to corroborate things that Michael Cohen says happened. And in particular, the witness that I would be afraid of are two. There are two women

who have both worked with Donald Trump, one very well known to us, the other not at all. Hope Hicks and Madeline Westerhout. Madeline Westerhout, I'll start with. She was Trump's secretary in the Oval Office between 2017 and 2019. You might be asking yourself, what does that have to do with this scheme that's being alleged here, which most of us refer to as shorthand as the hush money scheme. It's because in terms of repaying Michael Cohen,

somebody had to put checks in front of him in the White House. And we know that he personally signed nine of them in 2017. Who was that person? Those are checks that came, according to the indictment, from the Trump Organization, got sent somehow to D.C., were signed by Donald Trump in that very distinctive Sharpie scroll we know so well. And then were sent back to the Trump Organization for further papers, papers that, according to the Manhattan DA, constitute part of the false

business records here. I would contend to you that's what Madeleine Westerhout is doing here. And what else she saw and heard in terms of the attached correspondence, that's also of interest to me. Because we know Donald Trump doesn't email, he doesn't text. And if people want to communicate with him on paper, the way that they used to do that is you'd put an email in front of his executive assistant. That person would print it out. That person would then give it to Donald Trump. And then that person becomes a very important witness to cases like these. In terms of Hope Hicks, Hope Hicks is alleged to have participated in a number of phone conversations,

both with Cohen and Trump and potentially with them together in the lead up to the November 2016 election. When Hope Hicks testified before the House Judiciary Committee in 2019, she denied having any knowledge in advance of the repayment, I'm sorry, of the payment scheme to both Stormy Daniels and also to Karen McDougal. But what she knew afterwards during her term of service in the White House was off limits during that testimony. She may have learned something then or possibly she might have a different perspective on those events today and in future days in this court than she did before the House Judiciary Committee. So I'm really looking to see those two women, Hope and Madeline, as the witnesses that might

really bear some risk for Donald Trump. So interesting. So interesting. And Jonathan Lemire, just from looking at this at the start, at the onset, we've been hearing Donald Trump already making himself the victim. He will continue to do that throughout this trial. I'm gagged. He keeps saying I've been gagged. I'm gagged, which is an interesting thought. And then forced to be there. And this is election interference because I'm running for president. But of course, all the delays have brought this closer to Election Day. I'm also thinking that he'll be up against a daily diet of narratives from Karen McDougal, from Stormy Daniel, from other women about his behavior. And because of the salacious part of this, and because it's easy to understand, unlike

some of the other cases that he's up against, which people might just say, oh, forget it, especially Trump supporters or people on the fence. They just tune out. But I think it may cause more people to tune in and hear what's happening. And therefore, you'll hear Donald Trump bellowing that he's a victim. But you also may be very much clued into what people are testifying during this trial. Yeah. And it's clearly weighing on Trump. He took to Truth Social repeatedly over the weekend with screed after screed about this process. In fact, he was up early today posting before 6 a.m. on that same matter. We know the politics of this are a bit of a mystery. We've never been here before.

We certainly can suspect that his base will only be more fired up about it. But those independent and swing voters, we'll see. Polling suggests that a conviction might change some of their minds. They might be less inclined to support Donald Trump. And an election this November that's expected to be so very close, that might make a difference. Christy, we've been living with this for so long, the idea of Trump going on trial. It is finally here. It's a historic day. We shouldn't overlook that. We've also seen images of him in courthouse a lot over the last few months. But those are different. Those are motions. Those are procedural hearings. Today begins a trial with jury selection. And to Mika's point, this still matters. Even

though this is a case that's been deemed the least serious of the four that he faces, it still matters. My question to you is, if we get four, six, eight weeks from now, however long this trial takes, if we do have a conviction, what does that actually mean? Could Donald Trump face prison time? Yes. And how likely is that? Given how serious these charges are, I mean, you have 34 felonies. Each count carries a potential sentence, maximum sentence of four years. Again, I don't expect that these would necessarily be consecutive to one another. They could be concurrent. But given just how much prison time the maximum is, you can expect that there is likely to be a significant prison sentence here. Because again, it's not just about some documents that were false. It is about the fact that this is election interference.

And taking yourself back. I think this trial will take us back to 2016 when he's chanting, lock her up. And really what he's doing behind the scenes is telling Stormy, I'm going to pay you to shut you up. It's an interesting thing that he's talking about a gag order and being concerned about that when this whole trial is about him silencing this adult porn star that he allegedly had the affair with. But who is defrauded here? Again, the intent to defraud is what makes a criminal who is defrauded. We were right because we didn't have this information that we could have used when we went into the ballot box.

All right. MSNBC legal analyst Christy Greenberg. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. And MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, thank you as well. Lisa is headed inside the courtroom right now to get her seat. We're going to be checking in with her each morning for the duration of the trial. Look forward to it, Lisa. And in our next hour, we're going to speak with former U.S. attorneys Chuck Rosenberg and Barbara McQuaid as we get closer to today's 9.30 a.m. Eastern Time start to the first ever criminal trial of a former president.

Also ahead on Morning Joe, as I mentioned, one of Donald Trump's chief critics during the presidential primaries is trying to defend his newfound support for the presumptive GOP nominee. We'll show you the painful comments from Republican Governor Chris Sununu. Plus, House Speaker Mike Johnson is facing new pressure to pass a foreign aid package following Iran's unprecedented attack on Israel. We'll have the latest reporting from Capitol Hill and we'll be joined by an Israeli government spokesperson as the country weighs its options. Morning Joe.

It's 49 past the hour. We are going to get to politics and to Donald Trump's criminal trial in just a moment. But first, we want to discuss the developments over the weekend after Iran launched more than 300 missiles and drones toward Israel, marking the first time Iran has directly attacked the Jewish state. So joining us now, spokesman for the Israeli government, Avi Hyman. And sir, Iran calls its attack on your country legitimate and responsible action that they were responding. My question to you, sir, is what are the options in terms of a response? And can you confirm that there will be a response to this?

Thank you so much for having me on this morning. Let me first say that this narrative of retaliation is actually absurd because I can't speak directly to that strike in Damascus. What I can say definitively, definitively, is that was not an embassy. It was not a consulate. It was not a diplomatic mission. It was a military target, part of the Al-Quds Force, which is obviously Iran's major exporter of terror around the world. So they were there to do Israel harm. As far as the response, Israel will retain our right as a sovereign democratic country to defend ourselves after what you said was an unprecedented attack and thank goodness, a unprecedented response. Had some of those ballistic missiles, suicide drones or cruise missiles, had more of them landed, there could

have been absolute catastrophe in Israel. It could have been total carnage. So we're thankful and we're thankful to our strategic allies for standing with us on this one. But it could have ended very, very differently. We have the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, with us, and he has the next question for you, sir. Richard. Sir, you just referred to the fact that had some of those missiles or drones around launch gotten through, it could have caused real damage. There's a school of thought, though, here in the United States and elsewhere, that Iran seemed very anxious for this not to escalate. They were very quick to announce in New York that the whole given back and forth had been concluded.

Do you take that seriously? Do you think Iran intended for those missiles to get through? Or do you think that they were simply doing what they did in order to say, essentially, Israel can't expect to be a sanctuary? How seriously did you did you understand their military attack to be? Well, I think this was a very, very serious military attack. I'm not sure if there's a precedent for it. What I can say is that this is a huge country attacking a tiny country, a country Iran has been funding its proxies in terror pretty much from the Islamic Revolution, whether it's Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, etc. Now, there was peace. There was a form of peace. There was a form of ceasefire on October 6th. But then Hamas attacked us, raping, killing, burning whole families alive. Well, who was pulling the strings, if not the tyrants of Tehran? So it's not as if they want

to paint this picture as if they started, you know, we did something a few weeks ago, they're doing something now. That's not the case. It started long ago. And Iran is pulling all the strings in the Middle East as far as terrorist consent. Mr. Hyman, good morning. President Biden, in his phone call with Prime Minister Netanyahu over the weekend, certainly expressed U.S. support for Israel's need to defend itself, but also told the prime minister to, quote, take the win. And U.S. officials urging Israeli, their Israeli

counterparts to not do something they'd regret. Another quote in terms of retaliation. Could you give us a sense, how much is your government going to listen to the Council of the United States and not do a significant escalation here? I can't stress the nature of the relationship, of the friendship, of the shared values that we have with the American people and with the administration. And we thank the administration for everything that they've done for us and continue to do for us. But at the same time, we will have to, as a sovereign state, make the decisions to defend our country in the best possible way. Now, in the beginning of the war, we were told, don't rush into Gaza, you know, don't go in hot-headed,

and we didn't. We waited it out. We went in cool, calm, and collected. And we're currently assessing the situation with Iran, and we will act accordingly. But at the end of the day, it's us that grabbed our toddlers. It's us that grabbed our babies and ran for cover on Saturday night when 300 missiles, suicide drones were being blown up over the skies above us.

Israeli government spokesperson Avi Hyman, thank you very much for coming on this morning. We appreciate it. And while we're on this, the House is expected to vote this week on legislation in support of Israel. In a social media post on Saturday, Majority Leader Steve Scalise said the lower chamber will consider a pro-Israel bill that holds Iran accountable for this week's this weekend's missile and drone strikes. Meanwhile, Speaker Mike Johnson indicated yesterday that House Republicans are now putting together a foreign aid package. President Biden held a call with top congressional leaders yesterday to discuss Iran's attack on Israel and the need for the House to vote on a on the Senate passed national security supplemental. Let's bring in NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Batali.

Ali, how is this going to play out? We obviously haven't spoken about Ukraine, which has been waiting, is it months now, for the support they need to continue to fight against Russian oppression. And I'm wondering if what's happened over the weekend and the threat of greater instability around the world will finally get House Republicans to come together and pass what the Senate is sending them. I wouldn't put forward that optimistic of a view, Mika, especially because of the ways that we've watched this House Republican conference continually scuttle conversations around foreign aid, both to Ukraine and also to Israel, in large part because when you're thinking about the Senate supplemental package, we're talking about a bill that deals with all of that aid grouped together. If you're sending it to Ukraine, you're sending it to Israel, you're sending it to Taiwan. That is the bill that will be the fastest in getting that aid out the door just because of the way that Congress actually functions. The Senate has already passed it. It is now sitting in the House waiting for Speaker Johnson to do something with it.

But if he were to do something with that specific package, it's almost likely, or if not assured, that he would lose his job or at least be motioned to vacated, and then we would have to see what would happen. But the other conversation that's happening up here is that Speaker Johnson is now saying he's cobbling together his own version of a foreign aid package. Now, if that is an aid package that is solely focused on Israel, you can basically think about Ukraine aid as dead on arrival, in large part because grouping them together was the way that you made sure all of these various countries got the aid that they so badly have requested and needed from the United States. Now we'll watch and see what the speaker does and whether or not he's still

willing to keep those two things together, moving them in tandem. But again, that draws the ire of key members of his House Republican conference and again puts his job on the line. What we will see the House do this week, though, Mika, is put forward 17 bills that Steve Scalise has promised that swaps out an agenda of appliance freedom that was initially on the House docket this week. Now we're going to see them focused on Israel and Iran, largely messaging bills, but meant to show that they stand with Israel in the wake of this weekend's attack. So, yes, there is a renewed urgency based on what we saw. And we do know that on that call over the weekend, as Biden talked with the big four leaders up here in Congress,

three out of those four leaders support the supplemental package that the Senate has already passed. The pressure is on the speaker right now, as it always has been. But the more we see instability in the region, the more we hear from folks on the ground in Ukraine demanding future aid, the higher that urgency gets. It's not like it wasn't urgent already. Ali, to what extent does the speaker's meeting with Donald Trump and what Donald Trump specifically said about Marjorie Taylor Greene and about wanting to keep the speaker in his position

and not have the chaos that would follow removing him. To what extent is that protecting him? And it would allow him even to add the Ukraine aid if he wants to, which it seems he would like to have in there, or he suggested he'd like to have in there, that he could now add that in because of what Trump said. Yeah. You know, having been down in Mar-a-Lago, Trump did not give him a full embrace. It was more of a side hug, not necessarily the protection that I think some allies of Johnson were hoping for. But there was something really specific in what Trump said. Yes, the idea that he wants to keep the speaker in his job, the fact that he said, I stand with the speaker, but also the fact that he said he was open to Ukraine aid, but not in the form of the Senate supplemental. Donald Trump made clear

that he wanted to talk about it as a loan. There are various pieces of legislation up here that do that. But again, that starts the procedural process all over again here. That would mean that the House has to pass that new bill and then it goes back over to the Senate where they will then want to negotiate it and make amendments to it. And then it continues to bounce back and forth. Every conversation that I have, guys, with Democratic and Republican leaders who are in favor of getting Ukraine the aid they need, getting Israel the aid they need, they all say that the fastest way and the only viable way to do that is through the Senate passed foreign aid supplemental that is already, again, sitting here waiting for the House to take it up. NBC's Ali Vitale, thank you. Just to put a pin on

it, I want to go to John Meacham. Meacham, we have two hot water wars going on right now with major developments, dramatic developments over the weekend, both of them fending off aggression, fending off aggression that could impact the safety of the world. Doesn't the U.S. usually lead in moments like this and not a Republican candidate for president? Absolutely. And the lesson of certainly the 20th century is that aggression, unconfronted, metastasizes. And we have to stand with allies and friends in a reasonable but a convincing way. And the world, this is what history is, right? We've been dealing with chaos and war and turmoil since the third chapter of Genesis. That's when all this started. And it requires responsible, grown up people to do it. Not that they're perfect, but the central lesson of American history, and I would argue the central lesson of everybody's

lives, if you just sit and think for a second, who are the people who have meant the most to you? They are people who have helped bring order to chaos. They are people who have not simply put their own interests first, but put your interests first. They're people who were there for you when you were hurting. They were there for you when you needed strength. The republic is no different. And I would argue that we are facing a fundamental choice. I mean, strike the I would argue. We are facing a fundamental choice between an American president who does in fact put the country first

and now a criminal defendant who has self-evidently tried to break American democracy for his own purposes. And that's just a fact. That's what this is. And you can talk yourself into, oh, you know what, prices or whatever, you know, but that's not a salient argument when you're talking about preserving and protecting and defending a constitution that for all of its imperfections is in fact worth preserving and protecting.