Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/18/23

Episode Date: April 18, 2023

Combative GOP field hearing on crime in NYC

The Soros-funded district attorneys put criminals first and victims last. That is exactly what you get with the Sorosization of the United States justice system. Democrat district attorneys, many of whom are bought and paid for by George Soros. Who's funding these progressive district attorneys? We should know that. Well, it's George Soros. The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee took their grievances to New York City yesterday for a partisan hearing against the district attorney who is prosecuting Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was on Wall Street touting a plan for the debt ceiling, but his proposal had very few specific details. And on Capitol Hill, most Republican senators are coming out against an effort to temporarily replace Dianne Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee. We'll show you what they had to say about the ailing California Democrat. Plus, Ron DeSantis continues his fight with Disney, floating some potential developments near the park, including a prison. Also ahead, we'll get the latest from Eastern Europe as Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to make a defiant visit near the front lines in Ukraine. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, April 18th. Joe is making his way back from his reporting trip

overseas along with Willie and me, though. We have the host of Way Too Early, White House beer chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. I mean, he's always here, but yeah. OK, he just hangs out. We don't really know why, but he just sits down right here. Welcome back, buddy. Yeah, hey. A little hazing is always good for you.

OK, a member of the New York Times editorial board, Mara Gay, is with us. U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kay. And Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, is with us. Wow. So we've got a lot to talk about today, including this field hearing, Willie, which, wow. I mean, they were really out to make a point, but I don't know, wasting a lot of time and money. Yeah. You have congressmen and women from Ohio and Georgia and other places suddenly deeply concerned about crime in New York City when it happens to be the district attorney is taking on their guy, Donald Trump.

Congress was back in session yesterday after a two-week recess, but instead of being up on Capitol Hill, the Republican-led House Judiciary Committee took its work on the road for a field hearing, as they're calling it, in New York City. In Manhattan, Republican lawmakers looked to discredit the district attorney prosecuting former President Trump by blaming him for a post-pandemic spike in crime. This, even as data shows, a decrease in crime in New York since D.A. Alvin Bragg took office last year.

During the hearing titled Victims of Violent Crime in Manhattan, Republicans brought in several witnesses personally affected by violence who had varying degrees of grievance toward the Democratic Party. Democrats, meanwhile, accused Republicans of using their committee power to defend former President Trump. For the district attorney, justice isn't blind. It's about looking for opportunities to advance a political agenda, a radical political agenda. It is shameful that the Republicans of this committee would use the pretext of violent crime as an excuse to play tourist in New York and bully the district attorney.

Mr. Bragg, I hope you're watching. I hope you're watching today, sir. You're a disgrace. You're a danger to this country. This isn't governance. It's not working for the American people. It's grandstanding. It's a stunt. Just look at all the cameras here. This, unfortunately, is what we get in Joe Biden's America and Alvin Bragg's New York City. The Republican witnesses who have used their time to criticize District Attorney Bragg have served as props in a MAGA Broadway production. I'll just ask, was it former President Trump, Ms. Brame, that killed your son?

No. You tried to get Trump out. You couldn't get him out. That's face reality. You tried. The dossier was a fake. The purpose of this hearing is to cover up for what they know to be an inappropriate investigation. Now, I look forward, many of you in New York City.

Can I respond to you, please? Not right now because I only have 20 seconds. I'm sorry. But I do want to talk. Don't insult my intelligence. Hang on, hang on. The gentleman's talking. I'm not insulting my intelligence.

You're trying to insult me like I'm not aware of what's going on here. Thank you. Okay? I'm fully aware of what's going on here. Gentleman able to stand. Gentleman gets another 15 seconds. Thank you. That's why I walked away from the plantation

of the Democratic Party. Congressman Goldman, who you saw right there, we're going to talk to on our show in just a moment. So Mara, it went on like that for a long time. I mean, some of these people, most of the people are legitimate victims of crime in New York City. But the idea that on your first day back from this break

to have Jim Jordan and congressmen from California and Texas coming here clearly, transparently to put a dent into Alvin Bragg as he prosecutes Donald Trump? Well, I don't think it was very effective. I mean, one of the strange things, just there was no photo op for them. So they were in New York, but they could have been in any room anywhere in the country in this tiny federal space. That was strange. But also, it's just disgusting to see lawmakers of any party exploiting the grief of cherry picked, handpicked individual victims of crime and their family members for their own political purposes. There's something extremely disgusting about that. And of course, we know, just like any other population,

victims of crime have all kinds of different political views. And so these were obviously cherry-picked. And then, of course, you have the hypocrisy, because there are places like Columbus, Ohio, that actually, where Jim Jordan is from, that have higher rates of crime than New York City. That's a great point. And, you know, when you look at what is happening across the country, I would love to see a field hearing across America and a national conversation on mass shootings. I mean, if we really want to talk about crime and what is the leading cause of death in the nation's children, then let's have a

hearing. But no, this was all about Trump again and Jim Jordan's addiction, Gene Robinson, to Donald Trump and to making sort of some sort of show circus gesture politically. Yeah, it was a travesty, a sham, a circus. And as Mara said, it was not particularly effective because it could have been a basement committee hearing room on Capitol Hill for all the visuals we got from it. It was it's ridiculous, actually. I don't think it had any particular impact on Alvin Bragg. And these stunts basically are what this House majority can do, right? I mean, it's not clear, for example, that they can do the responsible thing and raise the debt ceiling, even if they want to, because they're such a tiny majority and they can't agree on a lot of things. But they can agree on bashing Alvin Bragg and, for some reason, George Soros. And that's their play. That's all they got. It's about political priorities here. I mean,

Congress does occasionally take the field trips. They did one to the border because they think immigration is significant and a way to attack the Biden administration here in New York City, where it's obviously an attempt to defend Donald Trump by going after Alvin Bragg and also the attorney, state attorney general Letitia James, who has led the civil suit against Trump. And we have seen during the course of this, Trump relentlessly bashing the prosecutors involved on true social as this trial begins to there. This is something where it's about Republicans here, Mika, to your point about mass shootings, about the debt ceiling. We finally heard a little bit from Speaker McCarthy about that yesterday. But what the Republican Party is banking on, what they think their voters want to hear is defending Donald Trump, talking about Hunter Biden, horror stories that

other cable networks can pick up. And instead of doing the work of the American people, it's about it is indeed it's a political stunt in theater and a waste of taxpayers money. Yeah. And there's two issues right now that are boiling over mass shootings being like and like I said, an epidemic. But also our children are scared to go to school. People are scared to go to events and then the issue of abortion, which we'll be getting to. But we have a lot of examples and even a guest today will show how these laws and these changes and the overturning of Roe is impacting the health of women across America, Republican or Democrat. It is impacting their health.

By the way, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, also in New York City, he made a visit to Wall Street yesterday to offer a preview of the GOP plan to raise the debt ceiling. McCarthy delivered remarks at the New York Stock Exchange saying Republicans would vote in the coming weeks on a one year debt ceiling increase tied to spending cuts. He offered a few specifics, not many, and used the speech as an opportunity to criticize President Biden, who has repeatedly asked that Republicans put out a formal plan. It is also unclear whether the plan McCarthy pitched would get enough support to pass with the party's slim majority in the House, and it would likely be debt on arrival in the Senate. The U.S. could hit its debt limit as early as July unless Congress acts to raise it. Katty Kay, your thoughts? And also, I wonder if

Kevin McCarthy's view on this matches his view on this during the Trump administration. Yeah, I'm just looking at Congress's latest approval ratings, by the way, and they're down at 18 percent. And what we saw in New York may be part of the reason for that. If they managed if they failed to increase the debt ceiling and the country goes into default and thousands of federal workers in the D.C. region anyway lose their paychecks for a period of time, then I suspect that's going to go even lower than 18 percent. The American people want Congress to get things done. And at the moment, they're not getting things done. And of course, yeah, there is on the specific issue of spending, it's fine for Republicans when there is a Republican president and a Republican

spending agenda to have that spending, the deficit increase. But it's something that comes back, you know, when a Democrat is in president. And that's just, you can see that pattern amongst Republicans that debt becomes an issue when there are Democrats who are doing the spending. But I think the bigger issue is that if there is, if they do fail to raise the debt ceiling and the government shuts down and workers are laid off and there are enormous financial ramifications for people. If the government shuts down, Americans don't have huge amounts of savings and they can't get them through those weeks where they don't have pay, then you're going to see Congress's approval rating sink. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if they sunk into the mid-teens. And John, we should remind people

this historically, traditionally, raising the debt ceiling has not been this high stakes, 11th hour drama where you try to extract something from the other side because it is too important, not as a political issue,

but as one for the entire country's economic circumstances. Even as recently as the Trump administration, Kevin McCarthy didn't do this. You know, you just raise it and you move on, you raise it and you move on. But now he wants to use this to get some some blood out of the stone here. Yeah. And the last time it did become an issue was when we had a Democratic president once during the Obama administration. The Republicans also

went to war over this while Trump was in office. Not at all. It was done in a bipartisan fashion. It was moved. It was moved forward. And it's not just the idea, if a deal can't be reached by the summer, and we don't know the deadline is shifting, but it could be as early as July. It's not just the government shutdown. It would be catastrophic to the financial health of the United States. It's credit going forward. There'd be a market meltdown. It would have global ramifications. And Republicans right now want to play chicken with this. And the White House, to this point, have said, look, we don't want to just do a one year thing. Let's make a deal. We've done in the past. We should do it again. They want to have these conversations. McCarthy took a step yesterday in that direction.

But it's not a serious proposal. White House aides I have talked to have said. And there's no meeting scheduled right now between McCarthy and Biden. So the clock is going to continue to tick and it's going to have significantly scary implications potentially for all Americans. All right. We'll be following this today. A lot of other news to get to in politics. This one, I don't understand. I need some explainers here on this. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is escalating his political battle against Disney, Walt Disney World. Isn't that like one of their biggest employers in Florida? The biggest, yeah.

And sort of what they do, tourism, right. At a news conference near Orlando yesterday, DeSantis outlined his next moves, vowing to nullify an agreement that allows the amusement park to circumvent his newly appointed state board. DeSantis then suggested the idea of developing land next to the park, which he says could include a state park, a rival amusement park, or even a state prison. He also floated the idea that the board could look into raising its tax rates, a move that would result in more costs for Disney. The feud started over a year ago after Disney came out against Florida's parental rights and education bill, which banned classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender

identity in lower grades. DeSantis has since announced plans to expand the ban to all grade levels, which doesn't require legislative approval. So we could have a conversation about that or about, I mean, talk about like stepping on a rake, getting in a fight with your largest employer. It's also just, it's starting to get a little weird and feel a little personal. Like if, you know, I mean, deeply, I mean, you're in a fight basically with Mickey Mouse. And it's like, why is this why is this happening to you so personally? I mean, it is also strange because, of course, DeSantis is trying to build his national profile. And it's a pretty odd way to do that by attacking Disney World, the destination, the desired destination of all children in America. I mean, I don't really see how that helps. Although the issues in which why he's attacking them,

Gene Robinson, is very appealing, I think, locally. But I thought Ron DeSantis was working on a presidential campaign. Well, we thought so. He's not doing a very good job of it, to tell you the truth. And this is just weird. This obsession DeSantis has with having the last word over Disney. I mean, you know, Disney did a maneuver that caught him flat footed. He tried to put this board in charge of Disney and Disney World. And and they sort of maneuvered him in advance, and he didn't know about it, and

so he's just fuming and steaming. But this says a lot about Ron DeSantis and about, frankly, his unfitness to even think about being president. I mean, can you imagine trying to conduct foreign policy with this sort of grudge match attitude, you know, toward our adversaries or our allies or anybody who got under his very, very thin skin. This is this is on the one hand, really, really worrisome about DeSantis. And it's also like really funny. It is the state's biggest employer. It is the place where every child in America wants to go. Why are we going to fight Mickey Mouse? This is just

stupid. And caddy Bob Iger, who runs Disney famously, said a couple of weeks ago, this is an anti-business position. He said, we're about to spend, I think, 17 billion dollars in the state over the next few years and hire 13,000 more people and all the things that Disney does. I mean, Joe has talked about this as a guy from Florida. I mean, Disney is Florida. Tourism is Florida. Universal, we throw in there as well. But, you know, Disney originally was, of course, right? America's greatest theme park without question. But this is just Harry Potter. Come on, go down the list. But this is beyond bizarre, is it not, to have this icon of your state, this company, this business that brings billions and billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs to your state because your feelings were hurt on a position the company took on one issue, on one bill last year. Partly this is about Ron DeSantis, and I think it is starting to hurt him when you're

starting to see Republican donors who had been looking forward to supporting, said they'd been looking forward to supporting a DeSantis campaign now saying, hold on a second, some of his positions, whether it's on, you know, drag parades or whether it's on banning books or whether it's on taking on Disney. It's going too far. And they're now looking at him with a little bit more skepticism. So it's going to hurt Rhonda Santis personally, potentially as a presidential candidate. But I think it says something broader about the direction of the Republican Party. And Joe has mentioned this, you know, is the Republican Party oddly becoming the anti-business party,

which is flipping history on its head? And it's not just in Florida. You're seeing them do it in Texas, too, where the Texas legislature is starting to enact social conservative rulings that could have an impact on the way that businesses are able or want to operate in Texas. And, you know, Texas is a booming state, but the Republican Party paradoxically could be about to hold the state back economically just because businesses don't like the intervention. They don't want business. Businesses don't expect the Republican Party to intervene in the way they do business in the way that the Republican Party of today seems to be doing. And Mika, to further Cady's point, it's the book bans. It's this fight with Disney. It's the restrictive abortion ban. This is Governor DeSantis. It's this fight with Disney. It's the restrictive abortion ban. This is Governor DeSantis, as he's trying to build a national profile, seemingly embracing policies and positions that are aimed at a shrinking portion of the electorate. Certainly

not enough to win nationally. And at the moment, not enough to win a nomination as he's sinking in the polls. Donors are having second thoughts. Trump has opened up his lead. Meanwhile, he's also ignored issues in his own backyard. We were saying yesterday, the flooding in Fort Lauderdale, historic flooding in recent days, never appeared. Santa's never visited the site. That's amazing. And then, of course, the 11 p.m. tweet about the six-week abortion ban.

I mean, it's just, it is an interesting tactic for someone who wants, who's got a book and has gone to New Hampshire and, you know, is seemingly wanting to run for president. Again, possibly what it appears to be is a losing proposition. But we shall see. And we have so much more to get to. Still ahead on Morning Show, we'll be joined by Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman on the heels of yesterday's House GOP field hearing on crime in Manhattan. Plus, Russian President Vladimir Putin visits troops in an occupied area of Ukraine. We'll talk to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko about that and the state of the war. Also ahead, Dominion voting systems defamation lawsuit against Fox News

is expected to get underway today. We'll have the latest developments in that case. And we're going to read from Gene's latest piece entitled Clarence Thomas's explanations fail the laugh test. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Will you bring me happiness? Will you bring me sorrow? All the questions of a thousand dreams. What you do and what you see. Love, can you talk to me? Just about 25 past the hour, a live look at the Capitol, a cloudy day in Washington. The jury trial in Dominion's defamation lawsuit against Fox News is expected to get underway later today. It was supposed to start yesterday, but the judge delayed it without giving a specific

reason. Two sources tell The Washington Post it was pushed back so both sides could talk about a possible settlement. The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Fox Corporation chairman Rupert Murdoch, reports the network made a late push to settle. Unless there's a last minute deal, jury selection will resume this morning at 9 a.m. Eastern, followed by opening statements. The trial is expected to last about six weeks. We'll be watching that today. Meanwhile, New York Congressman George Santos, who gained national attention after admitting to fabricating nearly his entire background, is running for reelection.

The congressman announced his intention to run on social media yesterday, tweeting in part, this is about taking back our country and restoring greatness back to New York. Congressman Santos currently is under investigation by several law enforcement agencies, as well as the House Ethics Committee. Announcing is one thing, winning another, of course. Santos's campaign had just $25,000 in its account at the end of last month, according to a campaign finance report. And NBC News reports the campaign raised just $5,000 in the first three months of the year and spent $8,000 all on refunding contributors and past donors. Meanwhile, competition for Santos has already emerged on the Democratic side. Santos may not even have support from his own party to run. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy Meanwhile, competition for Santos has already emerged on the Democratic side.

Santos may not even have support from his own party to run. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy laughed when asked if he will back the 2024 congressman, saying, quote, we'll wait and see who else. You know, I I would say this guy doesn't know how to read a room, except he has. Has he had any consequence and received any consequence to his mountain of lies? Not yet. But there are investigations underway. The House Ethics Committee has started their hearings. That's going to go slowly. Republicans are in control of that. So we shouldn't hold our breath there. But there are criminal investigations as well. The FBI and local authorities looking into what he did, that he misled donors or financial campaign finance violations, potentially. But the fact that he is running again is remarkable. He is. Let's recall,

he referred to himself as Jew-ish. This is chutzpah. That's what this is. This is chutzpah. Running again-ish. All right. Gene, your new column in The Washington Post is entitled Clarence Thomas's explanations fail the laugh test. This story is outrageous. In it, you write, quote, in 1969, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resigned after it was learned he had accepted and then returned twenty thousand dollars from a Wall Street financier. Thomas accepted gifts from Crow worth many times that amount, even counting for inflation, and failed to report them. And then there is all the money Jenny Thomas has received from right wing organizations that lobby on issues before the court. Plus her outrageous involvement in the Stop the Steal, which that led the January 6th, 2021 Capitol insurrection. Thomas doesn't believe in

affirmative action or protecting voting rights, though he benefited from both. He does believe in living the good life among millionaires and billionaires whose interests he just happens to protect in his opinions. My mental image of Thomas used to be of him sitting on the Supreme Court bench during arguments, silent and scowling. Now I see him on vacation, smoking a cigar with Crow and his buddies, laughing as though he doesn't have a care in the world. The joke is on us. So let's back up a little bit. This is donor talk about who mr crow is and also why isn't there i mean i know that there may be an ethics investigation opened into this but this seems like perhaps something that could i don't know expose the the justice to being completely impaired

when it comes to being able to make objective decisions. Well, so we're talking about gifts that Thomas accepted from Harlan Crow, who is a Texas billionaire. He's actually the son of Trammell Crow, who was once the biggest landlord in the country. It's a big real estate empire. And so Harlan Crow, who has a big collection of Hitler memorabilia, but let's not get into that. Harlan Crow gave Clarence Thomas and Ginny Thomas these lavish vacations, including a $500,000 trip to Indonesia one year. It would have cost $500,000 trip to Indonesia one year would have cost $500,000 if they paid a dime. Trips on his private jet, on cruising around island to island on a super yacht, all expenses paid, plus many other vacations. Yearly, they go to some resort he owns.

And his mother's house. Right, right. And it's incredible. And he never reported this. He never reported a penny of these donations. And then Harlan Crowe bought his mother's house and fixed it up. As far as we can tell, it has let her live there rent free. We're not sure of that. They haven't really commented on that, but I take their no comment as basically as confirmation. And again, so he expects us to take seriously his reading of the tiniest nuances of the Constitution and give them great weight. And he can't read a simple disclosure form. He can't see the difference between, you know, hospitality,

which may be allowed, and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts, including private jet travel. It's just, it's absurd. It's ridiculous. And he's just laughing at us. You know, and there are no, there are really no rules and certainly no punishments for ethics at the Supreme Court. And it's which is also outrageous. There's not a code, really. There's a code that covers judges in general and they kind of try to follow it and they're supposed to follow it. They didn't follow it. So what? What's what's what can anybody do to him? Short of impeachment and removal, that could happen, but it's not going to happen. So so here we are again.

The joke is on us. Gene, talk about that, the code and why there isn't one. What's the historical reasoning for not having some form of accountability? Because there is forms of accountability for elected officials. Of course. There are codes they're meant to follow. There are disclosures that they're meant to make, certainly when it comes to lavish vacations or having your mother's house renovated by somebody where there could be a potential conflict of interest. Why not the Supreme Court? And what might change because of these disclosures? I ask that realizing that not much might change, but let's ask it anyway.

Yeah, let's ask it anyway. Much should change, but I kind of doubt that much will not much might change, but let's ask it anyway. Yeah, let's ask it anyway. Much should change, but I kind of doubt that much will change. I mean, you know, the Supreme Court has the view of Congress and the president has always been that Supreme Court basically gets to govern itself and set its own rules. And the Supreme Court never has set any sort of really binding rules on ethics. And it refuses to do so. And I don't think it will. And Chief Justice Roberts, he has not commented really on this. He can't love it. He can't love the scandal that the court has been dragged into by Justice Thomas. But there's very little he can do to him, really. I mean, what can he do? The chief justice is sort of first among equals, but each justice is kind of his own sovereign country, almost,

at the court. And there's not much anybody can do. Now, you would think that the Supreme Court of the United States would care about having an ethics code, would care about being perceived as being, you know, cleaner than Caesar's wife. But no, they simply don't. And I don't think that's going to change. All right, Gene's column, of course, in The Washington Post coming up, the White House says the country is seeing a labor supply rebound from the pandemic. We'll dig into the state of the job market and what it means for the newfound power

of American workers. Morning, Joe, we'll be right back. News just into us from the White House. We just learned President Biden spoke by phone yesterday with Ralph Yarl. He is the black teenager who was shot by an 85-year-old white man after the teenager rang the wrong doorbell. Prosecutors now have charged the homeowner, a man named Andrew Lester, with two counts and added that there is a, quote, racial component to the shooting. NBC News correspondent Maggie Vespa has more. If we don't get it, shut it down. NBC News correspondent Maggie Vespa has more. After days of protests demanding justice, the Kansas City homeowner,

who families say shot 16-year-old Ralph Jarrell twice for ringing the wrong doorbell, faces criminal charges. I can assure you that the criminal justice system is working and will continue to work. As with any serious case, we approached this one in an objective and impartial manner. And he has the times where it's like, why? I did nothing wrong. Why? Dr. Faith Spoonmore says her nephew was trying to pick up his younger twin brothers from a friend's house Thursday night when he mistakenly went to the wrong home. Civil rights attorney Lee Merritt says Ralph rang the doorbell and waited. And he was confronted by a man who told him, don't come back around here. And then he immediately fired his weapon, striking Mr. Garland in the head.

He went to the ground and then he was shot a second time. Merritt adding Ralph was able to run for help after being shot and says Ralph knocked on multiple doors before a neighbor answered and ordered the boy to lie on the ground and put his hands up. Ralph decided to comply and essentially lose consciousness after that, fueling that fury, police taking the homeowner into custody, and 24 hours later, they say, releasing them without charges. Prosecutors now say the charges followed a thorough review of the case police put together. As the prosecutor at Clay County, I can tell you there was a racial component to the case. They add the felony charges filed against Andrew Lester carry a potential sentence

of up to life in prison, a warrant issued immediately for the 85-year-old's arrest. It's been my goal from the very beginning to get justice for the child involved in the case. Family says Ralph, a marching band standout with dreams of studying chemical engineering, is healing. He's alive. I think that's the biggest message that I want people to remember is that he is alive. Maggie Vespa reporting for us there. Mara, the incredible miraculous news is that Ralph Garland is home. He's out of the hospital. He's recovering. He's alive. As we just heard there, that's the great news, but my gosh, to knock on the wrong door by accident, be shot in the head and then shot in the ground again, and then go be able to get up and go look for help and be told to get on the ground and put your hands up.

Just thank God he's alive. I think he's expected to make a full recovery as well, which is just the best news. But what a trauma. But I just. But what a trauma. It is, you know, first of all, he's adorable. Yeah. He's adorable.

And it's heartbreaking. You know, my heart goes out to that family. But just this combination of just these old hatreds that we have in this country and then these guns that we have to just allow us to make these wrong and sometimes hateful split second decisions and take up, take someone's life, take the life of a child. It is the nightmare of every parent, I'm sure, but also of every Black American that they or their children will be the victim of a split-second decision made out of fear and bigotry. And this is, it's terrifying. I mean, it's also scary from the perspective of thinking about other people who go door to door, postal workers, campaign workers, people who just may be lost and need help. I mean, it shouldn't be this way. And then, of course, just hearing that this child, this 16-year-old boy, was able to go for help and then was, as he's bleeding from the head, told to get on his knees and put

his hands up. This is the origin of the Black Lives Matter movement. This is why we need to show that it exists, because the phrase really means Black Lives Matter, too. Right. And now we see why this is necessary. It's heartbreaking. It makes your stomach churn. Extraordinary. The racism involved here. And it's the prosecutor has said is a racial component of this case. They're charging on that. But it's also a guns issue. Last night in New York state,

there was an arrest of a 65 year old man who fired out his window because a car pulled into his driveway. There's a case, another just innocent mistake. It was a woman who pulled into the wrong house. She got lost, pulled into the driveway. The guy fired, shot, and killed her. Again, you want to have a field hearing? You want to have a conversation?

Let's make it about guns. Let's make it about the reality of what's happening. This is not a partisan statement. I'm looking at the data. I'm looking at the data. I'm looking at the stories we're reporting. And it is at this point, it's boiling over. Is anyone going to care on the Republican side? We want to take a quick look at the morning papers this morning. We begin in Ohio, where the Cincinnati Enquirer reports some of the tracks at the site of the East Palestine train derailment have been

reinstalled. The soil under the tracks had to be removed as part of the cleanup efforts. In February, a Norfolk Southern train derailed near the Ohio-Pennsylvania border, spilling toxic chemicals into the ground and, of course, into the air after the fire. In South Carolina, the Independent Mail highlights researchers' predictions for this year's hurricane season. Scientists say they don't expect the season to be as active as previous years. Last year, there were 17 named storms. Researchers believe there will be about 11 to 15 named storms this year, eight of which could grow strong enough to become a hurricane.

The St. Lucie News Tribune in Florida has a front page feature on scientists testing out an mRNA vaccine for melanoma. That's the same technology that was used for the COVID shots. A study suggests patients who received Moderna's mRNA vaccine for skin cancer were 44 percent more likely to avoid new tumors. If these results hold up, a larger study will take place later this year. And in Connecticut, the Middletown Press reports Connecticut is sending some marijuana business owners to college. The state signed a year-long $1 million contract with the California-based school to enroll residents in an accelerated program. The goal is to teach people how to run a cannabis business. The funding comes from state law that made recreational use of the drug legal. There's a lot of comments that one could make there, but yeah, okay.

It's legal now. It's legal now. Yeah. You know. Maybe people are making a lot of money off that. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know. I'm not sure.

Well, okay. And I'm going to get a lot of mean tweets. Don't worry about that. Okay. I know I'm not. Still ahead, Senators welcomed back

two colleagues on Capitol Hill yesterday. We'll have an update on Mitch McConnell, how he's doing, and John Fetterman as well. Also ahead, a bizarre story out of New York City. The Justice Department busted an illegal police station. Oh, yeah. Chinese. What? Yes. We're going to explain what was happening inside the building. Maureen Jo is coming right back.

Beautiful shot of a sunrise in New York City at 10 minutes before the top of the hour. A red hot labor market has put job seekers in the driver's seat, but that trend could be shifting. Last month saw a 28 percent decline in U.S. hiring compared to one year ago, with one job opening for every two applicants, a sign that some slack is returning to the labor market. That's all according to LinkedIn's new state of the labor market report that breaks down the changes in employment in America. Joining us now, chief economist for LinkedIn, Karen Kimbrough. It's great to have you. So we're looking at three key workforce trends to look at. I want to get to the second real quick, but first, job seekers searching intensifies. These numbers are moving around a little bit. That's right. So job seekers are now coming back to the platform with great energy.

They're starting to actually apply to more jobs than before. So we've seen a 35 percent increase in the number of roles that they apply to anytime they come to our platform. So job seeking is intensifying. We're seeing people kind of more committed to the labor market than they were before. And that is because for the last couple of years, they just have sort of felt like, I've got all these options. Let me sit back and see what I can do. And now it's tightening up a little bit. I think they were a little casual, and they're getting a little bit more intentional about their job-seeking efforts. And I think when we survey our own

members, what we see is the workforce confidence is actually starting to really bottom out. So they are not feeling as good about their ability to find and hold a job. So a lot more intention in the work-seeking behavior. And then also we're seeing a lot of workers who are still being a little bit picky, though. You still have opportunities. So let's get to that. Remote work tensions on the rise. And this is the push-pull about remote work, whether or not it's a good thing. People, a lot of people don't want to come in.

Bottom line, we're seeing that, you know, in our company, companies across America. I've sort of had a shift in thinking about it, but tell us about these tensions, what you're seeing first. What we're finding is that, you know, go back a year ago, remote work was the bomb. Everybody wanted to work from home. Nobody wanted to commute in. And so we had like 20% of the jobs on our platform were remote roles. Now that's over. We're down to closer to 10% of the roles are remote. Seeing a lot of companies pulling back on availability. Here's the kicker though. Workers love remote. When they come on our platform, 50% of the applications for roles

go to remote jobs, even though there's only 20% of the applications for roles go to remote jobs, even though there's only 20% of the jobs are remote. So people love remote. Is there a hybrid option here? Are you seeing that where employers are offering, like maybe come in for a few days and then be remote the others? Is that great? That's exactly it. So what we're seeing is remote shifting back and what's taking its place is the hybrid, the three days in, two days at home. The full-time job, five days in the office, that's kind of flatlining. We're not seeing a lot of momentum there. The employers want it, but the workers don't. Yeah, Katty K, this is so interesting

because of course the worry is with, you know, people going all full out remote is that lack of connection, especially for younger workers, for mentoring, for that sort of creative, depending on the company, creative buzz that's created by being together. And at the same time, the options for women especially open up exponentially when you have the option of remote work. And I got to tell you, when I was starting out and, you know, had a two hour commute working overnights, remote work would have changed everything for me and for the early years of bringing up my children. Same. Sorry to jump in. Totally. I mean, you know, we spent years, didn't we, as working mothers begging our employers to let us work from home one day a week and being treated like we were sort of pariahs or skivers who were going to just sit at home, watch videos on the sofa. I think I think that stigma has gone, thank God, and COVID precipitated it.

And it's interesting to see that actually even in office work is really only three days a week. I mean, if somebody had said to me five years ago that working in the office was going to mean working in the office only three days a week, I would have said they were just, you know, smoking something, because that seemed impossible. But I wonder what it does for women, too, though. If women are working from home more, and they are the ones that want remote work the most, but men are going back into the office. Doesn't that produce some lack of opportunities for women?

That worries me a bit. It's the men. That's what the numbers are showing us. I don't know if you find this too, Kimberly, that the numbers are showing that men are going back to work, but women tend to be the ones staying home. That, I think, can produce a penalty for women. So I think I think employers are to have to be super intentional, Karen, about how they figure this out. Are you seeing them do that? We absolutely do see that. I would say that the number one thing we're noticing is that, well, everybody likes the flexibility of remote work or hybrid work, but women in particular are more likely to apply for it. Black women and Latina women are even more likely to apply for it. And we've seen an increase in their participation in the labor force when they're offered remote work. Do you see any difference in younger workers maybe looking for full-time work in the office? And have you looked at any salary numbers associated with these jobs? What's the

differential between jobs that are remote? Is there a pay differential and ones that are fully in person? Right. So we're not seeing the salary numbers. That's not something our data particularly speaks to well. But what we do see is generational cuts. And so by generation, we're seeing younger workers who absolutely prefer to come in. They want the connections. They want the coaching. They may not want to be in their smaller apartments or homes with their parents or whatever it is. So they like to come in. It's the older millennials and younger Gen X who have kids at home and orthodontist appointments and soccer games who want to work from home. Yeah. Yeah. The, as you know, the employment climate, I guess a couple of summers ago was help wanted signs everywhere in

the service industry. I remember being out to dinner one time with my teenage daughter and they're saying, how old are you? Do you want to work? She was very young and they didn't seem to mind how young she was because they were so desperate. Has that changed now? Are those jobs starting to be filled? I think what we're seeing is it's starting to depend on the industry. So there are certain industries that are still hot, still looking for workers. Think about a lot of parts of retail, a lot of the service sector. Healthcare is still hiring on a tear. And then there are other sectors that have pulled back and are not really hiring. I'm not sure they're going to hire your teenager, but financial services, professional services, tech, these are all ones that are clearly on the back foot in terms of the pace of hiring. So interesting. I think we need to have more conversations about the remote work tension

because that's really dynamic. LinkedIn chief economist, Karen Kimbrough, thank you for coming in. Good to see you.