Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/21/23

Episode Date: April 21, 2023

Biden set to make re-election bid official next week

Hey, welcome to Morning Joe at 6 a.m. in the morning. Willie Geist not with us today, trying to relive some of the more exciting mornings of the 70s. Yes, that's him on Chopper 5. I'm going across New York City. See that little Chopper 4? I'm sorry. Well, in the 70s, we didn't really. Numbers didn't count.

Channels didn't count. We were sort of like freelancers. You were just there, man. You were just there. But a beautiful, beautiful look over New York City in the morning. Absolutely. Friday morning. It's Friday.

Yes, and Thursday was a very rough day for Elon Musk. First, his $3 billion rocket exploded. I'm going to question that framing. They get a lot of great data out of that. It exploded. But it was a planned explosion. It was. They got what they wanted. They get a massive data. It was a step forward. It was an unscheduled disassembly, as they call it. Well, I have had many of those. Or it exploded. I've had many of those. Then he planned to make people pay for Twitter verification. His plan to do that blew up on the social media site.

And on top of all of that. That was not good. No. That actually is. Twitter's messed up now. That's kind of a mess. It's a shame. And on top of all of that, Tesla's value dropped by around $50 billion as its stock price fell by 10%.

We're going to have much more on those stories straight ahead. Not to be a nag here, but there are a million different market forces that are pushing and pulling. Just EVs are a lot more competition there. All we're saying is it was a rough day. Plus, we'll show you what the lead attorney for Smartmatic had to say about forcing Fox News to apologize for airing misinformation about the 2020 election. That's the next lawsuit down the pipe. We'll have the latest on that.

Mr. Pillow learns the hard way that absurd claims of election fraud can have consequences. Five million consequences. It took him a long time. Also ahead, the fight for endorsements in Florida not going well for Ron DeSantis. We'll have new reporting on that. And we'll explain why prosecutors dropped charges against Alec Baldwin in the deadly shooting on the set of his movie, Rust. That is a big development in the case against Alec Baldwin. We'll have the latest.

It's Friday, guys. Friday, April 21st. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. Also with us this Friday morning, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. Good to have you both with us this morning. So President Joe Biden, we'll get to the latest on Fox in just a moment. Major news there. But the president is preparing to formally announce that he is running for reelection next week. The president's team is planning to launch his 2024 campaign as early as Tuesday,

according to three sources familiar with the plans. Tuesday is the anniversary of Biden's 2020 campaign announcement. What do you think of that, Mika? Well, I thought all along he would do it, and I think he has to do it. And I think that's how he feels. Yeah, Gene Robinson, I've given up on guessing. I, of course, taking the president at his word that he was thinking about moving forward at the same time there. I got good friends who have been very close to him for a very long time who have been telling me all along they don't think he's

going to do it. Yesterday, I got a call. It's so funny how this works. I got a call in the early afternoon from somebody really close going, I just don't think he's going to do it. And a couple of minutes later, we get this news from NBC, three sources saying he's going to launch next week. He loves to delay things, loves to wait to the last possible second to do things, always has politically. But this this looks this looks this looks like pretty solid, pretty solid sourcing right now. Yeah. Assuming the sourcing is as good as we think it is, he's in and I I'm not surprised. I mean, I took him at his word that this was his intention. I also took him at his word that he believes in fate. He wanted to see how things were going to work out and whether it was he was going to run again.

And I think he believes he's fated to run again. He looks at the Republican field. He sees Donald Trump ahead of that field. He sees Donald Trump ahead of that field. He sees Ron DeSantis sort of—it's too early to say he's flaming out, but he's not doing very well right now. And so, if it looks pretty likely that Trump could be the nominee on the other side, I always thought that Biden would run if it looked like he was going to go up against Trump, because his whole reason for running the last time was to keep Donald Trump, to get him out of the White House, because he was such a danger to the country and the world. And he'll do it again. He'll do it again.

He knows he can beat him because he beat him. And I think it's OK to say flaming out. What was the thing that they said about the rocket? The what? A unscheduled disassembly. Yeah. Yeah. So Rhonda Sanders's campaign right now is experiencing an unscheduled disassembly. So it is looking more and more likely that Donald Trump will be the nominee with, who knows, two, three, four indictments. But what's two or three indictments between Republican primary voters? Jonathan O'Meara, you've obviously been on this story very closely. We we've been talking. I got a chance to spend some time with the president on and off camera in Ireland. And I got the sense that he was he was actually leaning into it a little more excited about it after Ireland.

But again, questions still abound. What can you tell us? No, you're right. There's been speculation from the beginning. The president, we should note, is 80 years old and he would be 82 taking the oath of office again were he to win. And, you know, he has said publicly it's all along it's been his intention to run. But privately, people close to him have, as you said, Joe, expressed some doubt that, you know, the White House team, the campaign apparatus was forming. They were ready, getting put pieces in place for him to say the word go. He still hasn't yet. And I think that's what the word is here. And we're reporting the same people close to him say this announcement could come as soon as next week. They are eyeing that Tuesday, which would be the four year anniversary of his successful presidential campaign launch. But nothing's official until the president says it is.

Having said that, if we do anticipate that he is going to run, as you note, the looming danger that is Donald Trump on the Republican side of the field. It has what has been animated, animating Biden all along. There's also a sense, if not me, who in terms of other Democrats who could take on Trump. So right now they're preparing to launch. And now we're just waiting for the final go from the president. All right. We'll be following that now to the other big headline of the morning. We are hearing hearing from the lead attorney in Smartmatic's two point seven billion dollar defamation suit against Fox News. The voting software company says it was grievously harmed by the false claims made on the network, accusing Smartmatic of flipping votes to Joe Biden in the 2020 election. Yesterday, the lawyer representing the company said evidence in the recently setter Dominion lawsuit could be used in its case. In addition to that, what I think is really unique about the Smartmatic situation is the recklessness that was involved here, Jake.

Smartmatic was in L.A. County, L.A. County only. And you can confirm that we are in L.A. County only by doing about a one minute Google search. But notwithstanding that, what Fox and the other defendants were doing was saying that we somehow masterminded an ability to rig a national election when we were only in one county. So that level of recklessness is something you don't normally see. Don't you think it's important to make sure that those millions of Americans get the truth? No, I have a I'll say long haul. I want I want everybody to think of the long haul here. Smartmatic is in this case for the long haul.

They are looking to take this case through trial. They are looking through the vindication of a jury verdict in their favor. They are in this for the long haul. In order for them to get back to where they were before this all started, where they can win the contracts that they're now losing, they need to get an apology. They need to get a full retraction because they're in that business for the long haul. They're not looking to get out of that business. On Wednesday, Fox put out this statement on the Smartmatic lawsuit, claiming it will defend its case surrounding, quote, extremely newsworthy events. The network goes on to call Smartmatic's damages claims implausible and disconnected from reality.

But, Joe, this is exactly what you pointed to when the settlement with Dominion came out, that could the evidence that came out, that the damaging, humiliating evidence that what was happening on the air was not what they were saying off the air and that they were misleading their viewers and they ended up paying for that, that all now rolls over and gets used as evidence for smartmatic. That's not good news for Fox. You've got two things. First of all, you get the public relations of it. And yeah, the texts are really bad PR wise because you're basically letting viewers know that you're lying to them when you say that Donald Trump is this and that he's horrible. He's a liar. He's a destructor.

And also that the election claims are just purely bogus. Then you go onto the air and you lie to your viewers and tell them that the election was rigged. So that's a PR problem. It does have legal consequences. But what attaches to that and what we learned from the last trial or at least the last settlement, all of that discovery is the intent. The intent to do it with malice because they were losing viewership to Newsmax and AON. That's what's so devastating about all of the discovery. It basically proves the prima facie case. And so I'm not surprised that the lawyer is saying, we're taking this, Smartmatic, we're taking this all the way to the end. And also something else that's very interesting that may be more troubling for Fox News. If you have a company like Smartmatic

that is saying we're not going to just get a billion or two dollars and get out of this business, we're in this business to stay. We have to stay in this business. So we need an apology. And just for you all at home to know how badly these people's business has been have been have been challenged and some destroyed. I have friends who are election officials who run elections who say they get yelled at and accused of having smartmatic machines. And they said, well, they're only in Los Angeles right now or Dominion. They have Dominion machines. No, they do four counties over, but we don't. And they're getting screamed at. Every election official has been taken to task because they were in this conspiracy with Dominion. There is no way any elected official in America can have Dominion voting machines or Smartmatic voting machines unless this is adequately cleaned up.

So when he says we have to take it all the way to trial, we have to get an apology. That makes complete sense if they want to stay in this business for the long run. And that's bad news, of course, for Fox News. Let's bring in. And if you see if you see this sort of tension between reporters asking lawyers questions like, why didn't you ask for apology? You know, look, there is frustration within the journalistic community about the way Fox handled itself. But the bigger question is the service to the viewers. And I'll, you know, put all competition aside. Fox is a powerhouse. Millions of people watch Fox every day. Millions of people potentially watch only Fox. And so the importance of that

apology is so that the viewers get the correct information that they're not being lied to. They're not promulgating the lies. Well, you're concerned about that. And I understand that a lot of people in the media are concerned about that. However, the lawyers, they're interested. And I'm just explaining why there was an apology representing their clients and the clients are probably their primary concern are making their investors whole. And if it was going to cost their investors 200 million dollars to get an apology, that's not what they were in the business for. You know, that's why people write opinion, you know, why they write editorials are talk on shows like this.

Let's bring in right now NBC News legal analyst Andrew Weissman. Andrew, I've been absolutely stunned over the past couple of days the way Fox, and I'm not going to blame the lawyers because the lawyers do what the clients tell them to do, but the way that Fox has stumbled, they pay $ seven million dollars and they still have another suit out. So all the things that they pay for, almost eight hundred million dollars to make certain things go away, didn't go away, not going to go away. And in fact, Rupert Murdoch, the hosts, the discovery, all of that is still going to be out there if they don't now settle for probably even more money to Smartmatic. And they've got more. So I just I have no idea the logic of it all to drag it all the way to the end after all the embarrassing discoveries out and

then go ahead and pay almost 800 million dollars. None of this makes any sense legally or business-wise. Can you give us some insight into why it happened that way? So I think you're putting your finger on a real problem here, which is that logically you don't understand and I don't understand and I don't think we've gotten answers to why Fox, if there was going to settle, didn't just pony up the money before all these incredibly damaging emails and texts that showed what people were privately thinking. The only thing I can think of is, you know, sometimes denial is a big factor and people are thinking it won't be so bad. We have legal arguments. Maybe the judge will rule in ways that are favorable. And I think that may be part of it. And that people

really had thoughts were thinking they were going to go to trial. They could drag this out. They could maybe take it to the Supreme Court. But I think maybe one of the key things is when the district judge said at trial, you, Dominion, can call Rupert Murdoch to the stand, as well as all of the sort of key hosts. I think that may have been a bridge too far where Rupert Murdoch said, you know what, I am not going to be disgraced like that and forced to make these statements under oath live. And we're going to settle. But to be cynical about the big picture, the big picture may be they pay a lot of money to Dominion, maybe to Smartmatic.

But one, it seems to be tax deductible. So it's not quite as large as everyone thinks. And their business model still goes on. And as Mika said, they have a huge viewership. And the next time they promulgate the big lie, but they know not to denigrate a private company and they can do exactly the same thing, but they won't be subject to a lawsuit. Interesting. So, Andrew, in your latest piece for The Atlantic entitled When the Media Bow to Trump, you co-write in part, quote, two of the top news stories in recent weeks, the Manhattan district attorney's criminal indictment in the people of

the state of New York versus Donald Trump and the three quarter billion dollar settlement in Dominion Voting Systems versus Fox News Network may seem like independent affairs, but they are parts of one bigger story. That story is how former President Trump has been able to control what information is available to the public, as he has repeatedly done in an effort to aggrandize and cling to his own power. His willing helpers were media companies, but they were not acting as news organizations. When national media companies pollute the information environment with in collusion with a political campaign, the question becomes whether American institutions and the legal system can adequately respond. The courts may hinder Trump, or for that matter, any politician with autocratic

leanings, from colluding with media companies. But the worrying messages to such politicians may be to avoid mischaracterizing or paying hush money altogether to avoid defaming a company with deep pockets when promulgating the next big lie. Bragg and Dominion may win their battles, but the electorate may lose the war. Gene Robinson. Well, that's a frightening prospect, Andrew. So how do we break this cycle? I mean, I know a lot of people in media who were appalled at what Fox did in defaming Dominion and who were rooting for Fox to lose. gone to trial might have an impact on libel law, might have an impact on the governing Supreme Court decision, Sullivan v. New York Times, that gives wide latitude to reputable

news organizations. And that is kind of potentially a threat. Well, how do we break this cycle? And how should the media be thinking about this? Great question. So so I think the key word that you used, Eugene, is the word reputable. So if I were at a reputable news organization, I don't know that I'd be particularly worried about what I saw at the National Enquirer, which was completely colluding with the Trump campaign or what we saw at the Fox News. It's, you know, if you talk to any reputable journalist, whether it's in television, whether it's in print media, this is so far beyond the pale in terms of what news is supposed to be. You're just not colluding with one political campaign. So I don't think that there's a real sort of, you know, slippery slope here where you see liability here.

You have to worry about what's going to happen next. And this really goes back to a point that Joe made, which is that these are private parties that are suing. Their interest is not to get a public apology, to defend American democracy or to protect the information flow. They're trying to get the damages to their client. And so that's where you really think the FEC, which did impose a small fine on the National Enquirer, needs to step in. And it can't be a small fine. You really need to be thinking about, OK, what is the business model for the National Enquirer? What is the business model for Fox News? And the next media company that's going to pretend to be giving news but is actually going to

be promulgating lies, is there going to be some regulatory damage that's going to deter that so we don't have a repetition? Because it's really easy to just simply avoid denigrating a company so you won't get sued, but still promulgate a big lie. And so you need to have the government step in to have some kind of regulation of that kind of conduct. So one of the loudest promoters of the big lie, MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, has been ordered to pay $5 million to a man who successfully debunked his claims of a stolen 2020 election. Yesterday, an arbitration panel unanimously ruled against Lindell, who issued what he called the Prove Mike Wrong Challenge. That wasn't hard. At a cyber symposium he hosted in 2021,

Lindell promised to give millions to anyone who could prove his cyber data about the 2020 election was not valid. He was taken up on his offer by a software developer and Trump voter who says he was initially excited to see what evidence Lindell had found. But according to the man's attorney, quote, much to his chagrin, he found it wasn't 2020 election data. In a statement to NBC News, Lindell called the ruling a horrible, wrong decision. That was unanimous and will be unanimous in any arbitration panel because Jonathan O'Meara, again, the facts are not there. Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, the Kraken lady, they have all been lying through their teeth since November 2020.

They keep promising facts. They never provide facts. None. All they can do is just push the big lie. You know, again, 63 federal judges, a lot of them appointed by Donald Trump, a lot of them Federal and Alito, saying, you know what, we ought to look into this one part of the Pennsylvania election. But of course, there wouldn't be enough votes to change the outcome of the election at all, basically saying it's already set. Biden won. And yet, despite all that, these people keep lying, keep making fools of

themselves. And in the case of Fox, keep having to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Yeah. And as we've discussed on the show and as I covered in my my book, the whether it's Rudy Giuliani or Sidney Powell, they'd say one thing on the courthouse steps and then something very different inside the courthouse itself because they knew they didn't have the evidence to back it up. And we know Mike Lindell, he had free reign of the Oval Office in the weeks after the 2020 election, would bring conspiracy theories to Donald Trump's desk. I guess we know now why my pillow is expanding into the slippers and so on. They've got to raise some money to pay out this $5 million. He's lucky that others didn't take him up on the same offer. So, Andrew, Lindell also is one of the individuals in which Dominion is suing. Rudy Giuliani on that list as well. We just saw what Dominion was able to get from Fox News.

In your estimation, how worried should Lindell and those of his ilk be when Dominion turns their attention to them? I think the individuals are even in worse shape than Fox because they can't say they're just in the news organization or they were claiming a reporter's privilege. I think there's a reason that since Dominion has brought its suit that you have not heard from Sidney Powell, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Lindell. There has been, you know, they've been quite muted. And that's because their public statements have gotten them in, deservedly, a lot of hot water. Because if you defame a company and put out the big lie about a private company with deep pockets, they can sue you, which is exactly

what's going on. I think that by all accounts, that is something that they really have to worry about. They don't have a lot of defenses. The real issue is just how much money they can pay, because some of them have more than others. But this is the kind of thing that can really bankrupt all of the individual defendants. And you can be sure that Dominion is going to be pressing ahead hard with respect to each of them. And they're going to be bankrupt. I mean, you look at Rudy Giuliani, you look at these other people. I see absolutely no way for them to avoid bankruptcy because they just get caught in lie after lie after lie. I just don't know why they would continue to participate when it was obvious.

But there you go. That's why we're where we are. NBC News legal analyst Andrew Weissman, thank you very much for coming on the show on this Friday morning. We appreciate it. And still ahead on Morning Joe, Donald Trump remains the focus of criminal probes in New York, Fulton County, Georgia, Washington, D.C. Jackie Alamany joins us with new reporting from The Washington Post on the status of all of the investigations into Donald Trump. Plus, the legal trouble does not appear to be slowing down the former president's new bid for the White House as he picks up new endorsements in Florida while the state's governor focuses on his fight with Mickey Mouse. And don't do that. Don't do that. You know what? You know what Bob Iger is saying? Yeah. I'm going to hold my beer, hold my beer while I take this guy's political soul to the ground.

Also, a January 6th defendant is facing a federal firearm charge after allegedly shooting at police days before he was expected to surrender for charges related to the attack on the Capitol. Well, that should help him in his time in front of the judge. Or actually not. Look at that beautiful shot of New York City as we go to break. It's Friday, New York City, 627 a.m. It's time for you to turn off your alarm clock and go back to sleep. We'll be right back. All right. 32 past the hour. TJ was just asking me.

I mean, I know we've been working together for a long time. Who? You and me or TJ? TJ and me. And he was asking what's in my book. Those are your private musings. Inspirational. I write down, there are a lot of quotes in here, but there's also a lot of, no.

Here's a good one. Write it on your heart that today is the best day of the year. I love that. Isn't that nice? I love that. It's a good challenge in the morning. Yes, it is. A good reminder in the morning.

Thank you. A lot of terrible things going on and a lot of things that we can't make a difference on, but we certainly can. And going through a day, we certainly can adjust our attitude and try to be as positive as possible. I don't disagree with that at all. That's wonderful. That's not just here, but also over the world, because we're bombarded with really bad news at home and abroad, and we've got to figure out a way to make it better. And I'll tell you, make it through and make it through.

And I'll tell you right now, the United States has to do something like, for instance, in Sudan. Yes. Gene Robinson, Sudan right now. The situation is just absolutely horrific. If you look at it out of northeast Africa, this power struggle keeps going. It's nearly a week after the nation's military and a paramilitary group clashed in the capital. They're trying to get control of the presidential palace. But this has gone well beyond urban conflict. This is a society in meltdown and and cry, cry for Sudan. It has been a scene of constant civil war for over 20, 30 years. I remember when I was in Congress, you know, human rights groups talking about the million

plus Christians who had been killed by then the Muslim majority. And then there's been one move after another to try to bring peace. Nothing's happening. Nothing's working positively. It's getting worse. No, Sudan has always had these deep schisms, you know, between Arabs and Christians, between the sort of northern Sudanese and South Sudan, which split off to become a separate country. But there's still, you know, I mean, this is horrific what's going on now. And I'm sure that one of the things the White House and the Pentagon are thinking about is evacuating Americans and making sure we have people, our people at the embassy are safe and, if necessary, are out of there. And we're going to have to get some sort of international coalition together, probably

with the U.K. and others, to try to negotiate a ceasefire and some sort of some sort of peace there. It's going to be very difficult, I think. Yep. And prosecutors in New Mexico will drop involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of cinematographer Helena Hutchins on the set of the film Rust in 2021. Prosecutors say in a statement that new facts were revealed as authorities were preparing next month's preliminary hearing. However, the prosecutors noted the decision does not, quote, absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and noted that charges may be refiled. Baldwin has maintained the gun went off accidentally and that he did not pull the trigger. The charges against the film's armorer remain unchanged. I don't really understand that we're

dropping the charges, but it's not absolved and we could do them again. No, I don't know. I think I don't quite understand. There might be some react might be some reaction there to him kind of playing out the case in the public arena. Yeah, but I'm just saying, if you're going to press charges, press charges. If they had it, they'd press charges, but they dropped it. But when they dropped it, they said, oh, we may come back and charge again. Yeah, yeah. It doesn't make any sense at all.

All right. A Texas man facing multiple charges in the January 6th insurrection allegedly shot at sheriff's deputies who went to his home last week for a welfare check. That is according to a new court filing from an FBI agent. The agent says he called Nathan Donald Pelham last Wednesday and asked him to surrender in a few days. That night, Pelham's father called the sheriff's office and asked them to check on his son. When deputies arrive, they say Pelham fired several shots inside his home and then at them. One deputy said a bullet came close enough to him that he could hear the whistling sound as it hit a metal object that was near to him. Pelham is now facing an additional felony charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Let's bring in congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Ellimaner, who's taking a look at the status of all the investigations into the cases against Jackie. This is a Friday checkup. We can go top to bottom. Starting with January. Yeah, it's interesting, Jackie. Now, before we start, it's interesting. I'm sure you saw the poll this week that was just released. And actually, voters scaled them on what they considered to be illegal activity. So interesting. Manhattan was at the bottom, but at the top was Georgia. Voters, for some reason, they get that. Maybe it was that tape recording. But most voters, a majority of voters think that was illegal activity and they're far more concerned about that than, say, what happened in Manhattan or even with the documents. Yeah. And I think it's exactly for the reason that you just noted, Joe.

The evidence is very clear cut. Everyone has heard it. There also apparently are other recordings that the DA's office has obtained as evidence. We obviously had a little bit of a fracas when the lead grand jurist went out and did some interviews and people were concerned that she might have sort of tainted some of the public opinion. But the court of public opinion does, at the end of the day, ultimately matter when it comes to all of these cases. Jackie, let's turn to special counsel Jack Smith. And he's been looking, he's been gone a little quiet in recent weeks, but we know that there is still being work done at Maine Justice. Talk to us about the latest on these two cases, January 6th, yes, but also the Mar-a-Lago documents case, which you and I have talked before.

There are many in Trump orbit who are the most anxious about that one and potential obstruction charges. Yeah, well, we started the week with some news. Actually, it was really over the weekend where Trump's lead attorney, we reported, ultimately recused himself from the Mar-a-Lago documents case. This is Evan Corcoran, who actually appeared before the grand jury after a judge forced him to testify and said that he could not use crime fraud exception to shield himself from providing. He could not use attorney client privilege because of the crime fraud exception, and needed to provide answers to questions to prosecutors about conversations he had had with his client, former President Trump, about some of the statements that he made to the Department of Justice,

responses to the subpoenas, and conversations with Trump about where these classified documents lied throughout Mar-a-Lago. Then, in the middle of the week, we obviously saw some action going on in the Manhattan DA's office. Alvin Bragg ultimately lost a case against House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan. Mark Pomerantz, the former prosecutor who we've previously talked about, is going to have to testify before that Judiciary Committee. And then we have ended the week with Boris Epstein, another top Trump attorney, which bears, you know, which which I think should make me remind you all about the sort of infamous saying, make attorneys get attorneys.

He appeared before the special counsel yesterday for an interview, which raised a lot of eyebrows with defense attorneys who noted that it's not often that targets in cases appear before grand juries, but rather try to negotiate these behind closed doors interviews because they oftentimes take the fifth when they appear before the grand jury. And in these interviews, maybe sometimes try to obtain some sort of proffer or avoid getting charged. We know that Boris has been intimately involved with all Trump activities for years now, but specifically the Fulton D.A.'s case, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and January 6th. It's unclear what he told prosecutors yesterday in this closed-door interview, but that's certainly something we're going to be looking for today. So, Jackie, obviously we've covered the indictment by the Manhattan D.A. and Manhattanites in a grand

jury investigation indictment, ultimately. But there's two others, the investigation into the business practices of the Trump organization and also the rape allegations by E. Jean Carroll, which is going to trial, even though Team Trump was trying very hard to delay that, making issues about the jury, the location, anything they could to push that off. Yeah, I think that actually, Mika, could be the dark horse of all of these cases, at least in my conversations with some of Trump's lawyers who are specifically involved in the E.J. Carroll case. This is a concern for them. Trump has a lot of different concerns right now. I think the DA's case is at the bottom

of that list, sort of mirroring voters' concerns. But we do know that right now Trump was supposed to appear in the E.J. Carroll case. That has been postponed temporarily. But this is someone with a myriad legal issues and criminal exposure on his plate right now. The Washington Post, Jackie Alomany, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. Great to see you. And coming up, a leading anti-abortion group blasted Donald Trump after his campaign said he believes states should decide abortion laws. We'll explain what's going on there. Plus, one of our next guests says some Republican led states are flirting with authoritarianism. We will dig into that just ahead on Morning Joe. Oh, my goodness. Look at that beautiful sunrise.

If that doesn't inspire you to get up and get some exercise, I don't know what does. Welcome back to Morning Joe. It is 46 past the hour and a good day for a walk in Washington, D.C. Chicken. Live look at Reagan National Airport for you.

A leading anti-abortion group blasted Donald Trump after his campaign said he believes states should decide abortion laws. On Thursday, a Trump spokesman provided this statement to The Washington Post when asked whether the former president supported the six week abortion ban that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law. Quote, President Donald J. Trump believes that the Supreme Court, led by three justices which he supported, got it right when they ruled this is an issue that should be decided at the state level.

In response, a prominent anti-abortion group, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, issued a scathing statement that reads in part President Trump's assertion that the Supreme Court returned the issue of abortion solely to the states is a completely inaccurate reading of the Dobbs decision and as a morally indefensible position for a self-proclaimed pro-life presidential candidate to hold. It continues, we will oppose any presidential candidate who refuses to embrace at a minimum a 15-week national standard to stop painful late-term abortions while allowing states to enact further protections. When asked for a comment, a Trump spokesperson reiterated the former president's position and said our focus here should be on saving lives and avoiding the radical left's traps, not dividing the pro-life community. Interesting.

Yeah, well, it is. But, you know, Jonathan O'Meara, you have Donald Trump, who's pro-choice most of his life. And and that that natural inclination of his, despite who he appointed, that natural inclination really started to show itself when they're starting to get we started to get word from the Supreme Court that they were going to overturn Roe. The Dobbs decision leaked. Trump, as you know, fretting about that privately, saying it would be horrible. I mean, even didn't even go so far as to blame pro-lifers for losing the 2022 midterm elections. He most certainly did. He expressed real private worry in the aftermath of the Supreme Court leak to Politico that this could be bad for Republicans in November. He then, after the

Republicans were disappointing in their November outcomes, in part because of candidates Trump handpicked for the Senate, we should just note, but Trump turned around and did blame a lot of pro-life Republicans for that. And it's interesting going forward, because we know that he's had a pretty firm grip on the evangelical pro-life Republican base throughout his time in office. And now there seems to be some unhappiness there. But there hasn't, at least for now, been an alternative to coalesce around. Like certainly Mike Pence, for instance, his would-be campaign has not gained much in the way of traction yet. But it's also interesting how Trump, as he is, he's sometimes hard to pin down. And I know we don't like to refer to him as a conservative here.

And on many issues, he's not. And he is willing to defy Republican orthodoxy, Joe and Mika. And it's on this, he's warned that abortion would be a political loser for Republicans. He's also warned that touching programs like Social Security and Medicaid could be a political loser for Republicans. Polling bears that out. But some of the GOP are going the other way. All right, let's bring it right now. Washington bureau chief for USA Today, Susan Page. Susan, there does seem to be a split here. It's not just pro-life groups that are going after Donald Trump. Donald Trump's been going after pro-life groups and pro-life groups that are going after Donald Trump. Donald Trump's been going after pro-life groups and pro-life voters for, well, for a year now. Well, and he's right when he says that the abortion issue was a big problem for Republicans in the midterm elections. And it looms as a big problem for them going forward because the fact is they are at odds with the force of U.S. public

opinion when they talk about things like a national abortion ban or a ban at 15 weeks or 16 weeks of pregnancy and the actions that some states are taking, including actions to restrict access to the abortion drug the way most abortions are now performed in the United States. So the Republicans, I think, are struggling to figure out how they can continue to get the support of pro-life voters without putting them at odds with other voters they need to get if they want to win elections. Susan, Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida, an unannounced candidate, signed a six week abortion ban for his state. But he signed it like at 11 at night with no fanfare. And so he can't have that both ways.

But how do politicians like DeSantis navigate this? You look at the polling, you know that a six-week ban is not going to play well nationally. But at the same time, he wants those evangelical pro-life voters. How do you how do you walk this thin edge? Well, he did tweet a picture of him signing it. So I guess I guess he did go on the record in that way with that six week ban. The problem a lot of Americans have with a six week ban is that that's before many people realize they are pregnant. So it is a pretty severe measure to take. And he is now on the record. There are other Republicans who are being very cautious

about talking about a national abortion ban at all. You see Republican senators, for instance, doing the same thing that Trump has done, which is say, let's leave it up to the states. All right. Susan stays with us. Stale ahead. Chris Christie says Donald Trump has already disqualified himself as a potential presidential candidate with a reminder for voters about Trump's call to suspend the Constitution. Morning Joe will be right back. Time now for a look at the morning papers at just a few minutes before the top of the hour. We're going to begin in Tennessee, where the Jackson Sun has a front page feature on Republican lawmakers saying the governor's proposed red flag law is unlikely to pass.

That's just unbelievable. Governor Bill Lee asked lawmakers to approve a bill that would keep guns out of the hands of those deemed a threat to themselves or others. Now, legislative leaders say that measure doesn't have enough support to advance before the end of the session. It's just outrageous. Lawmakers did, however, send a bill to the governor's desk this week that further protects gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits. Jean, it's just absolutely staggering. You know, I had seen some people talk about this yesterday. Let me try to find this poll for you. In the midst of tragedy, in the midst of seeing firsthand a situation where certain laws may, may, just may have been helpful. So, Gene, let me give you these numbers. This is from a poll taken last year. It was the last

national poll I could find that was on red flag laws. First of all, universal background checks. This is a poll taken of gun owners. NPR published it by gun owners. Eighty four percent of gun owners support universal background checks for all gun sales, including those at private sales and gun shows. All gun owners, 84%. Raising the minimum age to buy an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21. 72% of gun owners support that. And then red flag laws that enforce that law enforcement officers can use to temporarily remove guns from people that courts say are dangerous. Sixty five percent of all gun owners support this.

So sixty five percent of all gun owners support this legislation in Tennessee or support this legislation that a Republican governor in Tennessee is trying to pass after little children were slaughtered in a Christian school there. It's absolutely unbelievable. It's unbelievable that this has become, you know, this goes beyond the NRA's money, I think, and influence in it. And it gets—it's way in the realm of the irrational, because every single poll shows overwhelming public support for these measures. And every single example of where measures like this have been put in place have shown that they're really effective. There's a red flag law in Florida that has been used thousands and thousands of times. And you can only imagine how many deaths it has—shooting, suicides—it has prevented deaths in that state. And these are no-braer things that for some almost cultish reason, the Republican Party has decided to oppose anything that makes Americans safer.

And the only solution is to get these people out of office. We just have to do it. Well, you know, you think about I'm so sorry. You think about the shooting of the young 14 year old boy who came to the door. Do you think that man from what has been revealed about him should have a gun? There are definitely many situations in which there are people who probably shouldn't have a firearm, let alone an assault weapon from these mass shootings. I mean, these laws can really help. Well, the laws, of course, as Bill Lee, the governor of Tennessee, said, they have to have due process, have to make sure that people's constitutional rights are protected. And if you

have a situation where we see time and again that somebody is mentally distressed, not in a position to own a gun, then they should go in. But, you know, what do we do? Susan Page, I had a talk with Bill Clinton this past weekend, interviewed him on the 25th anniversary of the Irish Peace Accords. And he said, and I, of course, I think it's brilliant. Just politically, this guy knows his ways around on political issues. He talked about how in 1980, George W. Bush easily won the state of Colorado. But the state of Colorado on that same day had a statewide ballot initiative. I believe it was on universal background checks that passed overwhelmingly on an otherwise conservative day.

And he said, what we really need to do is just start taking it to the voters. So it won't be, oh, the libs are trying to take away your guns. Oh, this group's trying to take away your guns. Put it to the voters. And if you look at all of these polls, a universal background check would pass in 50 states with 50 ballot initiatives. Red flag laws would pass in 50 states with 50 ballot initiatives. Raising the age for

buying long rifles would pass, you know,, 21 would pass in 50 states. And chances are really good the banning of military style weapons would pass in at least half, maybe 30, 35 states if you had ballot initiatives where it was put up to the people. Yeah, interesting. You know, the thing that's so flummoxing to me is that on many tough issues, we've gotten to pivot points for America where something that seemed impossible is suddenly possible. And yet on the issue of gun violence, not even the murder of little children at Sandy Hook was enough to do that. And I just wonder, did President Clinton or do you have a theory on what would be catastrophic enough, powerful enough to be that sort of pivot point in how America handles gun violence? Moving on now to other news, the Des Moines Register reports Iowa's legislature has approved a bill that bans sexually explicit books in schools. The measure passed both the House and the Senate this week.

It bans books that have descriptions of sexual acts and prohibits any classroom instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation in kindergarten, where I'm sure that happens through sixth grade. Republican Governor Kim Reynolds is expected to sign the bill into law. You know, Gene, Gene Robinson, you go down the list and we've been talking about how badly Republicans are doing politically. And it's such a cell phone like you see in Kansas. I mean, suddenly Kansas looks like a North Star for pro-choice politics. Right. So so they are lining up. This is the this is without a doubt.

I'm saying this down the middle. I'm just saying this is a political observer. They are lining up the most toxic platform to run against in the history of my life of American politics since I just don't know when. You've got book bannings. You've got some states pulling books, librarians in fear, pulling books of Hank Aaron and Roberto Clemente off the shelves to keep away from kids because they're afraid they're going to be fired. You've got schools getting shot up one day after another day after another day. You've got 10 year old girls having to flee the state of Ohio and other legislators saying that girls, little girls that get raped by their uncles are the best reason why states should use the power, the police power of that state to force these little girls to have these rape victims, to have forced pregnancies.

I could go down the list. Seriously, we could talk all morning about all of the crazy things they're doing, the authoritarianism against businesses by Republicans telling businesses how they can think and how they can communicate. This is straight, and I know of what I speak because I just came back from the region. I talked to a lot of people about this. This is straight out of Orban's playbook.

You don't send troops in, you just regulate them or tax them out of existence and you act as an authoritarian. Well, yeah, no, this hasn't been Ronald Reagan's Republican Party for a long time. It's more like Victor Orban's Republican Party, which is shocking. But look, Republicans, you know, they know what's going to happen or they should know what's going to happen because look at what happened in the midterms. They were saddled with bad positions, especially on abortion, which shocked a lot of people. And, you know, they got creamed in basically in an election

where there should have been a red wave and there wasn't even a red ripple because largely of abortion and other things. And so they are making it much, much worse going into the 2024 election by taking these extreme positions on books, on everything, and on, as Mika pointed out, on terrible things happening in classrooms that are not happening, that have never been happening. So they build up these straw men and performatively knock them down. And maybe there's a segment of the Republican base that just loves it, and it makes them really enthusiastic, and the rest of the country shrugs and then votes the other way.