Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/26/24

Episode Date: April 26, 2024

Supreme Court signals further delay in Trump election interference case as it weighs immunity claims

The Trump legal team doesn't really believe the total immunity argument. They're just bringing it up to delay his trials. It's kind of like when your kid asks for water at bedtime, and you know they're just trying to delay bedtime because kids don't need water. The conservative justices think Trump should have immunity. The liberal justices don't. How about we meet halfway? Instead of complete immunity, presidents get a hall pass of five crimes that are totally OK if you have the chance.

Two of the criminal cases against Donald Trump playing out in two courtrooms yesterday across a couple of different jurisdictions at the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices seem divided as they debated Trump's immunity claim for his role in attempting to overturn the 2020 election. You'll hear their remarks, with one justice raising concerns that shielding presidents from prosecution could turn the Oval Office into a seat of criminality. Plus, this morning, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker is set to return to the witness stand in the Hush Money case with defense attorneys continuing their cross-examination. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, April 26th. With us this morning, former White House Director of Communications for President Obama, Jennifer Paul Mary. She's co-host of the MSNBC podcast, How to Win 2024. Roger's chair in the American presidency at Vanderbilt University, historian John Meacham,

and our legal analyst, former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, and former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Barbara McQuaid. Good morning to you all. Let's dive right in with yesterday's historic day at the Supreme Court, where the justices heard oral arguments regarding Donald Trump's claim he is immune from prosecution for his official acts as president. NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett has the details. The U.S. Supreme Court weighing a monumental question that will decide whether the former president goes to trial for plotting to overturn the last election and win. I think that the Supreme Court has a very important argument before today.

Mr. Trump hoping to persuade the justices to find him immune from federal charges. His lawyers arguing the office of the presidency would be completely hobbled without that protection. Without presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, there can be no presidency as we know it. The special counsel's office indicted Mr. Trump on conspiracy and obstruction charges last year for his efforts to cling to power, accusing the likely GOP nominee of pressuring state officials to reverse the election results. Actions, DOJ argues, were for purely personal gain and cannot be shielded from prosecution. There is no immunity that is in the Constitution unless this court creates it today.

The conservatives expressing concern if future presidents have no immunity for actions taken while in the White House, that could open the door to recriminations between political rivals. Will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? The liberal justice is troubled by the prospect of insulating presidents from accountability, raising a series of dark hypotheticals to underscore the consequences of adopting Mr. Trump's position. If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune? How about if a president orders the military to stage a coup? That sure sounds bad, doesn't it? I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country. The fallout over efforts to subvert the election results in 2020 stretching beyond Washington.

In Arizona, a grand jury indicted several members of Mr. Trump's inner circle Wednesday, accusing them of falsely awarding the state's electoral votes to Mr. Trump, despite his loss to President Biden. The sending of phony slates of pro-Trump electors to Congress to disrupt the election certification on January 6th, looming large at the high court as well, as the justices look to determine the line between a political candidate's actions taken for personal gain from a president's official conduct that could be immune from prosecution. Laura Jarrett reporting for us there. So Lisa Rubin, listening was fascinating, first of all, to listen, to get an ear into the Supreme Court for those oral arguments over nearly

three hours yesterday. Listening to the untrained ear, it sounded like the justices are skeptical, to say the least, of a claim that a president, any president, has blanket immunity, absolute immunity for anything he or she does in office. But some of the conservative justices did seem open to kicking it back down to the trial court. What was your read of what we heard yesterday? That we're not going to see a trial in Tanya Chutkin's court anytime soon for the reasons, Willie, that you just stated. The conservative justices seem to be moving away from Trump's claim of Blinken immunity. That's a good thing writ large. But the idea that we would then have to have further proceedings to determine which of the allegations in the indictment pertain to

official acts versus private acts. And by the way, I should note that Trump's lawyer did concede that certain of the conduct alleged here does amount to private conduct. The idea that Judge Chutkan, though, would on remand have to have a series of hearings or mini trials, as our colleague Andrew Weissman said, in order to determine that before taking this case to trial, that puts this case on a calendar where it almost certainly cannot be tried before the election and potentially, depending on what happens at the election, not happen at all. And Barbara McQuaid, we heard the hypothetical again yesterday of what about if a president decided that the Navy SEAL Team 6 should assassinate one of his political opponents,

would that fall under the presidential immunity that you're talking about, Mr. Sauer there representing Donald Trump? So we had that discussion again, which is kind of stunning that we're even suggesting that. What was your read of the way things played out yesterday and what we may hear next? Well, as Mr. Sauer said to that question, that hypothetical, it would depend on the situation. Wow. He gets that's terrifying. You know, my read is that that there are several justices, the women justices who are ready to go, that they think that the idea that perhaps there is some presidential immunity for some official acts, but that the acts alleged in this indictment are not those acts and let's go already.

In fact, Justices Barrett and Kagan were really pinning down John Sauer on trying to say, you'd agree this is a private act, right? And you'd agree this is a private act, using allegations in the indictment, I think, hoping to pin him down to avoid further delay. Certainly, there are some justices who think further delay is necessary. I think the real linchpin here is going to be Chief Justice Roberts, who, on the one hand, did suggest this idea that it would be a one-legged stool to allow only the private acts and not have any reference to the official acts.

So there's a little room, I think, for arguing that the crimes here are not official acts, but you need some evidence of official acts to understand the context. And the example Chief Justice Roberts used was bribery. It might be an official act to appoint an ambassador. But if you do that in exchange for money, a bribe, that could still be a crime. But I think, as Lisa said, I agree that at the end of the day, it seems necessary to probably sort out what is and is not an official act here. And most notably, the conduct relating to the Department of Justice and using them or abusing them could be deemed an official act. But Jack Smith still has one trick up his sleeve, I think, which is to pare down the indictment and use only the things that are clearly private acts here. John Meacham, it was really

extraordinary to listen yesterday to the urgency Donald Trump's attorney had talking about the need for absolute presidential immunity when we've had, what, 235 years worth of presidents who didn't really need to lean on this. They had no occasion to call for absolute immunity. Forty five other presidents. What what do you make of what we're hearing play out in the Supreme Court on the larger scale in terms of the presidency itself? It's a masterclass in the complexities of a presidential office that is this inherently powerful and an office that is inherently powerful that's become more so over time, particularly since World War Two and the New Deal. When the Manhattan Project produced atomic weapons, the president of the United States became arguably the most important person in the history of humanity because the power to destroy is so it's vested in one person. So immense questions here. I thought the arguments were fascinating.

I would, of course. But I think it was a it was a fairly, you know, you would expect this. It was a mature, interesting, largely evidence-based, interesting hypotheticals, conversation about the practical application of a kind of character, let me put it this way, the ongoing, the unfolding implications of having a character in the Oval Office who is more at risk of committing these kinds of crimes than not, if that makes sense. The key thing here was, I think it's just as Gorsuch said, is we're deciding this for the ages. Now, that's interesting because they didn't decide Roe for the ages, but we'll leave that aside for a moment. There is this incredibly important question about would this cycle of political prosecutions result from a from no immunity claim? I thought the answer on behalf of the government was was pretty compelling, which is this is an

extraordinary case. And for anybody following this just in a peripheral way, to me, the most important thing that was asked was from Justice Sotomayor, who asked rhetorically, I think it's safe to say, isn't it true that our democratic institutions depend on the character of the people within those democratic institutions? That is, we heard the justices for a long time yesterday talking about, as they should, lawyers, about every conceivable iteration of something, trying to create doctrines that would stand up to most of those. In the very end, what it comes down to is the character of the person we send to the pinnacle of power and their willingness to bend and break norms and laws.

And what we had in 2020 and into 2021 with the failure to peacefully transfer power was we had someone whose character was not commensurate to that standard. And that's something that no court can legislate. We have to pick the right person. Lisa, in some of the coverage I watched from here yesterday, consternation. You know, I'm not a lawyer. I certainly felt it at some of the questions that you saw from the conservative justices that seemed to be making the defense's argument for it, you know, seemed to be making perhaps making excuses for President Trump. How should we, you know, how should we look at these at what we how we saw some of the conservative justices and the kind of questions that they were asking yesterday?

I think we should look at it as a form of avoidance. There were embedded in some of the questions that the conservative justices were asking a desire to avoid the facts of this case. And that goes back even to the very question presented here. The question presented in any Supreme Court case is what is the issue that the Supreme Court is going to decide? And they could have defined that fairly narrowly here in a way that would have been circumscribed to the facts alleged in the indictment. Instead, the question was whether, and if so, to what extent former presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts where there are criminal charges against them? That's a very broad question.

And you saw a number of the conservative justices sort of reaching beyond the facts of the indictment to try and pose a series of ever escalating hypotheticals. At one point, Justice Alito even saying, I don't want to talk about this particular case. The question I would ask is, why not? This is the case before you. And one of the most simple and democracy enhancing things this court could have done would be to say there may be circumstances in which presidents are entitled to immunity. But this indictment, as alleged here, doesn't constitute one of those scenarios. And we as a court can always revisit it if and when the facts present themselves to us that would cause us to have a different conclusion.

So, Barbara, Lisa said right off the top, based on what you heard yesterday, there's no chance that this makes it to trial before the election. Certainly no verdict before the election. That seems to be the consensus view. And if that is the case, if you agree with that, how does this play out now? Just for our viewers and a practical question, what happens now? Oral arguments will get the ruling a little bit down the road here. And then what happens to this case? Well, it depends on how they decide this case. It seems like reading the tea leaves that there will be at least five justices who say that there is limited immunity for a president, not blanket immunity, and that the court needs to have some hearings to decide what's next, to decide which of the allegations in the indictment fall on the private side of that line and which fall on the official act side and then proceed from there. Now, it's also possible that Donald Trump could take an appeal from whatever Judge Chutkin decides, which is why I think people are worried that there

is lengthy delay ahead. But as I mentioned earlier, that Jack Smith does have one trick up his sleeve, which is to say, I'm going to pare down this indictment and I'm going to include only those crimes that are clearly private acts. Or as the lawyer for the solicitor general for the special counsel said yesterday, thinking of Donald Trump in his role as office holder versus office seeker. And there are a lot of acts here as office seeker where I think he could say, fine, even if we'll litigate all these issues another day, but I'm ready to go to trial on just these issues relating to his private acts. And if that's the case, I think that this case could go to trial before the election. That's interesting. We'll keep an eye on that. Jen,

as you know, the Trump team has always felt a delay is a win for them with the theory of the case being if they can push all this stuff back with delay, delay, delay, past election day, he gets himself reelected, makes it all go away. On the other side of that, though, as you also know very well, talking to people around the Biden campaign, they are not counting on these cases to save them. They are running a campaign to win. They do believe that his sitting in court and the public being reminded of all these alleged crimes is helpful to them. But they don't believe that they're going to be saved by a jury or a judge. Yeah. And the you know, when when it was when we found out a couple of months ago that the Supreme Court wasn't going to take this case up until April,

we sort of came to terms with the fact that it was maybe Barbara had laid out an interesting case for how it may still happen. But it was unlikely to happen before the election. And I know that the Biden campaign felt sort of somewhat of a relief in that, because at that point, people are still thinking maybe there's some other exigent factor here that's going to save us. And it's no one is going to save us. This is on the voters. There is one way to stop Donald Trump, and that is to elect Joe Biden. So it's sort of clarifying.

And, of course, the sad state of affairs is there's so many cases that you can have your cake and eat it, too, because there's a criminal trial going on right now. So the voters can get a sense of that. And I have to say, it has felt in the last week that trial has felt a little more unhinged. Trump has felt a little more unhinged than I even expected. So I think that that does have an impact on the on the race. But still, there's the focus. No one else is coming to save us. This is going to be on the voters to defeat Trump, not the courts. Well, Jen's right. Yesterday, David Pecker, the former head of the National Enquirer, was in court detailing chapter and verse how he worked to help Donald Trump bury stories over the years.

We'll get to that trial when we come back in just 60 seconds. You're watching MSNBC. How have the indictments against him impacted your involvement in your further rebuttal? Have you made a decision on who you would support? I have not, no. You're undecided. Yeah. What are the issues that are on your heart and mind? What's going to happen to our country as a whole? Get the best of MSNBC all in one place with the MSNBC Daily Newsletter.

Each morning in your inbox, you'll find expert analysis, video highlights of your favorite shows, previews from our podcasts and documentaries, and written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves. Sign up for MSNBC Daily at msnbc.com. Alex Witt reports, Saturdays at noon and Sundays at 1 on MSNBC. First order. Beautiful live picture of the sun coming up over lower Manhattan at 618 on a Friday morning. And this morning, attorneys for Donald Trump are expected to resume their questioning of former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker in the former president's criminal trial. NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hilliard has a recap of yesterday's testimony. On his third day on the stand, former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker told the

jury he refused to catch and kill Stormy Daniels' story about her relationship with then-candidate Donald Trump. Pecker said he told his right-hand man at the Enquirer not to pay Daniels the $120,000 she was seeking because they'd already shelled out tens of thousands of dollars to keep other stories about Mr. Trump quiet. If anyone should buy it, Pecker said, it should be Donald Trump and Michael Cohen, Trump's former fixer. Pecker says when he told Cohen, quote, he was upset and responded that the boss, referring to Trump, would be furious with me. Pecker said he believed Mr. Trump or his company had paid Daniels until Cohen told him in December of 2016 that he was the one who paid her.

Prosecutors are seeking to prove Mr. Trump doctored internal business records to cover up that payment. Pecker also testified Trump was aghast when he saw Stormy Daniels on 60 Minutes. Was it hush money to stay silent? Yes. Pecker says Trump called him. He said, we have an agreement with Stormy Daniels that she cannot mention my name. Trump later denied knowledge of the arrangement.

On cross-examination, Mr. Trump's lawyers challenging Pecker's credibility and business practices. At a campaign event earlier in the day, Mr. Trump addressed the testimony of his longtime friend. David's been very nice. He's a nice guy. Did you know about the payment to Stormy Daniels before the 2020 election? Pekker also testified about a payment his company did make to former Playboy model Karen McDougal to keep her alleged affair with Mr. Trump quiet. Pekker said he coordinated with Cohen because he was concerned paying McDougal could violate campaign finance law.

So they worked up an agreement to pay for her contributions to magazines owned by American media, adding he believed Trump was aware of the payment. The prosecution asking Pecker was your principal purpose to suppress her story so as not to influence the election. Pecker responding, yes, it was.

Vaughn Hilliard reporting for us there. Lisa Rubin, you were inside the courtroom yesterday. So I want to get to some of the substance of David Pecker's testimony. But first, if you could just paint a picture what the energy was like in the room, what Donald Trump, who appeared to be more agitated than he's been over the last week and a half yesterday. What was it like in the room? It was tense, but also there was an energy where just everyone was so interested, including the jurors. Our colleague Tom Winter was sitting in the courtroom with me. We were sitting on different sides of the courtroom. I was sitting

behind the prosecution. Tom was sitting behind the defense. And so from his vantage point, the jury was sort of diagonal to him. And he said that at one point watching the jurors try to process the questioning was like watching a tennis match because their eyes kept going like this. Right. Volleying back and forth between Joshua Steinblas from the DA's office, asking the questions and David Pecker to see how he would answer them. And then you could also, from where I was sitting, catch a glimpse of Donald Trump, who was far more energetic than he has been in recent days, because David Pecker was talking about him and not just about him, but about conversations and multiple conversations that David Pecker and Donald Trump had going well into 2018 that showed, Willie, as you just noted, that Trump had an awareness that Karen McDougal had come forward, that he consulted with David Pecker about what to do, that he was aware that David Pecker had paid Karen McDougal, and that he perpetually checked

in with David Pecker to see how Karen McDougal was doing. In other words, was she sufficiently happy to keep herself quiet when she wasn't at a point in time after she had sued the inquirer and wanted to be released from her nondisclosure agreement? Trump was furious to see Karen McDougal do an interview with Anderson Cooper. And Pecker recounted that conversation as well, Willie. So it's interesting, the shorthand for this trial for some has been the Stormy Daniels hush money case. But really, as you know, Karen McDougal was kind of the focus yesterday. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars that Mr. Packer says he paid, hired her for a job. It was kind of a no show job as a fitness writer or something like that. How does Karen McDougal factor into this case?

How central is she? Well, Karen McDougal is not central to the crime itself. Remember, again, the Manhattan D.A. has charged Donald Trump with falsification of business records. But what makes it a felony, according to the D.A., is that those business records were falsified with the intent to either commit or conceal a crime. And they have now elaborated on that theory. Based on the questioning, it seems that their theory is Donald Trump intended to conceal violations of campaign finance law and formed a conspiracy with Michael Cohen and David Pecker and potentially others to do so. Karen McDougal and burying her story was part and parcel of that conspiracy. So establishing the Karen McDougal story is a necessary predicate.

But of course, it doesn't get us all the way to the crime. Why? Because the business records that were falsified are in relation to the Stormy Daniels payment. So yes, David Pecker is a very central witness in establishing Trump's knowledge and intent in joining this conspiracy and doing it for purposes of subverting the election.

But we are going to have to get to the Stormy Daniels story at some point. It just is not David Pecker's to tell. As he testified yesterday, he did not really have any direct involvement in the purchase or negotiation of the Stormy Daniels settlement. To the extent that the inquirer did it all, it was behind his back. He testified that Dylan Howard, who was the chief content officer,

got involved with that, even though Pecker had instructed him, we're not a bank. An affiliation with a porn star will offend our largest distributor, Walmart stores. And I want you to stay out of it. And yet Howard couldn't help himself and continue to serve sort of as a middleman between Stormy Daniels, his lawyer, Keith Davidson and Michael Cohen. And David Pecker testified yesterday that after he took office. So from the White House, Donald Trump would call to check in on, quote, our girl talking about Karen McDougal. And Pecker replied, saying she's quiet. She's fine. End quote. So, Barbara McQuaid, we've now entered cross-examination began yesterday. We'll resume in a couple of hours now with David Pecker from Trump's legal team. What kind of witness was David Pecker for the

prosecution? A good way to start? Well, I think he was a terrific way to start because he is somebody who has a story to tell. He could establish the timeline. He could begin at the beginning in August of 2015 when this conspiracy began. And I think there's something very powerful when a person comes in and admits that they engaged in a crime itself.

He's someone who's friends with Donald Trump. And so I think it makes it more difficult to cross-examine him and suggest that he's lying because he has an ax to grind in the way that we will hear from others like Michael Cohen. Of course, there will be more cross-examination today. And so that's really the more crucial part of a witness's testimony to see how they hold up on cross-examination. But so far, I think all we've seen are things like efforts to suggest that the payment of hush money is normal for celebrities. We heard about Tiger Woods and

Arnold Schwarzenegger and other people like that. So I think he's been a solid witness for the government and a good way to start. And I think, you know, prosecutors have this idea of the rules of primacy and recency, that when a jury goes back to deliberate, they're most likely to remember the first witness they heard and the last witness they heard. And so you always want to start strong and end strong and put your more challenging witnesses in the middle. So I imagine Michael Cohen, and if she testifies, Stormy Daniels will come somewhere in the middle because they're going to get beat up a little bit. But you want to start strong and end strong, and I think they succeeded in starting strong.

John Meacham, I'm thinking about you sitting here as a presidential historian listening to this conversation. We've become so inured to everything that Donald Trump does and his personal behavior over the last 10 years, and we're so familiar with some of the details of these cases that we just sort of talk through them. But when you take a step back and think about just this week, a president who was sitting in a courtroom over a hush money payment to a porn star, we're talking about hypotheticals at the Supreme Court, his attorneys of whether or not he could use SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political opponent. When you think about the indictments that came down two days ago in Arizona where people on his behalf appointed themselves as fake electors

and tried to overturn the results of the election, his chief of staff, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, all wrapped up in this. You do have to take a step back sometimes and just digest how unprecedented, how extraordinary it is to see one man, one president having allegedly done all of this. Yeah, it's like the Walking Dead, the C-SPAN version, right?

I mean, it's just this land of this crazy land of things. It is hard. It is hard to keep it all straight. It's hard to prioritize, to go to Barbara's point. What's the primary one here? What's the most recent one here? That's a really good way to try to figure it out. You know, politically, constitutionally, let me say, the most important thing that unfolded was the Supreme Court yesterday trying to figure out what are the powers?

What are the what's the limit of the authority of the commander in chief, the president, the United States? And that's a vastly important question. It seemed as though the court was had a certain awareness of that. They believe they are deciding something forever. Interesting. You can argue that perhaps the more conservative approach would be doing something a little more specific, as we were talking about. The New York case is, you know, it's kind of an only in New York thing. All the characters you're talking about. And the question is, are people who are committed to voting, because the real, for the rest of us,

the question is, are the people who are committed to voting for Donald Trump again for the third time, are they affected by any of this? My own bet is no, that this is something that they have decided they are willing to put up with. And let's be clear, not just willing to put up with, but the hard truth about the American character at the moment is that people kind of like this. Let's just be honest, right? This is more entertaining than trying to figure out what to do about the manufacturing of computer chips or the border or dealing with the complexities of the Middle East or collective security in Europe. Those are hard things. And if that were what the country really wanted to

focus on, guess what? That's what they would focus on. Trump is fundamentally an entertainer. That's where he started, right? That's when he walked onto the stage. And the test we're all facing, and I was thinking about this all day yesterday, the test we're facing is, as citizens, do we want a reality show or do we want reality? Do we want to govern our affairs in a less vivid but certainly more serious way? And that's a real question for a democracy. Do we get what we deserve? And I think that that's the question. That's a question fundamentally that the country has to confront going forward. And it's a very stark choice, right? President Biden is one way and former President Trump is another.

And I don't think this is a particularly close call myself, but that's where a lot of the country needs to make their decision. And in that reality show, Donald Trump has cast himself as a martyr as he sits in his courtrooms. And many people are buying that. But the question will be, are there enough in the middle who have seen enough of the reality show? Those Nikki Haley voters that keep turning out to vote against Donald Trump in primaries long after she's dropped out of the race? We'll see. John Meacham, always great to have you on, my friend. We'll see you soon. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, former U.S. attorney Barbara McQuaid, thank you so much for your

analysis as well. Still ahead on Morning Joe, there is growing international pressure on Hamas this morning to free the hostages. The group has held captive for more than seven months now. Take a look at the new statement from the leaders of more than a dozen countries. Plus, a live look here at Secretary of State Antony Blinken speaking in Beijing on the heels of his meeting with Chinese President Xi. We'll talk to Richard Haass about the state of relations between the U.S. and China. Morning Joe's coming right back. Live picture of the White House, 636 on a Friday morning. President Biden met with

four-year-old Abigail Adan yesterday. She's the youngest American hostage freed by Hamas. The president posted a photo to social media writing, last year we secured the release of Abigail, a four-year-old who was being held by Hamas. She is remarkable and recovering from unspeakable trauma. Our time together yesterday was a reminder of the work we have in front of us to secure the release of all remaining hostages. The president meeting with Abigail for more than an hour at the White House. Meanwhile, the United States and 17 other countries are demanding Hamas release. More than 130 people still being held hostage in Gaza.

In a joint statement, world leaders write in part, the fate of the hostages and the civilian population in Gaza who are protected under international law is of international concern. The leaders called for a deal that would not only secure the hostages' release, but also a prolonged ceasefire. Qatari officials have been mediating talks between Israel and Hamas. They say some progress has been made, but the leader of Hamas vetoed the latest proposal. That deal would have included a six week truce and an exchange of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for dozens of sick, elderly and wounded hostages.

Joining us now, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away, available on Substack. Richard, good morning. A lot to talk with you about today. Let's start right there with the hostages in Israel. I'm not sure a strongly worded letter is going to compel Hamas, given that it's a terrorist death cult who doesn't seem willing to negotiate anything reasonable at all to release the hostages. But what do you make of the collective statement made by world leaders? And what progress might there be in getting these hostages home?

Willie, sorry to say I agree with you here. I don't think this call is going to resonate, to put it gently. I'm also in a serious and really tragic way. I don't know anyone who feels most of the hostages are still alive. And that's probably one of the principal reasons that Hamas is hanging so tough here, being so difficult and not wanting them to have this, if you will, exposed. You know, the conditions they constantly put out in exchange are high. They want to end the occupation and so forth. So I don't think this is moving towards either a quick resolution or

a positive resolution. I'm really sorry to say that. Jen, we got that video yesterday, just the wrenching video of Hersh Goldberg Poland. We had his mom on yesterday, Rachel, who's been so extraordinary through all of this, giving some hope that he is alive and that he may come home someday soon. The president doing what he can. Obviously, we saw him doing perhaps what he does best yesterday, which was spending an hour with a four-year-old at the White House as she climbed around the Resolute Desk. But what more pressure can the president apply, not necessarily in Hamas, who's not a reasonable party in this, but on Qatar and other nations who may have some influence? It does. I mean, it has a it has a sort of this dreaded sense of treading water at this point.

And then you see across the country campuses really igniting and and and protests and the president having the thing. They're very aware of what kind of politics they're dealing with. But at the same time, the most important thing is to try is to take whatever levers that they can to to to push to push towards some sort of ceasefire. And it does. I mean, it does. I mean, I want to go back to Richard about this because it does just sort of feel like it is at sort of like not even just an impasse, Richard, but almost like just a disturbing status quo lull. And it won't last for long. I think it's more a question of when, not if, Israel goes into Rafah. You're beginning to see plans being made for moving out some of the Gazan civilians. I think the most the influence the Biden administration can probably have here

is not whether Israel goes in, but how it uses military force when it when it goes in. So I think we could be looking once Passover ends sometime later, say in May, potentially months of a fairly focused, lower level Israeli military operation in Rafa. I'd be really surprised if we avoid that. So I'm not real optimistic, not just about the hostages, about hopes for anything looking like a prolonged ceasefire. I just don't see it. Indeed, funnily enough, the deal on Iran, where the Israelis avoided doing anything big in retaliation for Iran, I think has raised the pressure on Netanyahu, at least as he sees it, for doing something fairly muscular in Rafah.

And of course, Hamas could release these hostages tomorrow and bring this to an end, but it won't because, again, it's a terrorist death cult who that's the only leverage it has is holding these hostages. Richard, Secretary of State Antony Blinken just wrapped up a meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping to discussing the war in Ukraine and China's support for Russia in that war, as well as Beijing's economic and trade practices. This is Blinken's second visit to China in less than a year. Secretary Blinken said he had hoped to make progress on some of these issues. Ahead of his meeting with Xi, Blinken met with the Chinese foreign minister

and described those talks as extensive and constructive. So, Richard, what's the objective here as China, now we know, continues to help Russia in the war against Ukraine? Obviously, a polar opposite position from where the United States is. What does the secretary hope to get done in Beijing over these couple of days? Well, to some extent, Willie, just the high level meetings becoming more normal and more regular is one of the goals. And I think both sides are committed to that ever since November when Presidents Biden and Xi met in San Francisco. Yes, as you just pointed out, there's a desire to put a limit on any Chinese aid to Russia. It's not working real well. China's not sending military arms, as best we know. But they're sending just about everything else short of that,

in many ways trying to strengthen the Russian arms industry so Russia can increase its production of militarily relevant technologies and equipment and so forth. The emphasis is still to avoid a war, not just over Taiwan, but probably more imminently in the South China Sea. The fact that, if you remember a couple days ago when the Japanese prime minister here, one day there was a trilateral. Why? Because you wanted the leader of the Philippines to be part of it. That's probably the most immediate flashpoint. So sometimes for the United States and China, it's not what the two can accomplish, but it's what the two can agree to avoid.

And that in some ways is at the heart, I think, of this this relationship. Really, just think about the backdrop. You just had Janet Yellen there. Tremendous pressure on the Chinese not to export all these electronic vehicles and stuff. Then you have the legislation was basically sell or ban TikTok. This is a troubled relationship and both sides want to calm it down. But there's there's no real basis. There's no real intellectual or political consensus for how to move it forward. And of course, the Congress just passed and President Biden signed that foreign aid bill that gives aid to our partners in the Indo-Pacific to

kind of bolster against China. We'll keep a close eye on these meetings. Secretary Blinken has taken questions from the press now. We will monitor that. Richard, stay with us in our next hour. We'll have an update on all of this from White House National Security Spokesman John Kirby. Also ahead, President Biden reminding Americans what Donald Trump thinks about the most popular sport in the country. We'll show you a new campaign ad surrounding the NFL draft in Detroit. Plus, ESPN's Pablo Torre will join us with his grades for the teams in last night's first round. Jen Palmieri not happy with the Giants pick. Details when Morning Joe comes right back.

With the first pick in the 2024 NFL draft, the Chicago Bears select Caleb Williams, quarterback, Southern California. No drama around that one. As expected, former USC quarterback Caleb Williams selected first overall by the Chicago Bears in last night's NFL Draft. A record crowd of more than 275,000 fans attended the event in Detroit, which for the fourth time saw quarterbacks selected with the top three picks. The Washington Commanders followed the Bears, drafting Jaden Daniels out of LSU at number two, and the New England Patriots took UNC's Drake May off the board at number three. Teams went on to select a record-setting six quarterbacks in the top 12 picks, including the surprise number eight pick by the Atlanta Falcons, who selected the University of Washington's Michael Penix Jr. less than two months after signing veteran Kirk Cousins to a four-year, $180 million contract. More on that in a moment. Meanwhile, the New York Giants did not join the QB Bonanza,

electing instead to add a new target for Daniel Jones with the selection of talented LSU wide receiver Malik Nabors at number six overall. Let's bring in the host of Pablo Torre finds out on Metal Arc Media, ESPN's Pablo Torre. Pablo, great to see you. I want to get into some of the picks, but can we just go big picture for a moment? Those scenes of nearly 300,000 people there, by the way, hours before the draft started. I mean, we're entering into Woodstock territory now around the NFL draft. It is amazing the spectacle this has become. Yeah. And it's crazy. It's crazy because this is mostly a TV show for everybody at home. And here you have, yeah, post-Woodstock-level crowds gathering. These people are psychopaths, Willie.

Let's be honest. I mean, look, I believe that the NFL draft is super fun to watch from home every year. You're sitting there a mile away to get a glimpse of Roger Goodell hugging somebody. Just frankly, it doesn't make sense, but this speaks to the psychosis and the truly the theme of the day, which is always, and Jen Palmieri is already wagging her finger at me because she went to this thing last year in Kansas City. This is a day of delusion. There is no greater day for a football fan in the NFL draft because all things are still possible. No one is a bust just yet. It's winning a press conference. And so I just want to get into that as the context for how we should feel today in reality. Your delusion is our hope,

Pablo. It's a day of hope for football fans. And I don't think the good people of Detroit are psychopaths at all. I'd like to be on the record for that. So let's talk about the picks, Pablo. So no surprise, really at the top of the board, Caleb Williams, Jaden Daniels, Drake May, kind of expected to go. But I'm not sure everybody saw six quarterbacks in the first 12 picks. Bo Nix went higher maybe than some people thought out of Oregon. And then that Michael Penix pick, as I said, they just signed the Falcons, Kirk Cousinsins to a $180 million deal. And we even last night heard some rumblings from Kirk Cousins' camp that he was a little confused that the Falcons didn't go get him a receiver, say. Yeah, yeah. Let's start with the Falcons thing.

And all of this, again, not to be just a cynic about all of this, but the fact that six quarterbacks are taking the first 12 picks speaks to a desperation on behalf of owners who all see the ability to sell hope to a fan base. That's what a quarterback gets you. That is the promise of getting your franchise guy. The Michael Penix Jr. pick is the greatest symptom of this condition. And Kirk Cousins was told about this pick while the pick was basically happening. And so Kirk Cousins, I don't want to weep too much for him, but I do want to put him in context here. Kirk Cousins is a very good quarterback who also

happens to be, I believe, the person in America who is paid more money by people who don't really respect him than anybody else I've ever seen. The guy is going to wind up getting paid, I believe, career earnings of $300 million by the end of this season, the third most money paid to anybody in the history of the NFL. And the story of him is, let third most money paid to anybody in the history of the NFL. And the story of him is, let's give him a lot of money, but also constantly undermine him by getting other guys that we think could do the job better. So Michael Penix Jr. was the biggest shock of the night. He's a great quarterback. When you give Kirk Cousins $180 million as of March, and you do this, that just speaks to a lack of strategy and foresight that

I think should be very worrisome to anybody who's ever heard of the Atlanta Falcons and how they operate. Okay. I don't understand why Pablo is stealing all of our joy. Don't you write about football for a living? But this is the thing, Chad. Think about the greatest quarterback in the history of the NFL. What round did he get taken in? Tom Brady was a sixth rounder, right? Patrick Mahomes was a 10th pick in the draft. We're not going to get to the 10th pick in this draft because that's the way that the discourse works. Who did Patrick Mahomes defeat in the Super Bowl last year? Right? Brock Purdy, who was the last pick in the draft. I'm just saying, you should talk about the promise and the potential. But the reality is that nobody knows what they're doing. Nobody knows.

But it's such a great celebration of America. I mean, I just I love that almost, you know, when I went to Kansas City last week or last year, it's like everyone comes home with a prize. And it's it's it's it feels like the first day of football season. It's the dominant cultural phenomenon in America. And it's a way for people to come together and i you know and but like but let me ask you about the giants yes like here i'm like i'm wearing eagles green right now because it's very disturbing we're good this is what this is happening in my family we're going to become eagles fans even though we've been

lifelong giant lifelong giants fan because they have saquon. Richard's been giving Sixers takes all morning to me, by the way. But talk to me about the Giants because I was hoping. I know we have Daniel Jones as the quarterback. He has a $40 million contract. He has another year on that. Still, there was some hope from Giants fans like me that the Giants might recruit, might take Michael Penix. The Giants could have done that.

That would have made a lot more sense than the Falcons taking him. That would have made more sense. The Giants might recruit, might take Michael Penix. The Giants could have done that. That would have made a lot more sense than the Falcons taking him. That would have made more sense. But, you know, there's a lot of New York fans out there wondering. Let's get your take on that. I'm just hurting. I'm hurting that you have erased Tommy Cutlets from history. You're right. Tommy DeVito living with his mom.

The greatest New Jersey story in the history of the NFL has been blanked by Jen Palmieri. But I get it. I get it because nobody actually believes that he's the solution. Daniel Jones, as much as Richard, I believe you have more faith in him than Jen. Daniel Jones is a sunk cost. So how do you help the 40 million dollar man get the receiver, get Malik Nader? I think the Giants get props for basically not creating a quarterback controversy. They got Jones for 4040 million this year. He's never really had a chance. They've had a terrible offensive line.

They now gave him a good weapon. We could argue whether they maybe got the wrong weapon. Maybe they should have gotten Bowers, the best tight end in the draft. Yeah, out of Georgia. Maybe they could have gotten another offensive lineman for the right side of the line. But they avoided creating a quarterback controversy. And I think they said to themselves, Daniel Jones has never had a fair chance. We're going to give him one more year,

try to build a better team around him. If it doesn't work, we draft a quarterback next year. Or last night's check, Giants still have, what, five more draft choices this year? I would not be surprised if one of those is their version of, let's go for a late-round quarterback. Maybe he will develop. Yes, and late-round value is always there to be had.

It's the most underrated part of this thing. You're a day one guy or you're nothing. We're talking about the day one guys, the first round. But I just like the idea. One more year is a less inspiring chant than four more years in the NFL as well as politics. I don't know what Daniel Jones is saying to himself. Oh, great.

Richard Haas is saying to me, I got one more year in my career here. Great. I'm sure he really cares what I have to say. So, Pablo, what are you looking for the rest of the draft? Day one is also it's long. You know, I mean, it ends at like one o'clock in the morning. They get 10 minutes for every pick. Things kind of pick up now today and through the weekend.

What else are we watching for? Because, as you say, many of the greatest players in NFL history did not go on day one. Yeah, look, selfishly, I'm monitoring what the Jets are going to do. The Jets took a lineman, Olufeshan, who is great, right? And that is a reasonable pick. It is a non-dramatic pick. But I believe that what Aaron Rodgers is thinking is just one of the most fascinating stories when you watch that team and you watch this draft.

So will the Jets take their own late-round quarterback, mid-round quarterback even, to threaten the hole that that guy has on that job. I think that that would be a wise move. I think that would be a move that would immediately start a lot of, let's say, television appearances. They'll probably veer far beyond football in a way that will make all of us uncomfortable for yet another year. So now we can fold in some politics to the NFL draft because in an attempt to capitalize on all that attention we've been talking about around the draft in Detroit, the Biden campaign launched a digital ad featuring Donald Trump's past comments disparaging football. Football's boring as hell. Nobody cares about football because of it.

I mean, I don't think it's boring so jed i'm not sure that's going to move a vote but yeah i wouldn't have done that personally yeah jed donald trump there he said over the years that you know the nfl's gotten soft you can't knock people's heads off anymore they're too worried about concussions and cte that's coming from the tough guy who's never played a sport that didn't involve a golf cart but what do you make of the ad last night i think it's great you know i think it's great when biden is like they when they got their finger on the pulse of, you know, of where of where culture is, even though Pablo is apparently an NFL, an NFL hater. And no, how dare you prove me with Donald Trump at the end of this segment?

Delusion, if nothing else, is wildly exciting and fascinating. Make no mistake. I just put down to your point, though. The greatest, easiest layup is liking the NFL as a politician. And the fact that he decided to run against America's lone monoculture is truly one of the greatest and worst heat checks for a politician that I've ever seen or could imagine, truly, at this point. Football is king. I don't dispute it. And it's king because we all believe that it's our year this year, finally. And actually, spoiler alert, us, as Giants fans, don't believe this is our year. Very good.

We have a degree of realism. Richard, there's hope. There's hope. Pablo calls it delusion. And again, we want to just get on the record and say, Pablo Torre's views about the good people of Detroit are his and his alone. Mourning Joe does not approve this message. Correct.

Pablo Torre just pouring cold water over a thing the rest of us all love in America. Great to talk to you this morning, Pablo. Thanks so much. Always.