Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/9/24

Episode Date: April 9, 2024

Trump says abortion restrictions should be left to states, dodging a national ban

Former President Trump compared himself in a Truth Social post over the weekend to the late South African President Nelson Mandela, and if there's anything Truth Social users hate, it's when you make them Google something. Former President Trump attended a fundraiser over the weekend at the Palm Beach home of hedge fund billionaire John Paulson with former First Lady Melania Trump, where she finally got to meet an actual billionaire. OK, good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, April 9th. Donald Trump is running out of options to delay his hush money trial. We'll have expert legal analysis on the last ditch effort by his legal team days before jury selection is supposed to start. Meanwhile,

several retired generals, admirals and former top defense officials are calling on the Supreme Court to reject Trump's immunity claim in the election interference case. We'll go through that stark warning. And UConn is celebrating back-to-back national titles after another domination last night. Yeah, just a dominating performance, Willie. It was. It was a dominating win. 75-60 was the final score. Back-to-back national championships for Dan Hurley and the program he's built at UConn. And the word dominant has to be underscored here,

John. They won by an average of 23 points a game in this tournament. All of their wins were by double digits. In fact, all of their wins in last year's tournament were by double digits. We've not seen this before. The strategy last night was to give Zach Eadie, the superstar player of the year for Purdue, his points. He scored 37 points. And effectively, no one else did. That was the strategy. They only made one three-pointer, Purdue. They were the second-best three-point shooting team in the country.

They made one last night. Hurley's strategy pays off. UConn goes back-to-back. Yeah, Eadie got his 37. The rest of the team combined for 23. That's not going to get it done. And you're right. This was a pretty drama-free championship

game last night. They grabbed control a few minutes ago in the first half. The second half, they sort of cruised to victory. Congratulations to UConn. As someone growing up in New England in the 80s and 90s, you never would have expected that Storrs, Connecticut would be the home of the most dominant program in men's college sports and frankly women's too uh you know their final four again this year but they did it they did it again congrats to them they were without question the best team all year and deserving champ that's right wire to wire best team wins no cinderella in this tournament just like it was in the women's game the other night when south carolina finished their 38 no undefeated And guys, we got the ratings for that South Carolina-Iowa National Championship game.

18.7 million people watched that game. It was the single most watched basketball game, including men's, women's, and the NBA in the last five years, outstripping all sports except like the NFL and the Olympics and those major events like that. That number, by the way, could go up today. That was the preliminary report. So it peaked at 24 million people watching that game. So just, again, underscoring an incredible season, an important season,

a watershed season led by South Carolina and, of course, by Caitlin Clark in that game. That's so very cool. So very cool. 18.7 million, almost as much as way too early. Almost. As Lemire clocks in every single night. It's the, almost as much as way too early. Almost. That's when we were clocks in every single night. It's the Olympics, World Cup, way too early. National finale.

Way too early. Exactly. W-T-E, they call it. The kids call it. You know what people watched a lot as well? What's that? The eclipse. I mean, you and I, we had our glasses on.

People kept sitting in those pictures. We were waiting. We just loved this thing. We were kind of grumpy about it. And people sent Mika one picture in the middle. Stop it. Look at this. Look at this.

And she's looking at it. She goes, what is this? Like a toilet bowl upside down? No, stop it. No, that is not what I said. Sweetie, it's the eclipse. No, this total solar eclipse was incredible. And people got together.

They were excited about it. There were eclipse parties. Why do you care so much now? No, I just think. Yesterday, you were mocking. No, I was not. I just think it's a great kind of sense of community that the eclipse brought together. And it's kind of a fascinating thing.

So this is what we figured out. And I love the reaction that animals have, too. Yeah. They all went to bed. That's what we were thinking. Yeah, the animals. that animals have to it. Yeah. They all went to bed. That's what we were thinking. Yeah, the animals. It's about the animals. No, I'm serious.

No, Willie, I will say we're, you know, because, well, we're hermits, we don't know that people get together and do things. And so when we heard that this was a big communal thing and, that's nice. You know, of course, our big hearted EP, Alex Corson, when he's telling us, wow, it was really moving that, you know, you got a problem grouped up. Yeah. If Alex Corson is more moved than you are on anything. Yeah. You know, but it's a very good communal thing. And of course, yeah, so exciting. All those got to wait 20 years for Willie. Yeah. A lot of people in New York City rooftops. One of those rare moments where the city stops and across the country they were doing.

I sadly was not in the path of totality, a term I love and learned 48 hours ago. As usual, Joe, the real heroes are the headline writers at the New York Post. This morning they tell us America mooned. That's pretty good. I will say, Jonathan, even for the cynic, it was very cool. Christina and I went. We got our glasses, the free ones at Warby Parker. Looked up there.

We didn't get the full totality thing. But, man, it was pretty special. And to know that kids in schools across the country were standing and looking at the same thing, it was very cool. Yeah. My kids raced home after school. We all went up to the roof, put our glasses on, watched it. It was cool. And I think there's something, the communal event, they're so rare these days. We all have our own silos. We all watch our different things. It's rare that a single event, we're all on our phones, came together.

And the footage from the areas that were in the totality is remarkable. How quickly things got dark, the temperature dropped, really, really special. And now we only have a few decades to wait to the next one. Exactly. And the thing is, though, I will say, I was like, all my friends were sending me pictures.

Yeah, they were. And I'm saying, this goes by really fast, and you're on your phone, taking a picture of it? Right? Like, you missed it. Just watch it. Just saying. Look at this. This is magic right here. Yes, it is. Okay.

Look at that. Speaking of magic. Yeah. With us this morning, we have Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. And look at this congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alimani, is with us. And MSNBC contributor and author of the book, How the Right Lost Its Mind, Charlie Sykes. This is something. This lineup is something. Magic. Yeah. This is like the eclipse. Hold on a second. Take a picture. Hold on. I want to take a picture. No, please don't. Just send it to me.

Right here. I'm going to put my glasses on. OK, let's get to our top story. We have a lot to get to this morning. We'll start with. No, God. Joe. Donald Trump's facing backlash from both sides of the aisle for his position on abortion, Mika. Yep. After months of teasing a statement, Trump spoke about the issue yesterday in a four-minute video posted to Truth Social. This is Donald Trump talking about abortion. Here's part of it. Many people have asked me what my position is on abortion and abortion rights, especially since I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides wanted and in fact demanded it ended. It must be remembered that the Democrats are the radical ones on this position because they support abortion up to and even beyond the ninth month. The concept of having an abortion in the later months and even execution after birth. And that's exactly what it is. The baby is born. The baby is executed after birth is unacceptable, and almost everyone agrees with that.

My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land, in this case, the law of the state. Many states will be different. Many will have a different number of weeks, or some will have more conservative than others, and that's what they will be. At the end of the day, this is all about the will of the people. Now it's up to the states to do the right thing.

Like Ronald Reagan, I am strongly in favor of exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. You must follow your heart of this issue. But remember, you must also win elections to restore our culture. You know, Willie, there's so many things wrong with this. I mean, so many so many lies that he's told. First of all, let's just start with some of the most obvious lies, Willie. He says that all legal scholars, all legal scholars, thought the Roe v. Wade should have been overturned. That's just not true. It's a huge lie. A small number of legal scholars thought that. There were many legal scholars across the spectrum that said it wasn't the most well-reasoned

decision, but they weren't calling for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. More importantly, he talked about the will of the people. You can just look, I've said this before, you can just look across the decades. And one poll after another poll, when you ask people, do you want Roe v. Wade to be overturned? It's like 30 percent, 31 percent, 32 percent. It's always a radical minority. And in the case of do you want Roe v. Wade to stay in place, the number was 70, 71, 72 percent when the Supreme Court overturned it. So that's false. He talks about the will of the people. I mean, what's so shocking here is that when you only have a third of the people wanting

to to to overturn a constitutional precedent of over, you know, of forty nine, fifty years. It's a radical move. And so this and of course, the biggest lie out of all of that is the whole idea that Democrats are running around wanting babies to be executed after birth again. I mean, it's so stupid. It's difficult to get. I mean, he's just it is so stupid. We had a Republican on this show. I'm not going to name his name. And neither is Mika, where we kept pressing and asking how many how many abortions are performed in the third trimester? How many? I don't know. I don't know. Well, yeah, you don't know because it's like next to zero. But Donald Trump lies, lies. You know, I saw something, I think it was Dan Pfeiffer, that was talking about the fact that Donald Trump last week said that Joe Biden snorted cocaine before the State of the Union address. Now, that would have been on the front page of The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, every other newspaper in America, if he had, if anybody else, any other candidate running for president had said something so crazy, everybody just blew past it.

And he's allowed to give these abortion statements where he's just lying through his teeth constantly. And people just, they will try to make him sound like a normal candidate. Oh, Trump, Trump came out saying that he's a big champion of federalism and he wants to keep it at the state level. And he's far, no, you got to talk about this, the crazy lies, which, which is what the guy is, is doing every day. And what he did in this speech, and by the way, even though he was lying through his teeth constantly about abortion, he ended up pissing off people on both sides. Yeah. I'd let him keep talking. He did. He did. Obviously, Democrats didn't like what he said. But pro-life Republicans hated what he said. They want a national abortion ban. He said nothing

about that. He said, my hands are clean of this now. It's a state's rights issue. And that is the statement you get, the one we just heard from former President Trump, when you are completely unprincipled on something, when you were pro-choice by his own words. He said he was pro-choice for a very long time. Then when he got into politics, decided it would be more advantageous to run as Republican, to be pro-life. He's been all over the place. Remember that famous exchange with Chris Matthews in 2016, where Chris said, should a woman who gets an abortion be published? He paused. The gears are turning. What do conservatives think about this? Yes, women should be punished. So he doesn't quite believe anything on this, or maybe he just is pro-choice. And he unleashed this. Let's be very clear, Gene Robinson.

Donald Trump has taken credit for and bragged about appointing the three Supreme Court justices who got rid of Roe versus Wade. This was an achievement for him, for his supporters, for people who wanted this for 50 years. And now that he's seen the fallout from that, the political consequences, he's trying somehow to have it both ways and mitigate the political damage, saying we have to win elections. So be careful what you do in the states. I did this. I caused this. But I don't love what I'm seeing because of it. So be careful what you do in the states all over the place yesterday. All over the place. And he came out with a statement that makes nobody happy.

You're absolutely right. Let me let me endorse what you were what Joe was saying about the lies and how we just sort of blow past the accusations of infanticide and all this crazy stuff that he comes out with. But in the end, he came down on a position that obviously pro-choice Americans aren't going to like and that pro-life Americans hate and started hating on immediately. There were pro-life groups that came out and talking about how disappointed they were with this. Lindsey Graham, of all people, came out. You know, Lindsey supports a 15 week national abortion ban. And he came out and said he respectfully disagrees with Trump. And Trump spent the whole rest of the afternoon just, you know, flaying the skin of Lindsey Graham and going after him in a vicious way that he hasn't done in a while,

at least since the last time he flayed Lindsey Graham. But that was some years ago. He just went nuts. He's very touchy on this. I actually think this may have some of the timing of this and everything may have something to do with Florida, the fact that abortion is going to be on the ballot in Florida, a state that Donald Trump has to win. And, you know, every time, every place abortion has been on the ballot in this country, including states that are redder than Florida, citizens have voted to enshrine abortion rights in their state constitutions.

And, you know, they'll probably do that in Florida, too. Every every time you look at the states, Kentucky, Kansas, Wisconsin, every time it's been Ohio, every time it has been remotely, remotely a part of an election or a ballot measure. The pro-choice side wins overwhelmingly. Support for abortion was always there and it was growing over the past decade. I think since the overturning of Roe, it has crystallized the issue for anybody who was on the fence about it or didn't feel they had it. You know, any men perhaps who didn't feel as connected with it.

Now we are seeing the consequences of these rights being taken away. 50 years of rights that our daughters and sons as families don't have. And they're brutal. They're very specific. They're a matter of life and death. And Donald Trump is on the wrong side of every position that exists practically on this. In a moment, we're going to show you. Well, can I go to Charlie real quick? Sure. Before we go, go to the Lindsay clips. Oh, yes. OK, Charlie, really quickly. I just and Mika is so right. There's so many people that now are that were pro-life before Dobbs that now understand the importance of Roe because of the radicalism of the states.

I always, you know, it cost me nothing to just take the position pro--life and da-da-da, because there was that right there. And when I formulated, you know, my thoughts over it, the governors were like George Voinovich in Ohio, Mitt Romney in Massachusetts, Jeb Bush in Florida. And the thought was, well, you know, maybe it'll be 15, 16, 17 weeks with exceptions. That's just not the world we live in anymore. And I must say, this is post Dobbs. You look and you see the radicalism. I'll just say it of these old white fat men in Mississippi or somewhere else that that are driving women out of out of out of medical care

because they want to appeal to the most extreme elements of their base. Yeah, there are a lot of people. And I would guess you're like me. There are a lot of people who who have really been transformed by the radicalism of the last three, four years. Well, it's interesting watching Donald Trump, because as Willie pointed out, I mean, you know, the first thing you need to understand about him is that he is completely unprincipled on this issue. He doesn't like it. And he's very, very worried about what you're just describing. He's worried about the political fallout. So he's trying to neutralize an issue that cannot be neutralized. So, you know, this is one of those rare moments where leaving aside the lies,

you can actually see his thought process. He doesn't want a national ban. He wants to make sure that they support all of the exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother. He wants to be, you know, reassure people about IVF. But now he's in this position where, on the one hand, he wants to claim credit for overturning Roe versus Wade. And on the other hand, but the pro-life movement, I mean, their reaction was deep disappointment. Now, what he's counting on, and he's probably right, is the people like Lindsey Graham and the pro-life movement will simply roll over, that they will say, OK, we were disappointed with this, but we're still going to support it. So he's taking them for granted. But I guess the question is whether or not, and in his mind, he thinks he's taking the least bad

option, the most pragmatic option. But as you point out, I think the politics of this have changed. It's very unpredictable. He's very worried about it. The polls would indicate where the trend is going. And now he's thinking that he's taking it off the table, that he's going to turn it around and talk about how radical the Democrats are. But what does he do? What is his first opening gambit? The Democrats want to execute babies after birth, which is so ludicrous, so extreme. It's kind of eye rolling. But that's his first play on this. Well, and he seems very uncomfortable in this entire statement because he's confused by it himself, which doesn't surprise me. And there's so many, so many underlining factors to why he is confused by it or conflicted by it.

I'll just say that. And you look at you look at Wisconsin, where Charlie's from. Here's a state that's 50 50. It's a lot of Catholics in Wisconsin. They had a judge's race that everybody there knew that conservatives knew, liberals knew it's going to shape the future of the Supreme Court there. And because, again, because of abortion, there's a landslide victory, a landslide victory for a very liberal judge who most likely would have been in a very tight race, but for the issue of abortion.

By upending Roe, Donald Trump has undermined the health care of women across the country. And for their families to see that happening, playing out in real time, everybody now knows that it's more than whatever Donald Trump tried to. It's so so stupid I can't even repeat it. I won't. It's the last ditch effort for them to hold on to this issue by saying something about abortion happening in the ninth month, which it doesn't. By the way, that never happens. What does happen is there are bansans, six week bans right now. There are total bans. There there are. There are are you look at Texas, the law is getting more extreme.

You're talking about bounties now, the discussion of bounties. And Jackie Alimany, he can try to paint Democrats as extremes by lying about all of these babies being executed. But it's just a lie. The numbers don't hold up. But what people do see in their lives every day is they see people having to make difficult decisions. They read about women every day being denied health care, being put in the most horrible of positions. And the Biden campaign very effectively is running ads of some of those women who, unlike Donald Trump's lies, really have suffered because Trump, quote, terminated Roe v. Wade. Yeah, Joe, I mean, if you want to just look

at the mission creep already, let's look at the debate about IVF, in vitro fertilization, and the way that this conversation and what Donald Trump unleashed during his presidency has caused to this important reproductive support system for women who are struggling to conceive. My heart is actually beating a little bit more than usual right now because I'm someone who just has gone through IVF. And the fact that women are now faced with this issue in the states where you have, you know, people who initially were in support of overturning Roe v. Wade and now have come out, these House Republicans, saying that they're in support of it and that this wasn't what they had, you know, initially intended

when it came to seeping to other different parts of trying to legislate reproductive rights. But this is something that, again, has been kicked to the states. And states are now, these Republican-controlled legislatures, passing these laws that are, you know, restricting access. Whether it's in small ways or big ways, they are things that are causing, you know, this paralysis amongst health care providers in states who are worried about the legal repercussions of going against some of the legal turmoil that's playing out in Congress, regardless of whether or not Donald Trump wants to take ownership of this or whether he's, you know, again, just deciding to punt it to the states, wait till he gets to the presidency

and then see what that again unleashes and whether or not House Republicans or Republicans in the Senate, depending on what happens this November, decide to actually bring an abortion ban to the floor to take a vote on it. And then that is when this decision, you know, will you just need to look at Donald Trump's past when it comes to what he says and then what actually happens when something gets put on his desk and he's faced with what is most politically expedient for him to do at the time. And of course, Jackie is one of many, many people in this country worried about the future of IVF, given some of the signals we've heard from certain corners of this country across the political spectrum, by the way, IVF is popular no matter what party you vote for. So, Jonathan, let's talk about the Biden campaign's response, the White House response to all of this.

They watched that video, that mush of an argument that Donald Trump made that wasn't really an argument. What was their response to it? They were ready. They've been waiting for this moment for a while. Within minutes of Trump putting out that video, the Biden campaign already clipped the piece of footage where Trump said he was proud to have appointed the Supreme Court justice who overturned Roe v. Wade. That ad went up instantly. We also heard from the president himself. He spoke about it in a video they put out a short time later. The Biden campaign really pushed media outlets on their framing of what Trump said, suggesting that, no, he wasn't just punting the states. He was deferring to the states, which means 14 states which have a total

ban on abortions and others could be coming, suggesting, look, he is saying he would support this. Also noting he did not, nowhere in the statement did he rule out signing a national ban were to come to his desk if the Republicans were to win both houses of Congress come November or beyond. And then, of course, they put out a very powerful ad with a Texas woman talking about her own story. I think we're going to show that a little later this morning. The Biden campaign knows this is a really powerful issue. It hits home for a lot of families, not just women across this country. And they note abortion is undefeated at the ballot box since Roe v. Wade was overturned. They're going to lean heavily on this, Joe and Mika, between now and November. And sometimes I think in really personal and gut wrenching stories

that they feel like will resonate with voters, particularly suburban women who so often decide these elections. Yeah, suburban. There are so many suburban women from Atlanta up to Milwaukee. And speaking of Milwaukee and Wisconsin, Charlie Sykes, I sense that if Tim Russert were here, he'd hold up a whiteboard that would say it's all about Wisconsin, Wisconsin, Wisconsin. And I'm just wondering, how does this play in Wisconsin? How much of an impact will it have on whether Wisconsin goes for Biden or Trump? Well, you know, as usual, Wisconsin is going to be on a knife's edge. Every election here is decided by about 20,000 votes. But, Joe, you mentioned the Supreme Court election that took place last year.

And that really was a referendum on abortion. And it would normally it was one of those elections that conservatives would normally have a pretty significant edge because of the turnout and vote. And yet it was an overwhelming landslide. This is an issue that is absolutely toxic for Republicans. And in Wisconsin, Republicans have always tried to downplay the issue. They've tried to, you know, people like no legendary governor, Tommy Thompson, would say I'm pro-life, but he's not going to actually talk about it that much and certainly not push through draconian legislation. So this is very, very much a wedge issue. And I think it's probably far more significant in terms of, say, the turnout in places like Dane County or young voters that Jonathan Lemire was talking about are way too early. It's probably going to be a lot more

significant than, say, student loan forgiveness. I mean, there are a lot of issues that are playing, but this right now is probably the number one single most motivating issue for the Democratic base. And they've already proved that in that Supreme Court election. Charlie Sykes, thank you very much. And still ahead on Morning Joe, a lot to get to. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says a date has been set for a ground invasion of Rafah. This as some world leaders call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Plus, more than a dozen top defense officials are urging the Supreme Court to reject Donald Trump's presidential immunity claim. We'll have the latest on the former president's legal troubles.

Also this morning, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is our guest. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. 33 past the hour ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas remain at a deadlock. Despite the rising optimism voiced by Israeli officials, negotiators have left Cairo with no deal in sight. Hamas says the latest proposal does not meet its demands. The terrorist group wants Israel to withdraw its troops from the Gaza Strip. Hamas has not completely rejected the proposal. It says it's still reviewing it and will inform mediators of its official response. Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says a date has been set to launch a ground offensive in the southern Gaza city of Rafah.

Netanyahu made the announcement in a video statement yesterday saying this is needed to ensure victory over Hamas. He did not reveal when the operation will begin. It comes just a day after Israeli defense forces withdrew troops from southern Gaza's largest city, further shrinking its presence in Gaza. saying it will worsen the already dire humanitarian crisis. More than a million people have sought refuge in the city, and there is famine and disease spreading. Let's bring in right now the president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away. Great newsletter, available on Substack.

Richard, let's just start with the basics, because we do have to start with the basics. Sometimes I feel like we jump ahead. And for some people that aren't following daily, they just don't get the right message out of it or else there's some people, of course, on the Trump right that are just disingenuous and cynical. So let's start. Let's start with first principles. On October 7th, Hamas attacked. They raped. They brutalized. They killed Jews in the worst slaughter since the Holocaust. They're still holding hostages. And they've been holding hostages. This could have ended if they had released hostages a long time ago. That's a reality. And another reality is Hamas can never run Gaza again, ever.

If they aren't completely destroyed, and that's going to be extraordinarily difficult because of their allies around the region, they can't run Gaza again. With that as the reality, how is that balanced with the other reality that can't have another 10, 20,000 Palestinian civilians killed in Gaza and fighting when they're on the verge of famine right now? How are those two realities balanced? Well, Joe, you're right to juxtapose those two realities. And you've got a third reality, which is the one of hostages. And that's why you see these competing stories coming out. And you've got this big debate in Israel about what should take priority. Is it the continued military operations against Hamas or is it to agree to a ceasefire and get hostages out? And then the problem is Hamas is pushing back against a ceasefire. It's raised its demands. There's been one ceasefire pause over the last six months for an exchange of hostages and some Palestinian political prisoners.

And as you heard in the opening report that Mika read, Hamas has raised its requirements. It's now looking not simply for exchanges, but it wants to end to Israeli occupation. Bibi Netanyahu is coming under pressure from both sides. Those who want him to agree to a ceasefire and those who want him to go ahead with the operation in Rafah. Then he's getting pressure from Joe Biden, essentially saying, don't go ahead. You've got more than a million Palestinians packed into a small part of southern Gaza. If you do that, there will be large numbers of civilian casualties no matter what. And last but not least, Netanyahu said he needs to finish the job. I'm not sure that's conceptually possible. Imagine they go into Rafah and they kill another couple of thousand Hamas fighters.

They also kill several thousand civilians. What then? What then? What happens then the day after? You still have the fundamental question of an occupation, an alienated local population. Hamas will come back in some areas or radicalism will rise up. I still don't understand, as they used to say in Iraq, how does this end? I still don't understand the connection between Israeli military action and the idea of leaving something politically that you can coexist with. Well, one thing we understand is if Israel withdraws from Gaza, then Hamas declares victory and they're allowed to do whatever they want to do with those hostages under the tunnel.

So I understand Israel not not not leaving Gaza until, of course, the hostages are secured and Hamas is destroyed. One thing, though, I don't quite understand is this idea that we have to continue. We have to have a full scale attack on Rafa to get the hostages. You know, that seems to be the argument from Netanyahu's government. That's that's not what hostage families are saying. So that's because what happens is they go into Rafa and they get close to the Moss leaders that are still hiding out in Rafah, the hostages will be killed. There really does have to be a middle way. I know that will enrage the extremists on all sides.

But going in and going into Rafah and killing 10,000 more civilians and killing more members of Hamas, I need someone to explain to me. I know the threat of that actually makes Hamas negotiate in a more effective way. But the actual going in and the killing of 10,000 more civilians and getting closer to those Hamas leaders that that are in Rafah, I don't see how that helps facilitate the release of the hostages. Well, the reason you don't see it is because it doesn't. I actually think Israel has reached something of a fork in the road where it has to decide whether its strategy is Hamas first or hostage first. If it's Hamas first, whether I agree with it or not, I tend not to,

then you would have a new offensive in southern Gaza. If it's hostage first, you would hold off that. You would try to negotiate something or even, and that's a big decision, you would have to decide to essentially call off the rest of the military operation. I don't think that's in the cards. So Israel's caught. The reason that you can't see how to balance these two is I don't think you can. And Israel now has reached a point where there's a tremendous tension between its military ambitions and its ambitions to get the hostages out. And Hamas realizes that, which is why they're hanging tough. Well, and really, that's that's the rub. I mean, that is the rub here is and why I say

Israel can't leave Gaza until every one of those hostages are released or they are accounted for. That's the rub. There is there is a wide gap between the bombing of of of Raf and the killing of 10,000 more civilians and leaving Gaza to Hamas. It's not an option. And I don't think most Americans would think that's that's an option. It is, again, pressure has to be applied to Hamas or they will continue to negotiate in bad faith. I also, Willie, and we heard it last week, the United States was starting to pressure Qatar, a good ally of ours in many ways in the region, the biggest U.S. base in Qatar. At the same time, you know, if Hamas is going to continue these negotiations and walk in,

if they're going to walk away from them when they see that 10,000 more civilians aren't going to be killed, we have to pressure Qatar and say, listen, you know what? You harbor Hamas. You're harboring enemies and you can't harbor them until they release all the hostages. Yeah. And that's even complicated, as you've detailed on the show for weeks now. Qatar giving money to Hamas as approved three weeks before October 7th by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. So to to Joe's point about Hamas being a bad faith actor, which of course it is, we're treating Hamas as if it's sort of a rational, legitimate state actor who you can sit across the table from and have a conversation. They're holding hostages. Of course, Israel's not going to concede anything without getting the hostages back. That's what they want to do, though. So they want to eliminate Hamas. But what is Israel supposed to do with somebody across the

table who says we're not we're not only do we kill twelve hundred people in the most brutal ways, some of them in human history and take a bunch of hostages and kill some of them as well, but we're not even going to entertain the idea of giving them back. How is Israel supposed to have that conversation and respect the group across the table? Look, I don't have any glib, easy answers. That's exactly why Hamas did what it did. The taking of the hostages was not peripheral to what it did on October 7th. It was intrinsic to what it did. It looked at the history of what is the great lengths Israel has gone to get back its people.

And that's what this is about now. I would think the best thing is that the Israelis would hold off, quote unquote, major military operations. They would go after Hamas leaders discreetly and they'd continue to try to get these hostage, these mini deals on hostages. The fact is they're not going to rescue hostages militarily. That's not the way they've gotten almost all the hostages they've gotten. It's not through military rescue or rage. You get them through deals. And the question is, what is Israel prepared to sign up to?

But they've got a problem. Hamas has raised its requirements for new hostage deals. And for the Israelis to say, we're going to leave, pull out completely, that would be a major victory for Hamas. So, yeah, the word dilemma is overused. This is a dilemma. And I think the best thing you can do is try to negotiate these middle, these medium, these mini deals and hold off massive offensive. Because, again, I worry about a massive offensive because what it will do to U.S.-Israeli relations and what it will do to alienating the population in Gaza and the rest of the Arab world. Again, this has been this has been, again, part of the Israeli problem from the get go. These large scale military operations cost Israel in many ways, in addition to whatever it might accomplish. Richard, you know, I don't think they need to worry about alienating the population

of Gaza when you look at those pictures and look at what's left of Gaza. I wonder, is there any talk or do you hear anything from Israel about redefining this concept of destroying Hamas? I don't understand exactly what they mean by that. You kill the commanders, that's fine. But surely they can't imagine that they're wiping out the kind of radicalism that Hamas represents in Gaza. Surely they're increasing that, the Israelis are, with the way they've conducted this invasion. How do they think about that? And I know they haven't given a lot of thought to the endgame, but this is like before this, this starts the endgame. So how do they define destroying Hamas?

Look, Gene, it's part of the Achilles heels of the Israeli strategy. You had maybe 30,000 to 35,000 Hamas fighters estimated on October 7th. The Israelis have maybe killed 15,000. That still means you've got another 15,000 or 20,000 somewhere in Gaza. You're not going to get all of them. And as you say, almost paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld, the process of going after Hamas means you are creating a new generation, potentially, of terrorists. And we saw already in northern Gaza when the Israelis pull out, Hamas or Hamas-like elements reenters. I don't think the Israeli strategy makes sense. It's almost as if they're fighting a conventional war in an unconventional setting. There's no

allowance for hearts and minds and how this is playing out. Hamas knows that. That is one of the reasons they're embedding their forces in a civilian population. They're willing to take the casualties because they feel they watch what's going on. They see the protests in Israel. They see the pushback in the United States and around the world. And from their point of view, they may be losing militarily, but they're winning politically. And that's the flaw in the Israeli strategy. They're fighting a conventional, the war conventionally, but it's an unconventional war. So they can't, there's no answer to your question. There's no answer to your question of even if you went into Rafah, what happens the day after?

How do you translate the killing of some Hamas troops into a lasting political arrangement? The answer is you can't because Israel hasn't introduced a political dimension into their strategy. Yeah, Jonathan Amir, part of it may be bad faith on Netanyahu's part. Part of it may be that they want to reoccupy Gaza for the long run. We certainly have seen Netanyahu say there is no two-state solution. There are people who may say that Biden is being too tough on Netanyahu. Well, there's no doubt he's being tougher on Netanyahu than he would any other Israeli leader because Netanyahu has spent the past decade making sure that this would happen,

building up Hamas, strengthening Hamas, funding Hamas, turning a blind eye to Hamas attack plans. Worrying about his own legal problems. Yeah. And going after the Palestinian Authority and the West Bank, allowing illegal settlements repeatedly to continue to go into the West Bank. So he's created a real crisis here. And so Biden looks at that and you've got Netanyahu is a bad faith actor who says there's no two state solution. There will never be two states. And now that's sort of his centerpiece to the Israeli people. I'm protecting you against the big bad Americans who are saying we need a two state solution. Well, we need a two-state solution. Well, we need a two-state solution. Netanyahu's way has gotten us to where we are right now, not only in Gaza with his funding of Hamas, but also on the West

Bank. So I just want to say, Jonathan, Hamas may not ever be destroyed. Every Hamas member may not be destroyed. But the goal has to be that Hamas will never have any part of running Gaza again, no part of the government again. And let's just state it's not said on television enough. Before the invasion, Gaza was very unpopular. Hamas was very unpopular with people of Gaza. They were not a popular force. And right now they're going to war basically with the Palestinian Authority. And so there are all of these battles between Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, there always has been, Hamas and the people of Gaza. So they don't look to Hamas as saviors. Yeah, maybe they're happy that they killed a lot of Jews.

Maybe there are some members there that are happy about that. But there are plenty of opportunities in the long run, if we look over the horizon for what can happen in gaza with the peacekeeping force mainly of of arab nations who are ready to go in as you know ready to go in ready to rebuild gaza uh when when the time is right but the time won't be right until hamas releases the hostages and we figure out how to move beyond the current stalemate. Yeah, certainly everyday Gazans aren't happy with Hamas bringing war to their doorstep and this utter devastation of their homes, of the entire enclave. Of course, the longer that Israeli's offensive goes on, they become less popular as well. There's more radicalization of everyday

Gazans. They may not join Hamas, but they're certainly not going to potentially. Let's be honest. Let's be honest. There are no winnings of the hearts and minds of Gaza with the Israelis. There just aren't. Never will be. That's why Netanyahu's idea that we're going to go in and occupy Gaza in the long run. No, no. This is where the United States steps up. And if it's a UN peacekeeping force, that's fine. If it's an Arab-run peacekeeping force with the backing of the United States, that's fine. But there has to be a two-state solution. And we have to have political space, create that political space for that two-state solution.

Right. What's happening now is only going to make things worse going forward for everyone in the region. And certainly, as you noted a few minutes ago, Biden has been tougher on Netanyahu of late. That phone call last week, American officials tell me they're pleased, cautiously pleased at the incremental steps that Netanyahu has taken since that call, opening up more access to aid and such. But they didn't love the idea that he said this RAFA operation is still going. Now, could this just be a bluff? Could it be a negotiating tactic to try to say to Hamas, hey, make a deal now, otherwise we're coming? That

remains to be seen. But Jackie, there's a lot of people who think that the president needs to be tougher and that that should include conditioning or even withholding aid to Israel unless things change. Among those, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who we'll be speaking to a little later this morning. Talk to us a little bit more about this feeling among Democrats and how whether that, the Israel part of it, could also endanger the supplemental aid bill that would provide funds to Israel, yes, but also to Ukraine. This is a really complicated dynamic, right, that just because of what you just laid out, this aid bill, that the supplementary that did make it through the Senate before this recess,

but is unlikely to get through the House. If Mike Johnson in the House eventually this week or next week puts forward his own Ukraine package, which we know he's working on right now, that is likely to include more aid to Israel, the Senate's going to have an extremely hard time getting this through. Initially, you know, I was just looking through my notes. We were already talking about this in November on set. I remember talking about how Democrats behind closed doors were privately already grumbling about the lack of conditions and strings attached to the aid that was being provided to Israel, that they were frustrated with sort of this special relationship where the application

of humanitarian laws weren't necessarily being taken into consideration, that the U.S. wasn't enforcing or trying to keep tabs on whether or not Israel has been using U.S.-sourced bombs to kill civilians and to now kill over 200 aid workers potentially and 32,000 Gazans. It was just Bernie Sanders at that point in time who was forcefully speaking out. Then it was Elizabeth Warren. But now at this point, there is a rising cohort, as you just noted, John, of Democrats over, I believe, three dozen who have signed on to this letter sent last Friday by Mark Pocan asking Biden to delay or or pause at least this humanity, any sort of future either arms sales or aid to Israel unless there are more conditions. Of course, this is a bit symbolic because any of these approvals or any aid that goes through in the future might not get to Israel for years to come. But in terms of this actual supplementary package, that is a

different story and could get jammed up in the Senate if there's an entirely new package that's ultimately put through the House and lands in the Senate's hands. We will see the Washington Post. Jackie Alamany. Jackie, thanks so much. We appreciate it. Richard Haas, thank you as well. Before we let you go, 48 hours from right now, they'll be teeing off at Augusta. You are our national golf correspondent. Who do you like this year? Hard to go against world number one, Scotty Scheffler. But my heart, Willie, my heart, Rory McIlroy.

He needs the Masters to get the career grand slam. So that's where my heart is. Look out for John Rahm as well. But Scotty Scheffler is playing a level of golf that is staggering. Rory's been close. Finished second a couple of years ago. Finished third last week in the Valero in Texas. But maybe it's his time.

I'm hoping. I'm pulling for him. All right. That is Richard Hosmeek, our national golf correspondent. Masters starts in two days. From the Middle East to the Masters. I feel ready now. I understand everything. OK, let's move on to former President Trump losing another last ditch effort to delay his upcoming hush money trial. Trump's legal team filed an 11th hour request to halt the proceedings, arguing that an impartial jury can't be selected because of pretrial publicity. The judge denied Trump's

request for a delay without explanation in a one sentence order yesterday. His team is also pushing to move the case out of Manhattan. Yesterday's ruling does not affect his underlying change of venue motion. Meanwhile, the judge overseeing the hush money case sent a letter to Trump's lawyers and the Manhattan D.A.'s office outlining jury selection. The judge provided attorneys with a list of 42 questions potential jurors will be asked, including whether they have ever attended a Trump rally or if they belong to groups like the Proud Boys or Antifa. Trump's attorneys wanted to ask potential jurors whether they like the former president, but the judge called that question irrelevant. But potential jurors will be asked about media consumption and whether they

read the New York Times, watch Fox News, or use Truth Social. The questionnaire does not ask about party affiliation, political contributions, or voting history. In the federal election interference case, special counsel Jack Smith is urging the Supreme Court to reject former President Trump presidential powers that would entitle Trump to immunity in this case. Prosecutors also stated that, quote, history likewise refutes Trump's arguments, citing President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal as a precedent. Trump's team made a case for absolute immunity in a filing last month to the high court stating the presidency cannot retain its, quote, vital independence if a president can face criminal prosecution after leaving office. And more than a dozen former top defense officials have filed a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court opposing Trump's push for immunity from prosecution. The 38 page amicus brief includes officials from both Democratic and Republican administrations dating back more than 50 years,

as well as retired four star generals from all branches of the military and admirals from the U.S. Coast Guard. In the brief, the former leaders warned, quote, presidential immunity from criminal prosecution would threaten the military's role in American society, our nation's constitutional order and our national security. They also argue presidential immunity poses a threat to democracy and would place commanders and their troops in the impossible situation of having to choose between obeying a commander in chief, giving an unlawful order or obeying their oath to the Constitution. The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments about Trump's immunity argument on April 25th. We'll be watching for that.

So, Willie, a lot going on, but it appears, at least for now, that Trump's hush money trial is on schedule. Yeah, that was slapped down pretty quickly. That was a lot to get through. Luckily, we have help. Former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin is here, along with former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg. Guys, good morning. Good to see you both. So there's a lot there. Let's start at the beginning. We'll take these in order as Mika went through them. Start with the bid, the Trump team's bid to delay this trial, which has been the strategy across the board. Just kick it the the bid. The Trump team's bid to delay this trial, which has been the strategy across the board. Just kick it down the road. Delay, delay, delay. This one, though, slapped aside by the appellate justice very quickly.

Part of it. So Trump yesterday made some filings with an appeals court in New York asking to delay the trial on two grounds. One, because the venue, meaning where the trial is situated here in Manhattan, they say is inappropriate because President Trump can't get a fair trial. That was denied yesterday. The court said we will not stay the trial while we consider your change of venue motion. This morning, however, Willie, that court is going to reconvene to hear the second part, which is Trump's appeal of the gag order in that case. It's still unclear because the papers are not publicly accessible whether he is also asking to stay the trial while an appeals court considers whether Judge Mershon's gag order is constitutional and lawful. If he has asked for a stay of trial, look today to see

whether we get a similarly quick ruling. So this is if everyone's trying to keep it straight. This is the hush money trial. Stormy Daniels, that's the shorthand for it. So the hush, the gag order. He's I guess we can use whatever standard we want to use. But Donald Trump continues to talk about the trial, talking about the judge himself. And he's allowed to do that. He's allowed to do that right under the terms of the gag order. He is allowed to do that as odious and as maybe justice defeating, as some of us might think that is, he is allowed to do that. He is not violating the terms of the gag order. One could argue that he might be violating its spirit. So, Chuck, let's talk about the jury selection process. It's set up for Monday, believed to be scheduled. You know, what Miki just read in terms of the things that are going to be

out of bounds or being asked about, does it feel right to you? It does, Jonathan. Look, I can simplify this a bit. What the judge is trying to do is find a jury that can be fair. You can watch Fox News and be fair. You could watch MSNBC and be fair. You can vote one way or the other and be fair. You have a lot of people who live in the city and a lot of people who are eligible to serve as jurors. You need 12 people who could be fair. And so the questionnaire is designed exactly to do that. Can you sit? Can you listen? Do you have other responsibilities that may distract you or require you to do other things? If you can sit, if you can listen, if you can pay attention, can you be fair? So Chuck, just bottom lining this and before we move on to the next case, does any of this appear to threaten to hold up this trial in a significant way?

A little bit, yes, and a little bit, no. You know, Lisa and I were talking right before we started here, Willie, and it's interesting. My experience as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, 50 or 60 trials, it never took me more than 45 minutes to pick a jury. So different judges in different courts do things in different ways. And we didn't use questionnaires. It would be extraordinarily unusual for that to happen in our federal court. Here, however, it tends to be the practice. So it takes longer, right, to get through 42 questions with however many people are on the panel. Could take a week or two. But this is not an overly complex process. It's going to be managed by the judge and they're going to get through it and they're going to see the jury and the trial is going to begin. So whether it's a few days or a couple of weeks, it shouldn't be an

enormous delay. It's going ahead one way or another. Might be a slight bump in the road, but it's going ahead. It is.