Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/10/24

Episode Date: May 10, 2024

Stormy Daniels wraps testimony in hush money trial

It's funny that while Trump's lawyers are throwing their backs out trying to convince the jury that Stormy made this whole sex thing up, Ted Cruz is on Fox defending Trump by saying the opposite. There is no person on planet Earth that believes Donald Trump has been celibate all his life. That is not news. Thanks, Ted. That's going to make Mother's Day with Melania a lot of fun this year. My God, we have a lot to get to this morning on Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial.

What a week, Willie. It has been Stormy Daniels wrapping up her second day of testimony with a contentious and at times bizarre cross-examination from Trump's legal team. We'll get expert legal analysis on that and what we can expect in court today because it's not over yet. Plus, we have reaction from Capitol Hill to President Biden's threat

to withhold some weapons shipments to Israel over its possible invasion of Rafah. More Republicans are criticizing the president and he's even facing backlash from some Democrats. And Kevin McCarthy seems to be having a hard time coping with the fact that Mike Johnson did something he could not, which is simply hold on to his job. We'll show you McCarthy's dig at his successor. It seems, I don't know, a little not OK, Willie. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Friday, May 10th. With us, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief

at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department, Elise Jordan. And Willie, we end this week, I guess, way we began it just as I mean, it's a really bad pun, but a stormy week in court, truly for the former president. What can I say? Yeah. And especially stormy yesterday, a stormy day. It was very combative as she was grilled about the details of her story, her account of what she says happened in 2006. A Donald Trump hush money criminal trial picks up later this morning, a day after Stormy Daniels finished taking the stand, testifying for more than seven hours over a two day period. Yesterday, the defense aggressively tried to poke holes in Daniels

credibility, accusing her of extortion, rehearsing her testimony and changing her story over the years, all of which Daniels denied going going toe-to-toe with the defense attorney in several sharp exchanges. At one point, Daniels said if she were making up her sexual encounter with Trump, she would have written a much better story. Also during cross-examination, Daniels testified she never spoke to Trump about the $130,000

hush money payment she received from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, and had no knowledge of whether Trump was aware of or involved in that transaction. When pressed, Daniels also noted she did not negotiate directly with Cohen either, but that her lawyer at the time, Keith Davidson, did. Meanwhile, Judge Juan Mershon for a second time denied a request for a mistrial from Trump's lawyers. Trump attorney Todd Blanch claims Stormy Daniels' testimony this week, describing her alleged sexual encounter with Trump,

was unfairly prejudicial to the former president. But the judge ruled Trump's lawyers had opened the door to that detailed testimony when they asserted in their opening statement no sex had occurred, putting the jury in the position of choosing who to believe. All right, let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalos. Good morning to you both. Lisa, I'll start with you down at the courthouse again. Yesterday you were there. Take us inside the room because just reading through this transcript, watching how combative it appeared to be, how

Stormy Daniels held her own and held her ground as defense attorneys tried again to shred her credibility, to poke holes in her story. What were your takeaways yesterday? Stormy Daniels is the rare witness who's better on cross-examination than she is on direct, Willie. She really held her ground. That's an understatement against some withering attack by the defense. But one of the things that I think is really interesting about yesterday's cross is, as our colleague Von Hilliard observed yesterday, what they didn't attack her for. And really, the core of the story about her sexual encounter with Donald Trump was not among the things that they tried to peel away or attack. They asked her, for example, for seven pages in the transcript

to clarify whether they did or did not have dinner. They also tried to make her say that her story about whether she walked to dinner was or was not inconsistent. But the core of the story remained intact. And the most that Susan Nicholas did was say that it was incredulous to her that Stormy Daniels, having acted in 150 to 200 pornography movies, would be scared or surprised to come out of the bathroom to find Donald Trump on the bed for her. And of course, Stormy Daniels had a nice retort to that, which is to say, look, if it had been my husband, I see my husband naked all the time. But to open that bathroom door and to find Donald Trump lying on the bed for me at 60 years old, twice, more than

twice my age and much larger than me. Yeah, that was surprising to me. And so the implication that they were trying to make throughout the day that because Stormy Daniels has been an exotic dancer or an adult film actor, that she should have seen this coming and indeed would not have been shocked by it, I think fell flat during the day. That having been said, they did poke a little bit, you know, here and there at the margins. They definitely exposed some inconsistencies. But we're also talking about a story that happened 18 years ago. And as a witness processes a story over time, as we change culturally too, it's also of no surprise to me

that maybe the Stormy Daniels in 2024 processing what happened in 2006 sees those events differently. It's really impossible to put yourself back in the position that you would have been even in fall of 2016 in telling that story, Willie. So, Danny, seven and a half hours or so of testimony from Stormy Daniels over a couple of days. Truly, you just have to stop and consider the surreal historic nature of a porn actress sitting across from a former president of the United States making these accusations at him while he's in the middle of a presidential campaign, by the way. But from your point of view, from where you're sitting at the end of the day, what kind of witness was Stormy Daniels for the prosecution? Unnecessary. Stormy Daniels, in my view, represents an unnecessary risk for the prosecution.

Here's why. I can't think of any piece of evidence that they got from Stormy Daniels on the prosecution that they couldn't have gotten or didn't already get from other witnesses. The transaction from Cohen to Daniels was established through other witnesses, including Keith Davidson, her former lawyer. To the extent that the value of her story increased as the election approached, we've already heard that evidence from other witnesses. So you may say, well, look, Stormy Daniels was about context. And that's true. But when you think about all the other witnesses, Madeline Westerhout, Hope Hicks, people with really unimpeachable credibility, if you could get that evidence from them, why risk Stormy Daniels? Because you saw in Stormy Daniels a request for a mistrial, which was going to be denied. But in my view, the very first major appealable issue that you might see up at the appellate division. So if the prosecution

gets a conviction and this case comes back in two years and it's overturned the conviction, then the prosecution is going to ask themselves, was it worth the risk if the reason that the conviction is overturned is testimony that was given by Stormy Daniels, especially if they could have gotten that information from somewhere else? And I'll just say, look, I'm in the minority. I don't think Stormy Daniels performed particularly well on cross-examination. Witnesses, she's one of those witnesses that just decided, I am not going to give a yes or no answer because I know that's what the cross-examination. Witnesses, she's one of those witnesses that just decided, I am not going to give a yes or no answer because I know that's what

the cross-examining attorney wants. She fought back at every turn. And yes, to some extent, did she zing Donald Trump and the cross-examining attorney, Susan Nichols? Yes, but at the same time, witnesses who refuse to answer yes or no,

refuse to give an inch. Sometimes juries see them as concealing things. And that's that's what Stormy Daniels did. It may have played well with the jury. It might not have as well. Danny, just OK, so I want to just try and push back on this because I'm curious what you think of the fact that it would be obvious that the defense would try and undermine her credibility, really try and, you know, put a frame around the incredulousness of her story. And who else would have the information

like what was in his toiletry kit or other things that would prove that there was a transaction for sex? I mean, how else would they do that? Are you saying there was a different route they could take? Because she's the one with that information that ultimately makes that connection. No, we're actually mostly on the same page. I mean, the point to be made is that the testimony could have simply been we had sex. And I've heard that argument. It's a fair argument that all those

details are important to establish that this happened. And Judge Mershon did point out that in their opening, the defense said, they didn't have to say this, that there was no sex. So arguably, they opened the door to those details. But again, the proof is really in the fact that this is the first request for a mistrial. And the point, Judge Mershon himself said, we got into detail that we didn't need to get into. But you defense, you weren't objecting. So I don't know what was going on there. So it's really not even me. It's Judge Mershon himself expressed doubt.

It's very rare for a judge sui sponte on his own to say, hey, you know what? Some of that testimony, it wasn't so it went a little too far. So if Judge Mershon is saying that they have it now on the. And you better believe when they take that to the appellate division, they're going to take that little portion of the transcript and put it right in front of the judges and make their argument. So again, I just go back to the fact that, yes, you can say that the detail helped with the context. Yes, he used old spice. And yes, he had the satin pajamas. And that is, you know, that helps show that she's credible. But the defense correctly pointed out this is not a sexual assault case. This is a false entries in business records. And then maybe some other crime that we're not entirely sure what it is that was being concealed yet. I'm sure we'll find out at some point. But it's not a sex assault case. And that's the defense's argument. And even Justice Mershana acknowledged that they may have a point. Not enough for a mistrial, but there's a point to be made there. Right. The judge rejected their request for a mistrial,

also rejected their efforts, Trump's attorney's efforts, to loosen the gag order that he could go after Stormy Daniels because she's no longer a witness. But he said, look, that could be a chilling effect for other witnesses. So he kept it in place. So, Lisa, two for you. One would be, do you agree, this, that Stormy Daniels was an unnecessary risk? Tell us what you think, whether they should have called her or not.

And then talk to us a little bit about who else we heard from yesterday, including Madeline Westerhout, who is known as Trump's gatekeeper in the West Wing. Let's start with whether I agree with Danny. I actually do agree with Danny that she was an unnecessary witness. That having been said, I also think that when you're thinking about this case writ large, there's sort of two parts to it, right? There is the falsification of business records and there's the underlying crime that Donald Trump is allegedly trying to conceal. And the prosecution has made clear at this point that that's a conspiracy to promote his own election through unlawful means. On the back end, the

evidence of Trump's own involvement is less direct than it is on the front end. You've got a lot of people talking about his involvement in the conspiracy. Very few who can talk about his direct participation and the cover-up of that crime, Michael Cohen really being the only one who will come to trial and say that. So you've got to compensate somehow by showing he had a motive to do it, and that plus the circumstantial evidence of his involvement to take you over the line. I would guess that what the prosecution is trying to do with Stormy Daniels here is show because her story was so credible, because she remembers all these messy details, he absolutely had the motive to work with Michael Cohen and David Pecker to ensure her story never saw the light of day and thereafter cover that up through the business records falsification that we've seen

the direct evidence of. In terms of Madeleine Westerhout, she was in many respects a mixed bag because she was a terrific character witness for Donald Trump, a man she really loves and to whom she feels a great amount of gratitude. She could not have been more effusive in her praise for him as a great boss, as a family man. On the other hand, she is the connective tissue and the falsification loop. She is the person who at the White House presented him with the checks to sign. She said he read everything before he signed it. And then she was presented with some evidence showing how careful Trump was about his money, including an email with Ronagraph about whether

or not Donald Trump wanted to buy a $650 Tiffany frame to put a picture of his mother in to sit in the Oval Office. And Ronagraph sort of doubting, well, you should ask him whether he wants to buy this. This is kind of pricey. The implication is this is a person who is A, micromanagerial, B, tight-fisted. And the fact that he signed nine checks repeatedly for $35,000 this is a man who knew what he was doing and wanted to do it okay so stormy daniels a mixed bag as to what the prosecution got out of it the next big event will be michael cohen how soon do you predict that he's going to go on the stand and what are the risk and the rewards of having him come and testify you want to take this one oh i think you're better at predicting

sure i think at this point at least we've seen a lot of the witnesses that we expect so just in looking at a countdown list who's left there aren't that many people left to hear from so i would expect we'll hear from michael co relatively soon, perhaps as soon as next week. In terms of what they hope to get from him, Michael Cohen is the one witness who sees this story through from start to finish. From the very formation of the conspiracy in August of 2017 to the very end of the repayment scheme in December of 2017. So they need Michael Cohen to thread it all together. That having been said, think about Michael Cohen sort of as an earthquake damaged building around which the DA has built a lot of scaffolding in the form of documentary evidence. We've seen

texts, we've seen emails, we've seen bank statements, we've seen general ledger entries. We have seen so much evidence, including excerpts from three books that Trump wrote to show his modus operandi, right? Like attack, attack, attack, never trust anyone, manage your own money. All of those things in Trump's own words, devastating. And I predict today or as soon as today, we will see what is, I think, the best evidence of all. Three tweets from May of 2018, where Donald Trump essentially confesses to the business records crime by saying,

yeah, I repaid Michael Cohen, and there's nothing wrong with that. That will be devastating in and of itself. That said, Michael Cohen is the narrator. Count on him to come in and almost be like a summary witness. All the things that you just heard, I'm gonna string together for you.

So, Danny, let's take the other side of this, though. Where are the problems with Michael Cohen? Michael Cohen has huge problems. And I predict that all the pushback you heard from Stormy Daniels, the inability to answer a question, yes or no, and to instead try to fight on every single leading question, you're going to see that doubly with Michael Cohen. He used to be a lawyer. Presumably, he understands what leading questions are. He's going to want to fight back. This is his moment in the sun, just like it was for Stormy Daniels. It's a good opportunity for him to be in the spotlight, which he enjoys. So I expect that he is going to fight tooth and nail on cross-examination, which, by the way, doesn't always work. When you fight with a cross-examining attorney, maybe it's great

for headlines. Maybe it's, you know, we perceive it outside the courthouse as taking a swing at the defense. But in court, it doesn't always play that well. In terms of timing, I actually think we'll see Michael Cohen sooner than later. One of the things I feel just thinking about this as a defense attorney that I think the prosecution has done very well is move very quickly. And I can tell you that when you're a defense counsel, that is disorienting, especially when in this case, you don't have a solid witness list and you don't know who's next. It can really throw you off. If the prosecution moves quickly enough, you can be left saying, wait, oh, I wasn't ready for, oh my gosh, I didn't ask all the questions I wanted to ask. I wasn't ready for that witness.

And it can create chaos at the defense table. So I think that's something they've done strategically. I don't know if it's intentional, but it certainly feels that way by being efficient. You keep the defense on their heels. And I think that may be what's going on here. Yeah, I'll just say as a as a watcher, it was disoriented. It was like, wow, wow. Look, they just keep bringing them in. So, Lisa, I'll I'll ask you this. And I'm wondering if it backs up Danny's point about Stormy. There was word yesterday that Karen McDougal would not be brought to the stand. Is that related at all to Stormy's very. No. OK. And then talk about the speed of this trial.

Yeah. And the reason Karen McDougal isn't coming in is because she really is unnecessary. Karen McDougal is part of the conspiracy. But when we're talking about the falsification of business records, the Karen McDougal payment has nothing to do with that. Falsification of business records is about the repayment to Michael Cohen of the money for the Stormy Daniels settlement. And then some Karen McDougal was paid by American media. There's nothing that she has to do with that back half of the case that forms the crime. for the Stormy Daniels settlement and then some. Karen McDougal was paid by American media. There's nothing that she has to do with that back half of the case that forms the crime. All right, MSNBC legal correspondent,

Leah Cerubin and MSNBC legal analyst, Danny Savalos. Thank you both very much. What a week it was. And it continues next week. And we're back at 20 past the hour. Republican lawmakers are criticizing President Biden's threat to withhold weapons shipments to Israel. In an interview on CNN Wednesday, the president said he would not give the IDF bombs and artillery shells if Israel invades Rafah, a southern Gaza city where more than a million

people have sought refuge. Now, some House Republicans are trying to prevent any delays in arms shipments. One Texas congresswoman introduced a bill that would force the White House delivery to deliver any aid passed by Congress. Another House lawmaker is preparing articles of impeachment against Biden, charging the president with abuse of power. Meanwhile, in the upper chamber, Senate Republicans voiced their frustration, saying the president's decision to delay arms to Israel undercuts the $95 billion foreign aid package Congress approved last month.

I fought for months to secure passage of the national security supplemental to support Israel, Ukraine and vulnerable Asian partners and to make important investments in our own military. I stood up to the opposition in my own party to do the right thing. If the commander in chief can't muster the political courage to stand up to the radicals on his left flank and stand up for an ally at war, the consequences will be great. This is insane what is being suggested by this administration after the Congress, in huge bipartisan fashion, supported over $14 billion to go to aid Israel, this administration would decide unilaterally,

without any input from Congress or anybody else, that because they don't like the way that Israel is defending itself against this threat, that somehow they're going to start cutting off the very assistance that the United States Congress said that we want sent to Israel, to our ally, to make sure that they're able to defend themselves and to root out this terrorist organization operating on their border. What you're doing is you're saying Hamas has put Palestinians in the crosshairs of Israel, so stand Israel down? That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my frigging life,

is that you tell the person who's about to be wiped off the map, you've got to slow down because your enemy is making it hard on the Palestinian people to survive because they choose to put them in harm's way. That is ass backwards. Joining us now, NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin. Julie, good morning. We'll make the point again this morning that we made yesterday in debate the merits of this policy from President Biden. But these are the very Republicans who held up aid to Israel and Ukraine for months and months and months before finally getting to that 14 billion dollar number last month.

So, Julie, though, let's talk about how this is playing on Capitol Hill, because it's actually not just Republicans opposed to this idea. We're hearing from some Democrats, Senator John Fetterman, Richie Torres. The congressman from New York has been very pro-Israel, blasting this as well. How's it playing on the Hill overall? Yeah, and I've heard from Jewish Democrats who have told me privately yesterday that they are appalled by Biden's decision to review these weapons. But you're also hearing from Democrats like Senator Tim Kaine, others who have been urging restraint on

Israel's part. Very careful to underscore that the Biden administration is, quote, reviewing the weapons transfer, not necessarily stopping it or halting it. They say this language is important. Of course, though, Biden's comments speak for themselves. That press conference that you played a little bit of part of from Senator Lindsey Graham, from Senator Cotton, Senator Cruz, Senator Cotton, by the way, also saying that this warrants impeachment for Biden, sort of trying to say that because Democrats wanted to impeach former President Trump, wanted to try him on that because of his conversation, his phone call with Ukraine's president back then for his reelection efforts. They say that this warrants impeachment for Biden, too, trying to draw a parallel there. But this also comes down to the report that we are all anxiously awaiting, that Congress is awaiting.

I talked to sources who say they could potentially expect that report from Blinken, the secretary of state today. Remember, that is a clause that Biden himself had pushed for a couple of months ago at the behest of Democrats who wanted him to do so for Israel to vow that they are abiding by international law, by humanitarian law, to make sure that they are preserving as many lives as possible in order to get American weapons. This is a report that Congress is waiting on potentially today. We'll see what's inside there. But certainly this is a moment for Biden as he tries to toe the line between supporting Israel, between trying to appease his base, and many of whom have been demonstrating on college campuses across the country the last few weeks. And this has become a partisan political issue that hostage families have told me when I talked to them a couple of weeks ago is not helpful, Willie.

And Jonathan Lemire, this hasn't changed Prime Minister Netanyahu's view of things very much. He said yesterday, we hope we can resolve our differences with President Biden. But even if we don't, we're going ahead, even if we are alone. So we will just say one more time here that those Republicans that you heard railing yesterday, that foreign aid package that was supposed to give money to Israel and Ukraine, much needed over many months, was held up because they said they wanted to see action on the U.S. border first. That legislation, of course, had been taken care of in the Senate, but they turned their back on it there, that bipartisan legislation. But let's talk about the White House you cover every day and President Biden, what kind of a pickle he is in here trying, as Julie said, to appease a progressive base

who supports Gaza, who doesn't like the way Israel is prosecuting this war and maintaining this relationship with Israel. Yeah, a few things, Willie. First of all, it's a bad faith comparison what Republicans are doing, saying this is akin to what Trump did with Zelensky, trying to extort Zelensky to have an investigation into the Bidens or he'd withhold arms. The U.S. continues to send weapons to Israel, defensive weapons. They're just saying we're not going to give you things for this particular operation in in Rafa. We also I have some new reporting on this. The administration. This was not a spur of the moment decision. This was not a senior moment, as Speaker Johnson put it. This has been in the works for weeks. The U.S. has been telegraphing to Israel, we don't want you to

have an all-out invasion of Arafa. Yes, the blowback from Israel has been fierce. We just had a member of the Knesset join us on way too early. He called it deeply disappointing. He hopes that the president will change his mind, but they're not going to. And in fact, National Security top spokesman John Kirby said yesterday he thinks that an all out invasion of Rafah would actually help Hamas's standing at the bargaining table and hurt Israel. So so, Julie, the president is it's a it's a tough line for him here. They know that the Republicans have been hitting him, some Democrats as well, including Senator Fetterman and a few others, Congressman Moskowitz and the like. But Democrats you talk to on the Hill who do have an eye on November, who do see these campus protests.

And like the White House says, this is a decision made for national security purposes, not political ones. But there's going to be a political fallout. What's their perception as to what that fallout will be? Absolutely. And I'll just take this one step further, Jonathan. You know, these Democrats not only are seeing these protests play out, these protesters are coming to their homes. They see them outside the Senate constantly, outside of their offices.

This is something that is affecting them too. So while Biden is, of course, at the top of the ticket, many of them are also up for reelection. You know, Chris Van Hollen, for example, over in Maryland, he's led the charge on sort of trying to force Israel to abide by international law by giving this pledge before Biden had put that provision in place a couple of months ago to force that very thing to happen. And certainly Democrats are concerned about November. I talked to a number of voters, completely unrelated, covering the Maryland primary yesterday, who told me even in that

case where you're not seeing as many college protests, although they are still happening at University of Maryland, John Hopkins, for example, who told me they voted uncommitted. They checked uncommitted during their primary ballots for Biden just to send him a warning, a message on this issue. So this is something that's spreading far and wide beyond Michigan, where you have a large population of Arab and Muslim Americans. This is spreading to other communities as well, who view what is happening in Gaza, as President Biden had said himself the other night during his interview, that these are American weapons and bombs that are aiding in some of the civilian deaths,

as unintentional or intentional as they may be, of course. But this is something that Democrats are paying very close attention to. You have some outliers, of course, in the likes of Senator Fenderman and others who think Israel is doing all they can while Hamas is using civilians as human shields. But certainly this is a situation that is a very politically tough dance for Biden, and he is trying to do it. We'll see if he can do it well and survive in November, but he's not going to please anyone no matter what he does here. That is for sure. Very difficult.

Other politics to talk about. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is criticizing his successor, Mike Johnson, after Democrats this week helped save Johnson from being ousted from his speakership. Take a look at what he said on Politico's Power Play podcast yesterday. I couldn't live with myself if I didn't deal with the Democrats. If you can't sustain being speaker by your own majority, should you sustain it? Then my question, no. So either I'm going to win speaker and be the leader with the majority. Otherwise, it's not right to be the speaker. Wow, there's so much there, Julie. I keep thinking of this Elena plot,

a story that she did on Mike Johnson in the Atlantic, where the sub headline is, could he actually be good at this job or something like that? I mean, he is working on a bipartisan level in some cases and in many ways pushing the extreme into the corner a little bit so that he can not only keep his job, but get something done on Capitol Hill. What am I missing? No, you're missing absolutely nothing, Mika. In fact, back in February, even January, if you told anyone, Republicans, Democrats on Capitol Hill, that Mike Johnson would be able to fund the government to send aid to Ukraine to do everything he has on a bipartisan basis in the last couple of months without the border, should I add, that was such a red line for Republicans and still keep his job. I don't think anyone would have believed you. And more than that, McCarthy's comments, I find kind of rich because when he was going through this, when he was ousted, he wanted Democrats to at least vote present, to at least

save him in some manner. He tried to have them do that. In fact, he said after the fact that he was appalled that Nancy Pelosi, for example, turned his back, turned her back, that she promised him back in January of 2023 that Democrats would help him out if these conservative hardliners moved to oust him. So he wanted exactly what Mike Johnson got. He just didn't get it because in my conversations with Democrats, they didn't trust McCarthy like they trust Johnson. They say Johnson is somebody they've been able to work with.

They've been able to hammer out certain differences with. Certainly there are a lot of differences. There's no doubt about it. But they definitely didn't trust McCarthy and see him in the same light as they see Johnson. And so I think that is a very important distinction. Obviously, McCarthy is out of the speakership. He's out of Congress, but he might still have some bad blood for the eight who ousted him and Democrats who didn't help him out at all. Absolutely. NBC's Julia Serkin, thank you so much for your reporting and insight this morning. Russia unleashed a massive wave of missile and drone attacks across Ukraine on Wednesday, targeting the country's energy infrastructure in a bid to knock out electricity in several cities.

The Institute for the Study of War, a Washington-based think tank, says this is the fifth time in less than two months Russia has launched a wide scale attack targeting Ukraine's power grid. Join us now from Ukraine is journalist Ilya Ponomarenko. He's a former defense and security reporter at the Kyiv Post and a co-founder of the Kyiv Independent. He has covered the war in Ukraine since its beginning and is the author of the new book out now titled I Will Show You How It Was. The story of wartimeime Kiev. Ilya, thank you so much for being with us this morning. We appreciate it. Something in your book really stood out and struck me where you said Ukraine has been fundamentally changed over the last decade,

but particularly over the last couple of years of this full scale invasion of Russia, the civilian casualties we've seen just even in the last couple of years of this full-scale invasion of Russia, the civilian casualties we've seen, just even in the last couple of days, again, attacking the energy infrastructure in major Ukrainian cities. How do you describe that change you've seen in yourself, perhaps, and in the people of Ukraine? It is absolutely true, and i keep telling this uh anywhere i go that ukraine from let's say 2014 and ukraine right now or ukraine from 2019 and ukraine right now 2024 are absolutely different countries in so many regards culturally we have become a nation of our own, which is very separated from the cultural field of Russia, for instance.

It's a nation in which people from the East or from the West finally have a big story of the common legacy, of the common heritage, the big grief that unites them, truly unites them.

It's not that we are that different um ukraine is from the east or from the west but right now our generation has this big story of war of common struggle of a common loss of something that unites us for the sake of saving our common home ukraine is absolutely different in terms of its political life it's absolutely different from what it used to be like a bad copy of russia in terms of uh um unfree political system um the lack of free speech lack of activity from inside the society um the lack of initiative from the society i'm not saying the uk the Ukrainian system is ideal now, but at the same time, there has been understanding and sentiment of Ukrainian people taking its destiny in its hands

and dictating authorities, taking charge of many things that happen in Ukraine, opposing negative tendencies in this country, corruption, abuse of power, illegal activities in the legal aspect of this country. So this is so different. But the biggest difference is, of course,

this sense of unity and sense of becoming a nation, a nation that wants to be independent, that appreciates to be independent, that has produced a lot of cultural, civilizational things for its own, that is exclusively Ukrainian, that is understood by Ukrainians. So in many ways, we have become the nation, the true nation, in so many aspects amid the decades of this war, and especially this great loss and great grief of full-scale Russian invasion is, of course, a uniting factor.

Ukrainians are now united as never before, and they are a nation as unique as never before. Ilya, as you're speaking, we're looking at some images from Friday in Kharkiv. We were looking at before images from Kyiv from two years ago. But as you write in the book, the wartime story of Kyiv is an ongoing one. This is something that you all live with every single day. We, for two and a half years now, have lauded almost every day on this show and across our country, the bravery, the courage, the will, the fighting spirit that the Ukrainian people have shown. But my gosh, it has to be difficult

every single day, living in Kyiv even still. So what is it like on a granular level for a family or for working people just to go through the day under the threat of attack? You know, an important part of human nature is that humans can adapt to pretty much anything if they have to, especially if they feel motivated and if they are pretty effective at countering what's coming against them, such as this war. People have adapted. We have adapted to so many things

that have changed our daily lives, such as power outages, missile attacks, shelling. And I'm talking about more or less peaceful cities like Kiev, for instance, that are more or less well-protected. People do adapt to things.

For instance, if we lack electricity, and that was especially true in the first winter of the invasion with massive blackouts and power outages, we had our means, we had our technical things like energy savers, energy batteries that are so widespread right now, power generators too. When it comes to usual things like security,

people adapt to this by trying to combine security measures with usual business and life activities, such as restaurants or pubs or cafes, working in basement venues so that

you can provide security for your customers and also keep making money, providing jobs and paying taxes. These are so many things that people have to adapt. One of the most important things is that this war has become part of harsh reality, but at the same time, it's also filled with a lot of things that inspire people, upset people. But in general, the system works. People keep finding their ways for normal life. In many ways, thanks to the exceptional valor of the Ukrainian military and the assistance from outside Ukraine, we have a pretty peaceful life in most of the territory of Ukraine,

such as Kiev, for instance, or Lviv. And thanks to this, many people have this ability to go on with their lives, to do their work, pay taxes, and keep the country afloat. And with this social collapse that would greatly facilitate Russia's war against this country. People adapt to things. When it comes to psychology and mental effects on this, of course, this is especially hard for right now for places like Kharkiv. Kharkiv is really having a bad time right now as Russians have concentrated strikes on this particular city. But at the same time, we have a lot of voices from Kharkiv is really having a bad time right now, as Russians have concentrated strikes on this particular city.

But at the same time, we have a lot of voices from Kharkiv, for instance, saying that, yeah, things are pretty bad. We have little to no electricity, but still, we do not want to leave. We are here to stay. They feel motivated. The excerpt that appears in the Atlantic of this book is titled Ukraine has changed too much to compromise with Russia now. And the new book is titled I will show you how it was the story of wartime Kiev. Ilya Ponemarenko, thank you so much for sharing this story. Thank you for your ongoing courage and covering it and for the bravery of the Ukrainian people.

Let's take a look at the morning papers. We begin in Ohio, where the Columbus Dispatch reports state lawmakers failed to advance a plan this week to put President Biden on the November ballot. Under state law, officials must certify Ohio's ballot by August 7th, but Biden won't be officially nominated until the Democratic National Convention 12 days later. Governor Mike DeWine has said Biden will still make the ballot whether he gets there through the legislature or the courts. Let's move now to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette has a front page feature on the Department of Veterans Affairs misusing millions of dollars.

An investigation by the inspector general's office found the department improperly handed out nearly 11 million dollars in bonuses to more than 180 senior executives last year. The money came from funds that Congress had earmarked to recruit and keep staff who were needed to process new veterans benefits. The head of the VA reportedly ordered all the executives to give back their bonuses, but many have already spent the money. To Connecticut, the Middletown Press reports Connecticut is set to join a multi-state nursing compact. Lawmakers passed a bill that will allow registered nurses to provide care in Connecticut and 41 other states without needing an individual state license.

The move comes as medical centers are dealing with a health care worker shortage. According to one survey, nearly one in five U.S. health care workers have quit their jobs since the start of the pandemic. And in Maryland, the Capital Gazette is reporting on the ongoing cleanup effort following the Key Bridge collapse in March. Tomorrow, crews are expected to use controlled explosives to remove a massive piece of bridge

that is still on top of the Dali cargo ship. According to the paper, the ship is expected to be refloated and returned to port by early next week. We'll follow that. This Mother's Day, show mom your love, show mom your appreciation, and show mom how dad lost the house. DraftKings. Isn't that beautiful? Beautiful. Here's another heartwarming one. So look at this one.

At Home Depot, we care about what mothers need the most. Lockable bathroom doorknobs. Because sometimes you just need five effing minutes by yourself to stare at your phone. Home Depot. This Mother's Day, mommy needs some alone time. Mika, a very happy early Mother's Day to you, Mika, a couple days away. I think both of those maybe hit close to home that Jimmy had on last night, no?

They did, but I'm at the stage where I actually really want the kids. I need them, but I remember that stage. And I already got my Mother's Day gift, Willie. They gave me a Ninja Creamy. It's an ice cream maker. Oh. No way.

It's my birthday. A home ice cream maker? And then Mother's Day, so in between. Yeah. Yes. That's amazing. Elise, what about you? You've got smaller, smaller people in your house.

The doorknob ad hit home because we're, you know, she's three at this point. Private time. Bathroom's private time. Yes. So that's where that's where we are. But it's a fun stage to be at. Yeah, for sure. Ice cream maker is a good idea. I like that. Happy Mother's Day to both of you. And I should say today is my dad's birthday, too. So happy birthday to my dad. A very a weekend of celebration. Yes. Yes. So we have this hour joining our conversation. NBC News and MSNBC political analyst, former U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill. She and Jen Palmieri are co-hosts of the msnbc podcast how to win 2024 happy mother's day to you too claire and pulitzer prize winning columnist associate editor of the washington post eugene robinson so let's dive right in this hour as we come up on the top thank you yes sir donald trump going on the offensive against robert f kennedy j. in a four minute video posted to Truth Social last night.

Trump ripped the independent presidential candidate, accusing him of lying about being anti-vaccine. He's not enough of an anti-vaxxer, according to Donald Trump. This comes as recent polls show Kennedy taking a sizable bite away from both Trump and President Biden in several battleground states. Here are some of that new video from Trump. So Republicans, get it out of your mind that you're going to vote for this guy because he's conservative. He's not. And for those of you that want to vote because you think he's an anti-vaxxer, he's not really an anti-vaxxer. That's only his political moment. I'd even take Biden over Jr. because our country would

last about a year or two longer than it would with Jr. It would collapse almost immediately. And his family, a radical left, a crazy left, a bunch of lunatics would take over and our country will die very quickly. So RFK's views on vaccines are fake, as is everything else about his candidacy. He is not a Republican. So don't think you're going to vote for him and feel good. Claire, he's never been good at hiding his fear. And now we see it out in the open. He is very worried about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. saying he is not anti-vax enough. Don't believe what he's saying. I'm the real anti-vaxxer here. By the way, we should point out

that Donald Trump's administration led Operation Warp Speed, which was a medical miracle, thank God, to get the vaccine into the arms of people and save lives. So what do you see in that video? Yeah, I remember when Trump still talked about developing the vaccine at rallies and he got booed and he finally figured out that this is a place that the cult was not going to go with him on how quickly he he claimed he developed a vaccine during the pandemic.

Yeah, he's worried. He's worried. I thought the clip, the part of the clip that was astounding to me says he's better. Biden is better than than Bobby Jr. He actually said Biden is better. That's that's interesting that he would do that. I think that was a momentary fail in his normal way of communicating. I think both Biden and Trump are worried about RFK now. And I think as this goes on and Bobby Kennedy gets more and more exposed for some of the crazy town stuff he's said for his, frankly, not being up front about some of his issues in his life. I think he will fade. But people need to remember, this is an election where nobody likes. Well, most people don't like their choices.

And that's just a not, it's not an abnormal thing. You know, people, there's a lot of people by the time election rolls around in presidentials, they will say to you, I've heard it a thousand times. I don't like either one of the candidates. So having a third party name out there that people recognize is a danger to both of these guys. Yeah. And Gene Robinson, we said we don't really know yet who RFK Jr. hurts more. Polls suggest he's drawing from both. Early on, it seemed more Biden. These days, a little more Trump, but it's still an issue, an issue for both. So we see that Trump has gone after him in that video. I'm just amazed he didn't mention

the brain worm. You know, the Biden campaign has also done the same, pointing out some of RFK Jr.'s rather inflammatory statements. So weigh in on that. And also what you see is the Biden campaign's current strategy against Trump, where they're taking this moment here, early spring, akin to what Obama did to Romney in 2012, and just saturating the airwaves with ads, really trying to define this race as early as it can with the moment where Donald Trump is stuck in a Manhattan courtroom. Yeah, that's right. I mean, first on RFK Jr., I just don't. That was really weird, I thought, of Trump. First of all, it's a weird line of attack to try to convince people that RFK Jr. is not really an anti-vaxxer. I mean, he is the anti-vaxxer, right?

He is more anti-vaxxed than certainly anybody else who's anywhere near this race. And so that just doesn't—that rings hollow. And I wonder if they have—if the Trump campaign thinks it has some soundings out there in some of the swing states that maybe he's hurting Trump too much. Maybe he's hurting Trump more than he's hurting Biden. And the Gazette had a whiff of panic about it. It was really very strange. On the Biden strategy, yeah, I mean, they've got this sort of open field right now.

And so the president is running around and his surrogates are running around trying to talk about the administration's accomplishments, trying to trying to talk about the danger of reelecting Donald Trump. And so, you know, I think that's really the thing for them to be doing. Of course, there are issues. There are lots of things that President Biden has to be worrying about right now, including Israel-Palestine and the war in Gaza, and it splits in the Democratic coalition over that. But I think he's doing what he needs to do. I do have a side question for Lemire, which is what is the deal with your Celtics? Boy, they stunk up the joint last night. I'll do that real quick.

Thanks, Gene, for bringing that up. Yeah, this is who they are. They're so inconsistent. They can't handle prosperity. They don't seem to have a killer instinct. The second straight round, they've lost a game two at home. They're under 500 at home in the playoffs over the last couple years. It is infuriating. I still think they'll get through this series, but they're making it harder on themselves is the bottom line. Oh, my Lord. Well, in a political week where I'm trying to even encapsulate the things that happened this week from worms and brains to satin pajamas to spankings with Forbes magazines.

Why don't we just go to RFK Jr.'s position on abortion? So in an interview this week, RFK Jr. said he does not support the government putting limitations on abortion, even with full term pregnancy. I wouldn't leave it to the states. Right. I would. I would say completely. It's up to the woman. My belief is we should leave it to the woman. We shouldn't have government involved. Even if it's full term. Even if it's full term. OK. And I think that's where that's what I wanted to clarify. Yeah, I'd like a little clarification on that too. The policy position goes further than

even most Democrats and seemed to surprise his vice presidential pick, Nicole Shanahan, who when she appeared on the actual same podcast. I spoke to Bobby about this. And at the end of the day, he says, yes, this is a woman's choice period. And I said, even up till birth? And yes, was his answer. No, no, no. And that is not Bobby's position as I understand it. My understanding with Bobby's position is that, you know, every abortion is a tragedy. Yes. Is it a loss of life? My understanding is that he absolutely believes in limits on on abortion. And we've talked about this. I do not think.

I don't know where that came from. Wow. It's a significant change in position for RFK Jr. In August of last year, Kennedy told NBC News he would sign a national abortion ban after the first three months of pregnancy. His campaign later walked back his statement on legislation banning abortion. And Nicole Shanahan is an interesting figure in all of this. And coming up in the nine o'clock hour of Morning Joe, Joanna Coles of the Daily Beast. They have a piece on her and her financial influence, potentially on the overall election. So we'll get to that coming up. But let's back up a little bit and talk about this stance on abortion that RFK put out there. Claire McCaskill,

this to me seems like one of three major issues in this election that could put people over the edge in terms of their decision on who they vote for. What did RFK just do for himself there? Well, he showed how unserious he is as a candidate. You know, Mika, there are candidates all across this country right now running for state representative and running for county council that are thinking about this issue and searching themselves about what they believe the role of government should be in reproductive health care. And, you know, this is not an easy issue for many people because people feel so strongly about it. But it's not one where anybody with their right mind

would be changing their position like you change your shirt. And it appears to me that Bobby Kennedy is searching for quote-un, the right answer. I mean, these are the kind of mistakes that a candidate for the lowest office in the country might make. But somebody who's putting themselves out there, that they are in a position to lead, for him to say one month, I'm for an abortion ban, a national abortion ban, and then the next month say, hey, yeah, I think a full term abortion is fine.

I don't think the state should have anything to say about that. It just shows that he's not a serious candidate. And frankly, I don't know what has motivated him to do this, but he's not in a position to hold the highest office in this country, period. End of discussion. And even worse, Jonathan Lemire, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. definitely is the kind of guy who takes off his shoes and his socks sitting next to you on an airplane, as evidenced by his position. Just don't do that. There's no need. There's no need for that. So, John, let's talk. You

mentioned a minute ago, but how seriously the Biden campaign is taking Robert F. Kennedy Jr. As you say, it's kind of hard to figure out who he's polling from. Obviously, Donald Trump is worried about Bobby Kennedy Jr. here and the kind of voter that he might take from Donald Trump. But how is the Biden campaign assessing the threat? Because as we've seen in polls even just this week, he's polling pretty high into the double digits, 14 percent, 18 percent in some of these swing states. Yeah. First of all, I'm glad that we have a shoes on policy here at Morning Show,

although we should know that not everybody has socks on all the time. I won't name names. I think we all know. I think we all know. But yes, on this one, on this one here, there's a concern. First of all, the Biden campaign has really ramped up their operations going after third party candidates. I mean, they take it seriously. Even Cornel West, Jill Stein, who are who are barely picking up on the polls. But it's a point here, point there in a race this close. Even they matter. But they're mostly focused on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And I think there's just a sense that low information voters see the Kennedy last name and go, oh, wow, yeah, of course, his father, his uncle, you know, that's what I'm for. And he may lose some votes there,

particularly in communities right now, like African-American communities, where the Biden campaign has struggled some. So they're really doing their best and spending a lot of money even sort of making sure the voters know what he really stands. But I think there's a growing sense, Willie, in Wilmington that RFK Jr. probably poses more of a threat to Trump. It pulls from both, to be sure, but maybe more of an issue for Trump. And that's why we're seeing these videos and other attacks from the presumptive Republican nominee.