Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/1/24

Episode Date: May 1, 2024

Police clear Columbia building occupied by protesters

Of course, when Trump hasn't been asleep, he's been violating his gag order by posting messages attacking witnesses and prosecutors and jurors. So before testimony resumed today, Judge Merchan finally issued his ruling on those violations, fining Trump $9,000. Now, I know $9,000 may not seem like a lot to a successful businessman. But what about to Trump? Oh, my. And we'll have all the developments from Donald Trump's hush money trial, criminal trial just ahead. MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin was inside the courtroom and she will join us in just a moment. Also, we're going to go through Trump's interview with Time magazine. The former president was asked about January 6th abortion policy and the upcoming election. And it's worth a listen or a read.

Plus, we'll bring you the latest out of the Middle East, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's defiant comments on a possible invasion in southern Gaza. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, May 1st, everybody. Oh, it's May? I love May. Yeah. Birthday Eve. Birthday Eve Eve, really.

Back to back. We have this birthday thing. Anyhow, along with Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, Jonathan Lemire. I saw you. What gift do you have to share? We have to share cake, everything. It's annoying. Birthdays, two sets together.

And no one ever gives us a, well, whatever. Lemire, you were on, what's that thing? Seth Meyers. I love him. NBC colleague. We love you, Seth. I love Seth Meyers. No, he's brilliant.

I thought you did a good job. Thank you. Were you nervous? No, yeah, I've been on it before, and he's so kind. He and his staff are wonderful. He's so nice. He's brilliant. I thought you did a good job. Thank you. No, yeah, I've been on it before and he's so kind. He and his staff are wonderful. He's so nice. We talked about the Trump trial. We talked about the campus unrest, which I know we will hear again. And behind the scenes, we expressed worry about the Boston Red Sox. And did you sleep last night? I got I always get a little bit of sleep. All right. I don't think so. Only a little.

Also with us, U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kay. Always good to have Katty with us. And we're going to begin this morning with New York City police clearing Columbia University, that building that was seized by protesters. Dozens of officers arrived on campus late last night wearing riot gear. They used a ramp to get inside Hamilton Hall, which was occupied by protesters overnight on Monday. Video shows special police units entering the building through a second story window. Officers say about 40 people were arrested there, walked out calmly. The university released these images of the damage and vandalism inside Hamilton Hall.

You can see overturned chairs and furniture, broken windows, smashed panes of glass. In a statement, the university explains it made the decision to call the police after consulting with security experts and the board of trustees. It reads in part, quote, the decision to reach out to the NYPD was in response to the actions of the protesters, not the cause they are championing. We have made it clear that the life of campus cannot be endlessly interrupted by protesters who violate the rules and the law. The university says it believes the group that broke into the building was led by individuals who are not affiliated with Columbia. We're going to talk about that more. In total, police last night arrested nearly 100 people. They also cleared the encampment that had been up for about two weeks. And now the university is asking the NYPD to stay on campus until May 17th, which is just two days after Columbia's commencement, trying to make sure, Willie, that everything is safe through graduation day. I just want to point out there,

you didn't see people getting dragged out screaming. I think they were all over this and they outmanned it and outnumbered it and made sure it was a pretty calm event. Yeah. And Columbia University said, we told you this was going to happen. Yeah. Gave you fair warning. Now the NYPD went into the second floor and said, hello, you're going to be leaving now. Yeah. And they didn't have to use tear gas. There were no injuries in this. They cleared it relatively easily for the NYPD. Let's bring in NBC News investigations correspondent Tom Winter. So, Tom, before we talk about the operation, let's talk about how it got to that point. What was the moment at which Columbia said, all right, we need to bring in the NYPD who had been there for weeks, actually,

outside on Broadway and different places, but that they said we need to send them into the building? And to be clear, the NYPD was perfectly content to let this keep going if it was just an encampment. And if Columbia called and wanted help, sure, they would they would show up. But they needed the letter from Columbia inviting them on campus, because if no active crime or threat to life or complaint of crime was being committed, the NYPD just can't stroll onto private property and conduct police operations. It's a violation of at least two amendments when we're talking about a protest. So that's something that they need to be careful about. What happened was overnight, this Hamilton Hall incident where somebody snuck into the building, stayed inside of that building and then let individuals in and that the NYPD working with

Columbia was looking at surveillance camera video and said, wait a minute, these are not necessarily all students inside this Hamilton Hall. This presents a problem because these individuals, they say, the NYPD says, have been on our radar for several years. We know them as anarchist types. And the goal of this is not pro-Palestine, not pro-Israel, not pick any other cause that is near and dear to people's hearts. The idea here is that this is an effort to engage police and violence. And we are concerned, this is the NYPD speaking, that they're co-opting this movement and co-opting these students. You could look at the vandalism and say, OK, they overturned a couple of chairs. They overturned a couple of things.

I look at some of the images that we saw and some additional images and say this was a way to try to funnel police into certain rooms to cover up windows so they couldn't police couldn't see where the individuals were inside of there. That was a primary concern. And I think last night's 6 p.m. press conference was aimed at the public. It was really aimed at Columbia University to say, hey, we've got some serious concerns about what's going on inside of there. And they didn't believe, by the way, they were going to stop at that. And that was one of the points Columbia made in the statement that this was led not by students at this point, that this operation inside the building. Is that what the NYPD believes as well? In some ways, it felt like Columbia was letting some students off the hook, baby, and saying, well, they've just been swept up in a movement led by anarchists with no cause, no ideology. Is that the assessment of the NYPD that it was more of these anarchists than it was students in that building?

Or do they not know yet? I think it's still a little unclear because some of the surveillance cameras were actually damaged. So they weren't sure of the entire makeup of what was inside of there. You saw that ramp that was used to get inside of that building that we were looking at. And, of course, because everything needs an acronym, it's called the Mobile Adjustable Ramp System. But this is something you're looking at video of it now. The OIPD has invested in is a way to get inside of. It's obviously a vertical city. These types of buildings should a standoff occur.

And based on some of the images we saw, the opening of this building or the normal entrance of it was actually blocked. So, Tom, we should note that at 9 o'clock, the Mayor Adams and the police commissioner are going to hold a news conference. We should learn a little more about that. Can you talk to us a little bit about, though, shifting to the West Coast? There's UCLA. That scene seemed a little tense or a little more chaotic. What do we know there? Yeah, I think based on the pictures and images we've seen over the last several hours, that is absolutely the case. The LAPD has been called to campus there. Obviously, they've got a situation that appears that they might have some counter protesters that are mixed up in all of this. So that's something that is concerning when you have two groups kind of clashing and then you also have potential clashes with police. So that's something that we'll continue to report on and get more information.

Of course, all of this is we have approximately a dozen. And it's not just East Coast and West Coast and more maybe universities or colleges that are associated with, you know, liberal viewpoints. We've seen protests up and down and across this entire country. I think it does underscore something that law enforcement is acutely aware of here as we continue into 2024. Two things. One, the kids are not all right. The kids that are graduating here on the traditional four-year high school, four-year undergraduate course, their last graduation was held on Zoom. I know. Because that was during the pandemic. We really need a graduation to happen. And so I think that they're looking for that graduation. But I think, and you all talk about

this all the time, the lack of interest, the lack of the students today and younger generations feel that politicians and people in this country are listening to them. And so you saw this cause really being taken up in a way across the country, across political spectrums on campuses that we just haven't seen before. Two, I can't quite say where this is coming from, just to respect my agreements with some of these folks. But there's a foreign police chief that I heard recently say once people believe that violence is a way to solve problems politically, that's a problem that can last for generations. So we obviously have seen January 6th where people believe that that was the cause. I was somewhat heartened last night that both from a police perspective and from a protester perspective, we didn't see

widespread chaos and violence at Columbia University. Certainly the way the NYPD appears to have handled it had helped, but also give credit to the kids that said, hey, look, enough is enough. They're here. They're here to make arrests. And, you know, and those scenes we were watching from UCLA last night are clearly looking a lot more chaotic and violent than the scenes we were seeing from Columbia, where it does seem that and I spoke to somebody late last night from the administration at Columbia, and they said that we really did feel that we had no choice. And the question is, now what happens? Now what happens? They hope that they can get through the next two weeks of school, that they get through graduation, that the students go home and that they can restore some semblance of calm on campuses. But everybody's recognizing you've got the conventions coming up this summer. You've got the election coming up in November.

The political atmosphere is, as you point out, Tom, is very febrile in this country. It's volatile. is very febrile in this country at the time. And I think there is a political fallout here. You know, certainly those in the White House and the Biden campaign are watching anxiously here. I mean, Donald Trump is stoking this as well. He's blaming this on Biden. He's saying it's his unrest. And we could set that argument aside as nonsense. But these are scenes in which we already know

the Biden campaign has had trouble with young voters who are upset about the situation in Gaza. We're seeing that here. Also, there's fears that these scenes of tumult, you know, are turning off like sort of independent swing voters who just like don't want to see chaos, who are upset by this. Now, granted, it's May. We're a long way from the election. If the war has wound down between now and November, this will fade. But it is a concern. And to Katty's point, graduations come in two weeks. President Biden is scheduled to give a couple commencement addresses.

There are worries about what could happen at those events. Jonathan, it's not so much that, say, for instance, it was a ceasefire tomorrow and the ongoing military operations by Israel or any sort of retaliation by Hamas ended tomorrow. I think the concern in the law enforcement community and from what I've seen is that it's another ideology that will be picked up. Certainly among these anarchist groups, they don't really care what the ideology is. But also among students, because of that dissatisfaction, the fact that they believe they have two political candidates that are generations older than them, that are not speaking to them, that the next thing in the jukebox of things of grievances that they have concerns about, perhaps quite legitimate concerns about, is going to be picked up. And I think that's something we need to pay attention to. We should say again that, for example, Students for Justice in Palestine,

that group was outspoken well before the war. So this isn't necessarily about how the war is being prosecuted. It's about the way they feel sometimes in awful ways about Israel. So, Tom, what happens next year? We've got an agreement at Brown where the students in the school came to an agreement. They broke up the encampment. They're going to discuss in the fall with the board of trustees about divestment from Israel. Yale's encampment has now been broken up. It does seem like in some places, at least, this has run its course. Still going on a lot of places, as you pointed out, up and down the coast and across southern state schools. University of North Carolina, Virginia Tech, they're seeing these scenes. Do law enforcement, do the universities feel like this has some legs as it's going to continue through these graduations?

I mean, I think certainly just the nature of colleges and universities. At some point, kids are going to go home. They're going to go to summer jobs. They're going to go to summer internships. Whether this has lasting legs, and I think that's what Columbia foresaw in their letter and what they communicated to the city and the New York City Police Department, which is we would like you here through graduation. They're clearly concerned about, you know, are they going to deal with the same problem again in a week? And one of the concerns

about some of the anarchist groups, and they're not just in New York City and they travel around, is that they'll co-opt any sort of movement. And it's like, OK, Columbia shut down. We'll move to pick a university and or they'll come back to Columbia. Just give it a week. They'll they won't be as strict on security. And so I think that's something that they want to kind of keep a handle on. So at some point, though, I think this runs its course for this semester. But whatever the next thing is, is going to be the next thing. And I think this runs its course for this semester. But whatever the next thing is, is going to be the next thing. And I think that's that's coming, you know, as late as this fall. We'll be following that. NBC News investigation correspondent Tom Winter. Thank you very much for

jumping in this morning. All right. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll turn to Donald Trump's hush money trial. The big takeaways from yesterday. and there were a lot. Our next guest says just when the testimony had veered into snooze land, along came Keith Davidson, former lawyer to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. That's next on Morning Joe. Welcome back to Morning Joe. It is 15 past the hour. Donald Trump's criminal trial will resume tomorrow following a day of pivotal rulings and testimony from multiple witnesses. Yesterday began with Judge Juan Rashan ruling Trump had violated his gag order on nine separate

occasions, fining him a total of $9,000 and warning the former president that future violations could land him in jail. I think that might have been the lead coming out of that. The judge also granted Trump's request to attend his son Barron's high school graduation on May 17th. Testimony then resumed with a total of four witnesses taking the stand

for prosecution during the day. First up was more from Gary Farrow, the former banker for Michael Cohen. Farrow testified about the creation of a shell company that prosecutors say was used to pay adult film actress Stormy Daniels the $130,000 hush money payment to keep her quiet about an alleged affair with Trump. But the day's most significant witness was Keith Davidson, who said he was subpoenaed to testify in the case and got himself immunity. Davidson is the former attorney for both Stormy Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, who also alleges an affair with Trump. Trump has denied any sexual encounters with either of the women. Davidson represented both Daniels and McDougal as they brokered hush money agreements.

He testified that he believed the money being given to his clients ultimately was coming from Trump, but he could not recall Cohen specifically saying he was negotiating on Trump's behalf. Prosecutors will continue to question Davidson tomorrow with court in recess today. Let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. So, Lisa, Keith Davidson didn't establish that direct line or that intent, not his job to to establish intent, but didn't say he remembered Cohen saying this is for Donald Trump. What is the impact of that? You know, he said that he understood ultimately that the money was going to come from Donald Trump. And that was a very hard fought admission. Joshua Stein glass, who

is the assistant D.A. leading the questioning, totally skilled trial practitioner, ran into his first really big roadblocks yesterday and trying to get that cleanly from Keith Davidson and trying to establish it was his understanding, not just his assumption. Ultimately, he got that even after Cohen got frustrated and said, God, blanket, I'll just pay it myself. He got Davidson to say, but I understood at the end of the day that money was going to come from Donald Trump. And one of the ways that he understood that was he said, Cohen, part of his identity was that he worked for Donald Trump. He never let you forget it. It was always clear that

whatever Cohen was doing, he was doing for Trump at Trump's behest. He could not make the payment without Trump's knowledge and permission, is the impression that Davidson left us with. Lisa, they're really making a point to go step by step, witness by witness of every part of this transaction. Is anything at this point surprising you in terms of the detail here and how much they're pinning down exactly how this money ultimately got back to Michael Cohen through Trump. I think what's surprising me is how painstaking it is and how much scaffolding they're building around the narrative that we generally understand from Michael Cohen's sort of permeation of our culture. Right. Michael Cohen's narrative is one that we're all at this table and many of our

viewers are very familiar with. What we didn't know is how many other people touched this transaction, were a part of the conversations around it. For example, the text yesterday between Keith Davidson and Dylan Howard of American media were incredibly revelatory about how much back and forth went into arranging both of these deals. Yeah. And, Cady, you know, just in our coverage of Trump over the years, Lamar definitely would see this. He doesn't email. He doesn't. He covers his tracks. There's no kind of nothing touches him, although this felt a little different because there were a lot of texts and emails around him. And there were more people involved than I expected. I thought it was

more going to be just Michael Cohen and then ultimately the people involved than I expected. I thought it was more going to be just Michael Cohen and then ultimately the people who received the money. But no, this is a scheme with multiple participants. Yeah, and I was also interested yesterday in how Davidson said that after the Access Hollywood tape came out, how things suddenly accelerated and changed then. Describe a little bit why that is important for the prosecution. Well, I mean, it's huge, right? Because after the Access Hollywood tape comes out, there's an understanding that even though the Stormy Daniels story has been in circulation

dating back to 2011, and Keith Davidson described how his first interaction with Michael Cohen actually goes back to that story published in 2011 because Cohen was furious it had gotten into the public domain. But, you know, the way in which, Katty, those two people interacted, I thought was fascinating. Davidson did not want to be a part of this. And he sort of tried to extricate himself from this. But because of the urgency and the exigency felt by Michael Cohen and the National Enquirer, Keith Davidson gave an aura of just when I thought they were out, they pulled me back in. So they played the tape yesterday, right? The access. No, they did not play. They read it. They read the transcript or how does they read portions of a transcript from Donald Trump's deposition in the E.G. Carroll case?

You might think even worse. OK, why is that relevant? It's because it contains really foundational admissions. Like this is my X handle, right? I was married to Melania during this period of time, even getting those really basic admissions from the horse's mouth, so to speak, has been fundamental for prosecutors. But I guess my point, Jonathan Lemire is hearing these things read out loud somehow is worse than sometimes seeing them, you know, on tape. Yeah. Extraordinarily cringeworthy, but also potentially impactful. And as Lisa said, laying out an important foundation. Speaking of foundations, let's talk about the gag order and the judge holding Trump in contempt. Now, it's only nine thousand dollars for Donald Trump. Not a lot of money for other people. Of course, it would be. But tell us why it's important that the judge did this, right? Is he sending a signal like, look, I'm going to treat you like any other defendant. You violated it. Here, we're going to

do this. And forecast for us what that could mean going forward. He's got another hearing tomorrow on this very same issue, more potential violations. Could it really mean ending up with Trump in jail? I think it could, John, but a lot of things have to go that way. First of all, tomorrow's hearing isn't one predicated on that notice. In other words, the things that Trump is we're going to talk about tomorrow are things Trump has already done. They predate this decision. And so you can't say that Trump had fair warning when he said those things that Mershon was willing to impose an incarceratory penalty. On the other hand, there are a couple of things from the order that I think are really important. Marshawn is essentially saying to the public and to everybody else,

including the New York state legislature, it's not enough that the statute only permits me to fine this guy $1,000 per. It should be a penalty that's meaningful to the person that I'm awarding it against. And in this situation, it doesn't hurt this guy. And yet my hands are tied, right? My two options are jail or a thousand dollars per violation. But the other thing on which I think the incarceratory penalty hinges has nothing to do with Donald Trump at all. There's a paragraph that I think folks are overlooking where Mershon says, it's not lost

on me that the guys, the GOP presumptive nominee. And witnesses in this case cannot use the gag order as a sword and a shield. And so my understanding of what counts as a violation in the future will also be contingent on how other people relevant to this matter behave. In other words, Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels, if you continue to use the gag order as protection for your own self while taking swipes at him that he can't take at you, that will influence what I understand to be a violation. I'm sensitive to this defense that Todd Blanche has raised that he is entitled to defend himself in the political domain. And I'm going to take that into consideration. He wants decorum. He wants

people to behave themselves and not mouth off. Just like anybody else, any other defendant. So, Lisa, you were at the courthouse. Were you in the courtroom? I was. You were in the courtroom. For part of the day yesterday. So you've expertly give us the substance.

Let's talk atmospherics. Yes. Donald Trump alleged to have dozed off again a couple of times. Maybe his lids got heavy. I don't know. I can't judge if he was sleeping or not. Well, she might be able to. He certainly was snapping, too, a couple of times. Maybe his lids got heavy. I don't know. I can't judge if he was sleeping or not. He certainly was snapping, too, a couple of times. It's cold in there. He's complained about that a lot, which theoretically keeps you awake. But anyway, tell us about Donald

Trump sitting at the table yesterday. Donald Trump's demeanor changes based on what's going on in the courtroom. I will tell you from where I sat in the overflow room yesterday in the first row, having a big view in a huge screen. Wow. Donald Trump appeared to be asleep or resting more often than not, particularly during the first part of the day, where we heard from witnesses who were there as mostly records custodians. On the other hand, where the subject matter is very clearly Donald Trump and what Donald Trump might have been thinking, like we've seen, for example, with Keith Davidson's testimony or the more explosive moments of David Pecker. Donald Trump is sitting there and

appraising and watching. Of course, he's. And so, you know, I would say he is selectively choosing when to engage. But during the morning in particular, this was not a person who was very interested or maybe enraptured by what was going on. Did having Eric there make a difference for him, do you think? No, and I think having Eric there actually was very sad to watch because this might have been some of the first times that Eric has seen some of these documents and I and other reporters in the courtroom noticed at times there are monitors that show the documents. Eric Trump was looking up at the documentation through which this deal was done, including emails between Cohen and Davidson and sort of looking at them.

Interesting. Interestedly, in particular, the contract between Peggy Peterson and David Dennison, who, you know, are the pseudonyms for Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels. Watching Eric Trump watch those documents as just a human being. Yeah, that struck me. That's hard. It was. All right. These people are people, too.

Yeah. I'm a Sunnyside legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin. Thank you so much for your ongoing coverage. Thanks, Lisa. Amazing guys coming up. House Democrats say they will help save Speaker Mike Johnson's job if he follows Republicans. If if fellow Republicans try to oust him, I really messed that up. All right. We'll have the latest from Capitol Hill.

And while we're there at 31 past the hour, welcome back. House Democrats announced yesterday they will save Speaker Mike Johnson. Should Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene move forward with her threat to oust him? In a joint statement, Democratic leadership said, quote, at this moment, upon completion of our national security work, the time has come to turnst him. In a joint statement, Democratic leadership said, quote, at this moment, upon completion of our national security work, the time has come to turn the page on this chapter of pro-Putin Republican obstruction. We will vote to table Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene's motion to vacate the chair. If she invokes the motion, it will not succeed. In choosing to table the effort to oust

Johnson, Democrats will avoid a direct public vote on the matter. In response, Green posted on social media, quote, Mike Johnson is officially the Democrat speaker of the House. If the Democrats want to elect him speaker and some Republicans want to support the Democrats chosen speaker, I'll give them the chance to do it. In response to Green, the chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Pete Aguilar, had this to say. I'm not going to try to get in the head of Marjorie Taylor Greene. I don't know what goes on in there. Well, that's that's. Yeah, I think that's right. All agreed.

OK, joining us now, NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Julie Serkin. We will ask you not to try and get in her head as as well, because we just we just don't know. But explain to us the dynamic between the House speaker and the Democrats. And I guess the fine line, the balance that Democrats who are supporting him, I understand the transaction here, but Mike Johnson has some basic philosophical constitutional disagreements with the Democrats. He does. And yesterday he looked caught off guard when this statement came out. He was in the middle of his Republican press conference and reporters obviously pressed him on this. When the statement came out, he said he didn't do any side deals with Democratic leadership to get to this point.

He said he's a conservative, lifelong Republican and that is going to come into play if and when Marjorie Taylor Greene continues doing this. She's holding a press conference in about two and a half hours that I plan to attend, where she presumably will talk about her step forward, her plans on this motion to oust Johnson. It's becoming an unpopular one in practice, not only with Democrats, but also with moderate Republicans, many of whom have publicly berated Marjorie Taylor Greene's potential plans. This is something, Mika, that works a lot better for her politically when the threat of this is hanging over Johnson's head, especially now because she can directly link it and connect it and say, look, it's a Republican speaker that will only stay in power if Democrats move to save him. Obviously, that statement from Democratic leadership was a gift to her yesterday, but it's going to be a really, really fine needle for Democrats to thread here,

especially if Johnson turns around and puts messaging bills on the floor that put them in a hard spot on abortion, on the border, on immigration. We are months away from the election. So if they're going to do it once, doesn't mean they're going to do it again. Some say Johnson is already weakened by this by the sheer comment from Democrats that they'll save him. But this statement may have been a surprise yesterday. But this was a long time coming from Democrats who want to push these hardline Republicans out of power. Julie, is there a sense on Capitol Hill that Speaker Johnson in a way called the bluff of MAGA extremists like Marjorie Taylor Greene saying, I'm going to push through this Ukraine bill if you want to oust me, come at me. And now Marjorie Taylor Greene also probably got what

she wanted out of it performatively. She's going to have a press conference. She'll raise money. She'll do all the things that she does. But does the speaker feel like his job is now safe and that he may have survived this? Look, it seems like his job is safe for now. You'll also remember, Willie, he went to Mar-a-Lago to essentially seek former President Trump's blessing. That was a week before he decided to put the aid bill on the floor. He also funded the government a couple of weeks before. So all of these must pass items for this Congress, with the exception of the FAA and farm bills, which are presumably going to be bipartisan in the end, that's all through. That's all finished. Johnson did the hard part that McCarthy really couldn't do. He also is well liked among Democrats. He's somebody that kind of worked behind the scenes. He didn't have this big public profile.

He didn't have a chance for Democrats to really grow to dislike him, despite his conservative record. So he feels like he certainly did call their bluff, like he's in a good spot, but that doesn't mean he's not cornered on a weekly basis by hardline Republicans on the floor trying to pressure him to do what they want him to do.

At the same time, I spoke to many of these conservative Republicans, ones who may not be happy with Johnson, but certainly remember what happened back in the fall when Congress was effectively shut for weeks, when they looked like they couldn't get it together. There was a circus behind the scenes, a circus on the floor in which Jeffries, the Democratic leader, ended up getting more votes than Republicans did on the floor for speaker. That being said, we are even closer to the election now. Republican donors don't want to see this happen again. So finally, Speaker Johnson seemed to be just giving a word of

warning to universities and colleges across the country who are dealing with these protests. They're working on initiative to deal with anti-Semitism on college campuses. Tell us about it. Yeah, so Speaker Johnson yesterday held this press conference with all of these committee chairs he has, right, from all the committees of jurisdiction, from education that's been working this anti-Semitism probe. They've called various college presidents before their committee before, most recently Columbia's president a couple of weeks ago. Now he's sort of directing this whole of government approach.

He has Jim Jordan, who's been looking into Hunter Biden, the weaponization of government, now seeming to switch gears and looking into these protests and anti-Semitism as well. They're looking at visas. If any of these students here are protesting or here on visas, they have other committees looking into different aspects of this as well. You hear Democrats not, of course, opposing this effort because so many of them in leadership, Democrats from New York, moderate Democrats, have spoken out against what has turned into anti-Semitism on these campuses when these protests started off to back the humanitarian aid, the need for that in Gaza. They've sort of shifted.

Some Democrats saying they've now lost the plot. So Johnson's saying that this is now going to be the focus of the Republican Party in the House. He also most notably criticized what's going on in the other chamber. That's the Democratic-run Senate with Leader Schumer when he came out on the floor calling for a change of government in Israel. That sort of hasn't left his side in terms of what Republicans have been throwing at him. So it'll be interesting to see what Republicans do here. Certainly, Johnson came to Columbia a couple of weeks ago with a show of force from Republicans. He was met by protesters there. But it'll be interesting to see if he fully shifts the Republican House away from these investigations into the president, many of which have been unfounded and more approaches this anti-Semitism

push and investigation as a whole. There will be a vote, by the way, today on a bill condemning and expanding the definition of anti-Semitism. And that's bipartisan. NBC's Julie Sirkin, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. We appreciate it. So the White House views a potential ceasefire in Gaza as perhaps the only way to tamp down some of the unrest that we've been seeing on college campuses nationwide. U.S. officials and Arab mediators are pushing Hamas to accept the latest proposal, which calls for the release of 33 hostages in exchange for a six-week pause in fighting. Israel is reportedly planning to send a delegation to Cairo in the coming days in an effort to secure the deal. It's excruciating. Yeah. And meanwhile, Secretary of State Antony Blinken is there this morning

meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem. Meetings will resume later today. This comes a day after the Israeli leader confirmed he plans to move forward with his planned Rafah operation, quote, with or without a deal. The White House has expressed concerns, of course, about that plan as it could undermine efforts to secure the release of hostages. Joining us now, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. Richard, good morning. We'll put the Knicks to the side for a moment.

It's too painful. And talk about this meeting today that ongoing between Secretary Blinken and Prime Minister Netanyahu. When Netanyahu comes out yesterday and says, we can meet all you want. You can tell me about this potential ceasefire deal. We don't believe that Hamas is a serious negotiating partner. We're going into RAFA one way or another. So what is Secretary Blinken trying to do today with the prime minister? Look, Prime Minister Netanyahu has to say that given his he's defined success as eliminating

Hamas and his coalition is calling for it, particularly in the aftermath of what is seen as his compromise with with Iran. What the administration wants to do is get this deal. The problem is a temporary ceasefire is not what Hamas wants. They want an open-ended ceasefire, which is exactly what Bibi Netanyahu can't agree to. So, Willie, I think the administration is going to be pushing the Israelis, not simply on the question of whether they go into Rafah, but when and how. Because there's going in and there's going in. Do they go in big? Do they go into Rafah, but when and how, because there's going in and there's going in. Do they go in big? Do they go in immediately or do they wait a while and they go in a much

more calibrated way? I think that's the real conversation rather than an either or thing. What the administration wants is a pause, is a hostage deal, and they want the Israelis, if and when they go into Rafah, which they ultimately going to have to do, to do it in a much more careful way. Yes. Some administration officials suggested to me yesterday, Richard, that the Netanyahu being so bellicose about the RAFA operation now is a bit of a warning to Hamas. Hey, we're going to go in. Let's do this deal first. And then perhaps we can navigate going forward. But let's talk about the possibility for a deal. I thought it was striking. John Kirby yesterday didn't sound all that optimistic when asked about it, even though there is a sense of administration that if it's

going to happen, it kind of needs to happen now. What's your read? It's tough because, one, we don't know how many hostages are still alive, and Hamas doesn't want to admit that. Hamas has defined an acceptable deal very high, an open-ended ceasefire, the end of Israeli occupation. That is not going to happen. So I'm skeptical. I love to be wrong. And it's hard. You've got so many players here, Jonathan. It's really hard to make confident predictions. But I'd say this. If there were a deal, it's not a solution. It buys us a little bit of time. A lot of the basic questions are still there about Rafa, about governance, about the day after, about violence in the West Bank. So,

you know, there's such a focus on this. I get it. But no one should delude themselves that this is somehow the answer to what ails the Middle East. It's not. So, Richard, before his arriving in Israel, of course, Tony Blinken was in Saudi Arabia talking to the Saudis about this idea of a big security deal with the United States. There's interesting reporting coming out of Israel at the moment from Haaretz saying that Bibi Netanyahu's government is waiting on any kind of big security deal with the Americans until after the U.S. election because he doesn't necessarily want to hand Joe Biden a prize. That's kind of different from the reporting that we're getting here in the States.

Peter Baker reporting The Times that actually this could happen in the next couple of weeks. What kind of game is Bibi Netanyahu potentially playing here with the White House? Do they think they have leverage? They do. And I think there is a preference for Donald Trump, though in the Time magazine interview, Donald Trump was very tough on Bibi Netanyahu. Basically said he abandoned me when we went after Soleimani. He felt let down.

So it was one of the... Well, and he famously congratulated Joe Biden that you didn't like. It's interesting. One of the few things Joe Biden and Donald Trump seem to agree on right now is they both dislike Bibi Netanyahu. But again, there's Bibi's trying to figure out how does he leverage Hamas? How does he work us? And then with the Saudis, which you just brought up, they're a little bit nervous. You know, even though MBS is very much in control of the country, he doesn't want to be seen as somehow selling out the Palestinians. Because this new generation of Saudis, which has a little bit more space politically, they have awakened to the Palestinian issue.

So the Saudis have to get a little bit of cover if they're going to do something with the Israelis. They don't have a totally free hand. The question is, can Bibi Netanyahu, given his government coalition, can he give the Saudis a little bit of political cover they need with the Palestinians? Not clear to me. That might be the bigger issue. President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. Thank you very much. It's good to have you on. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Willie, for your self-restraint. No, too soon. Way too soon. Yeah. Just don't do it. OK, still ahead. We're going to have no idea what you're talking. Yeah, we'll keep it that way. Ignorance is so important to us. We're going to go through what

Donald Trump did and did not say on the topic of abortion during his interview with Time magazine. And Fox News takes action after Hunter Biden threatens the network with a lawsuit. We'll have that update for you coming up on Morning Joe. I predict, Katty, that October 7th was a seminal day. If we go back in history, let's say it's 25 years from now, we look back, we say, oh, wow, October 7th was a seminal moment. It pushed the envelope. It pushed the pendulum back to something more normal than the allowance of this level of radicalism on a campus because the administrators want that money, Katty. That was the clip from the new podcast. The rest is politics.

U.S. hosted by Katty Kay, along with former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci. Their first episode released last week focuses on the protests on college campuses and Trump on trial. And Anthony joins us now. He's also founder and managing partner at SkyBridge Capital. How about this combo? I like the combo. Combo a lot. This is a good combo. Confession, this is actually the first time we've met in person.

Oh, really? Is that true? On the set of Morning Joe. It's where it all started. Great start. Yeah. So how do you do that? That's the beauty of Zoom, right?

That's right. We do the pod on Zoom. We do the pod on Zoom. So I did a pod with Anthony around my book. And I was so impressed because Anthony had actually read the book. Isn't it good? And had smart questions. And I just thought it was...

Well, I love the book. It would be fun to work together. I actually gave the book to my daughter. Exactly. I told her to read it and just think about it because you explain so many good things in the book about not overreacting in certain situations and holding yourself together. And so you learned a lot then. No, I haven't learned a lot, Mika. That's why I'm on television, Mika.

If I had read and followed her book, I could be on television perhaps. And Miss Cameron, she's one of the least confident people I've ever met. Needs the confidence code. I love it. So tell us not only about the first episode, but what you guys plan to do with this. Let's let Katty start, actually, because I think, you know, she's Katty's in charge. I think Katty's in charge. I mean, also, she's a better newsreader than me. I still can't read the teleprompter. But go ahead.

He says that. I can't read the teleprompter. There's clearly a market for out for the rest of the world really to understand America. They think they get it and they don't. And I've always wanted to try and explain what is happening here, not just in terms of the horse race, but in broader political and social issues. And the world is fascinated by what is going on in this country at the moment. And so it was a great opportunity to do that. But for American audiences, there isn't really something there in podcast form that gives them an outsider and an insider take on what's going on. So I just want to point out to our executive producer, Alex Corson, that the world is

fascinated with what is going on here in the U.S. I'm quoting you. In fact, they're watching with bated breath. They are watching with bated breath. Yeah. Interesting. Why was Alex skeptical? Oh, no, they just, whenever I ask the question, you know, what is our standing in the world, I get an eye roll. I'm just going to say. Do you? Not for me. Not for me.

I get an eye roll. So what's great about this, you said inside and outside. Yeah. You, of course, were the press secretary for Donald Trump for one Scaramucci. I think that's fair to say, right? Scaramucci. It was 954,000 seconds. There you go.

I sometimes say that to my therapist. That way it makes it feel like it was longer for me. That's good. Yeah, whatever makes you feel better. But given, despite the short duration, however many seconds it was, you do know the guy and you understand the guy. Donald Trump. I was on the campaign. I worked for him on the campaign.

I knew him prior to that. And a question that's still after what is a decade that still vexes a lot of people who say, gosh, this seems so clear to me when you put them side by side, read that Time magazine interview and you go, you want to put that guy back in the White House? But yeah, a lot of people in this country still do. I don't think that actually. So I'll take the opposite. I think that no, no, I think they don't necessarily want to put him back in the White House. I think they've got two choices and there's a lot of people that are thinking, OK, maybe we'll go back to Donald Trump because of some of the things that are going on in the society right now. And so you brought up the clip from the podcast. Those protests help Donald Trump. They help Richard Nixon in the 1970s. And they and they're helping Donald Trump right now, whether you like it or not. And my point

about October 7th is maybe we need to get back to the middle. There's a right and wrong. There's a decorum among us. I'm all for free speech. I'm all for appropriate protests on a college campus. But breaking and entering buildings, bringing in people that don't even belong in the college campus setting, quote unquote anarchists, wrong. Harassing Jewish students. Harassing Jewish students. Anti-Semitism, wrong. I think we have to call it out now. That doesn't explain why Donald Trump has a pretty good chance of being reelected president. Yeah, well, I think Willie's point is they're going to choose him, but he's there in their

minds. When I talk to people about Trump, it's a lesser of two evils. Imagine that. OK, and I look at them and say, well, you didn't work for him. You didn't sit at a table like this with him. You didn't see the lack of curiosity. You didn't see the hostility towards people. You didn't see the hostility towards people. You didn't see the constant mendacity.

I mean, The Washington Post reported three thirty thousand nine hundred and fifty lies in four years. And we thought we were we had some some steam going when he had 500 lies in the first hundred days. But he ramped it up from there. Well, it doesn't doesn't matter. I mean, that's the problem. And also, returning back to right and wrong and rule of law and all those things, well, it would help if Republicans on Capitol Hill, some of them on the House side, would actually recognize that what happened on January 6th was just as bad as what we're seeing in vandalism across the country or even on a college campus. Yeah. And in that interview with Time magazine, Trump, again, downplay what happened on January 6th to no one's surprise. But speaking of right or wrong, Anthony, we're seeing Trump right now

in court. He's stuck. He's powerless. He can't speak. He complains about the air conditioning. He complains about he seems to be falling asleep with reckless abandon. Yes. Someone who knows him, like how hard must be this for him? Someone who is always seemingly in control, can say whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Suddenly he can't. What kind of toll do you think this is taking? I think it's taking a toll. But what I'm surprised about is the lack of investigation around what's going on with

him and his family. Because Eric Trump showed up yesterday, but no one's in the court. Family members have said they're not going to go work for him back in the White House. Melania is absent. And I think this plays a bigger part of the story. And it's a bigger toll on him than people imagine. Whether you like him or dislike him, he worked with his family on real estate. He worked with his family on The App people imagine. Whether you like him or dislike him, he worked with his family on real estate. He worked with his family on The Apprentice. He brought his family into the White House. They are not there with him. And I think that's something that bothers him way more than anybody's letting on. And if the Biden people. What's the choice? What's the thinking behind

the choice to stand by their dad? They stood by him for so much else. Let me put it back to you, Mika. He's on trial for a hush money case paying a prostitute while his wife was pregnant. That's probably the reason why they're not there. Let me just put it as simply as that. But one thing he's good at is that he knows how to coat things over. He knows how to repeat a lie repeatedly to the point where people say, OK, well, it can't really be that bad. January 6th can't really be that bad. Donald Trump says it's not that bad. And he's got willing accomplices, useful idiots in the Congress that are also saying the same thing,

even though on that day they were running for their lives. You see why this is a good idea? Yeah, it's it's going to go. It's going to go. Yeah. I like it. It works. It's going to go. It works. It's going to go. Yeah. I like it. You can listen to new episodes of The Rest is Politics U.S. every Friday, wherever you get your podcasts. Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci, thank you so much for

coming on. Congratulations, you guys. It's great to meet you, by the way. You know how big Anthony is? How big is he? Well, I'm at a Mets game, walking through the parking lot. The Screaming Mooch? Yeah, he's got his own parking spot, by the way. You know how big Anthony is? How big is he? I'm at a Mets game. Walking through the parking lot. They screamy mooch?

He's got his own parking spot. The ballpark. You know how big I am? I'm sitting on a phone book right now. So I can be eye level with the camera. That's how big I am. Yeah. Parking.

Does he really? He's big time. Can we borrow it? Big time. No. You can borrow it. I can? Mika, you can borrow it.

You want to use my suite? You just give me dates. And if it's not taken, you can have it. He means it. And you? Mika, you can borrow it. You want to use my suite, you just give me dates. And if it's not taken, you can have it. He means it. And you can park in the Mooch parking lot. Wow. The Mooch parking lot. The Mooch parking spot, not parking lot.

I have a map. That's why I chose the Mooch spot. Really? Okay. I don't know what to think. I don't know what to think as I'm in. Willie, it's cute when you see it, though, right? It's amazing.

It's a good spot, too, by the way. Do you drive a smart car? What do you have in there? Oh, come on. I'm going to tell you from Long Island. I'm guzzling gas. It's a little smart car. I'm going to tell you from Long Island.

All right.