Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/19/23

Episode Date: May 19, 2023

Disney scraps plan for new Florida campus amid DeSantis feud

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. This morning, a debt ceiling deal seems to be on the right path. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had a much more optimistic tone yesterday while answering questions about the negotiations. We'll have those comments for you. It comes as President Biden is busy with world leaders at the G7 summit in Japan. The group just announced a new round of sanctions for Russia aimed at closing loopholes Moscow has been using since the start of the Ukraine invasion. Meanwhile, Ukraine could soon be receiving more U.S. military aid thanks to an accounting error. We'll explain what happened there. Also ahead, the Manhattan D.A. shuts down what appears to be a delay tactic from Donald

Trump's defense team. And Nikki Haley finally pushes back against her old boss. We'll have her response to Trump calling January 6th a beautiful day. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday. Willie, can you believe it's Friday? I'm so processing. We made it. Joe has the morning off.

I told him not to come. Along with Willie and me, we have the host of Wait Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, former U.S. Senator now on NBC News and MSNBC political analyst Claire McCaskill, White House editor for Politico, Sam Stein and senior columnist for The Daily Beast, Matt Lewis, is with us this morning. And you know what, Willie? I will say, I will say Joe was right about messing with Bob Iger. You just don't do that. Yeah, Governor Ron DeSantis is learning that the hard way right now.

This is a move that we've been talking about for a long time, his fight with Disney. And now it has cost his state potentially a $1 billion investment, thousands of jobs as well. The company, Disney, announced it is scrapping plans now for a new employee campus in Florida. In a memo, the chair of Disney's Parks and Experiences Division said the decision was based on, quote, changing business conditions. The billion-dollar project would have brought 2,000 jobs to Florida from California. A spokesperson for the governor responded to the New York Times with an email questioning Disney's commitment to the project and criticizing the company's financial situation. California Governor Gavin Newsom posted on Twitter, the door is open for Disney to bring those jobs back to a state that represents the values of its workers.

That's what he said there. Donald Trump, of course, weighing in as well. He sent out a campaign email highlighting a post on his social media platform from last month that said Disney could stop investing in the state. Trump also called the decision by DeSantis to take on Disney an unnecessary political stunt. So here, Claire McCaskill, you have Gavin Newsom aligned with Donald Trump in criticism of Ron DeSantis, again, appearing to be, except for a sop to a small sliver of the base of voters for Ron DeSantis, a colossal mistake as now money and jobs are not

coming to Florida because of his fight with Disney. Yeah, the obvious hit on DeSantis for this entire presidential primary campaign is that he represents big government. He represents anti-business. He represents telling people what they can read and what they can learn and all the stuff that he thought was going to be his ticket to the Oval is it turns out he just kind of looks like a mini me of Trump. And, you know, if he can't really handle this, I got to tell you, I don't think there's a lane for him. I really don't think it opens up. I think Trump ends up with most of the voters who think it's really a good thing to ban books and to attack the biggest taxpayer, the biggest business in Florida.

And so, Matt Lewis, obviously, there's some virtue signaling to a certain portion of Ron DeSantis' voter support, his base. But in the big picture, this remains absolutely confounding, this decision to go on and fight with the largest private employer in your state, this icon that has transformed the state of Florida, brings obviously all the tourism and the money that comes with it, to pick this fight because his feelings were hurt that Disney criticized a piece of legislation he put forth last year. Is there any explanation for it at this point, other than to just sort of nod to a certain percentage of voters he thinks he needs to keep close? Yeah, I mean, I think that was initially right. Ron DeSantis wanted to position himself as someone

who was like Trump, except more competent and more competent and not only winning elections, but on sort of executing the culture war. So going after Disney, I think he saw is like this. I don't want to call it a stunt, but something that would help boost him and elevate him is like a real fighter fighting and winning the culture war. And it just didn't work out the way that he planned. And now it has escalated and it's becoming a quagmire. I don't know how he gets out of it. He is now fighting a two front war, really a three front war. He's got Disney.

He's got, you know, Gavin Newsom and he's got Donald Trump. Everybody's criticizing him. And look, this when does this end? Disney can do this forever. There could always be a big project Disney was going to roll out, but now they're not going to. And additionally, you have people like Mike Pence who are criticizing DeSantis publicly. Nikki Haley offered Disney come to South Carolina. Well, Disney could have some fun with that too, right?

So I just don't know where this ends for Ron DeSantis and how he gets out of it. And at the precise moment when this story broke yesterday, that Disney was abandoning Florida and Ron DeSantis was taking this hit, where was Bob Iger? He was at the Cannes Film Festival. He was standing next to Harrison Ford at the Indiana Jones 5 premiere as they got a standing ovation. That happened at the exact same moment. Bob Iger won this round, to be clear, Mika.

And it does seem like this is such an unforced error. And so many Republicans attacking DeSantis here for undermining the whole credo of the GOP as being the party of business and instead trying to intervene with government. And it comes as his whole pitch is to make America Florida. Well, he's on the extreme right of so many issues right now. And it seems to really contradict, which is his other argument, which is what I know you're about to tell us about, which is that he's the most electable of the Republicans,

that he can win nationally and Trump can't. But yet he's boxed himself into a corner here on some of the issues with Disney in Florida that undermine the whole argument. You know, he wants to maybe separate himself from Trump, which we'll talk about. At the same time, don't separate yourself even worse. I mean, this is a politically such a rookie move to do these this gesture politics to try and own the libs and maybe get in a small subsect of the Tampa area. And in the end, you end up costing Florida jobs. Floridians, you know, they may have their different points of view across the state, but I think they're pretty unanimous on wanting jobs in the state. So a total rookie move on the part of this governor

who can't see beyond one foot in front of his face. I'm going to do this. I'm going to do that. I'll get them this way. I'll get them that way. And then in the end, loses much bigger politically, but also for his state. Malpractice.

If you're the governor of the state of Florida and you're driving jobs out of the state because you have sort of petty anger politics. I don't know. I don't know how that plays on the big stage. And I think it gives Trump a lot of material. Meanwhile, though, on a private call with top donors and supporters ahead of his expected entry into the presidential race next week. Ron DeSantis argued he is the most electable Republican. A New York Times reporter listened to the call yesterday organized by a super PAC supporting DeSantis. The reporter quoted DeSantis as saying, you have basically three people at this point that are credible in this whole thing. Biden, Trump and me. And I think

those of those three to have a chance to get elected president Biden and me based on all the data in the swing states, which is not great for the former president and probably insurmountable because people aren't going to change their view of him. Sam Stein, that may be true. I'm not going to argue with that. I do think, you know, if Joe was here, he would list all the different times Trump has lost for the Republican Party. But Ron DeSantis is not batting a thousand in the state of Florida. How does he move beyond that onto the big stage? Well, look, I think he actually probably is correct in the sort of broad generalization of the race that he and Trump are the most likely to win. And then of the three, he, Trump and Biden, he and Biden have the most likely chance to win the general.

But there is one sort of major caveat in there that I think goes undressed. We were reporting on it, which is he has to make the case that Trump actually lost in 2020. DeSantis has skirted that issue about whether the election was rightfully won by Joe Biden. All he said is that Joe Biden ended up president. That's a major hurdle he does have to clear because otherwise, you can't make the case forcefully that Trump is a loser if you can't concede that he, in fact, lost. Now, back to the point about Disney and all this stuff. I think these are intertwined. I think you're absolutely right.

If your entire modus operandi is to fight something that's two feet in front of you, to be reactive to the sort of online politics of the moment, to live in a conservative echo chamber, then it becomes increasingly hard for you to appeal beyond that echo chamber. And this Disney fight is just proof positive of it. I mean, if you saw the reaction to it online yesterday after the news, the reaction from conservatives online was actually quite—they were cheering on DeSantis.

They said, ah, who needs these jobs anyway? We don't want 2,000 people from California coming to Florida. There's too much traffic in Florida as there is. That is a very short-term look at the situation. It doesn't appreciate the idea that anyone who's not following this very sort of bizarre fight now will look at it and say, wait a second, they just lost a billion dollars and 2,000 jobs. How is that a win for DeSantis? Matt Lewis, is there another Republican who who could jump in and really make an impact in this? What appears to be an array of choices that are limited?

I don't think so. I mean, I like Tim Scott a lot. I would like to see him in the race. I think it would be nice to have someone who can offer a more positive, optimistic brand of conservatism. I don't think he can win, but it would be nice to have him in the race. Glenn Youngkin sent out a video yesterday that looked like a campaign video. I don't know what he's up to, sort of flirting maybe with the idea of running. But I think Ron DeSantis is right about this, that it's essentially, it looks like a race, a primary between Trump and DeSantis. One question I would have for DeSantis, though, is does he think the electability argument is actually persuasive? Look, I realize if you're

talking to political donors and you're trying to get their money, if you're on a conference call with political donors, maybe it works, right? You tell them Donald Trump can't win. I'm the only Republican who can win, so fund me. That may work with donors. I don't think it works with average voters. I don't think the average Republican voter is, A, convinced that Donald Trump can't win a general election because he surprised everybody in 2016. And I think Trump has this magical aura around him amongst Republicans. And I just don't know if it's if it's an inspiring message. It may be the best message DeSantis has, but I don't know if it inspires or motivates actual Republican voters.

So, Claire, if you read into this readout, the New York Times had a Ron DeSantis phone call with supporters and donors. The characterization is that he did not talk about any of this cultural stuff, that he sort of presented himself as the general election candidate, the guy who can beat Joe Biden and stayed away from this. A lot of these are big businessmen and women who don't like that he's taking on Disney and keeping jobs out of the state of Florida. So he's going to have to figure out who he is. You can't be one guy in the primary, although you have to win those voters, obviously, first, and then try to transform yourself into some sort of guy who flies above it all in the general election.

So how does he walk that line? How does he go at Donald Trump while still presenting himself as electable and a general? Yeah, well, I would argue that is who he is. He is somebody who is going to be what he thinks he needs to be that day. He is a performance politics politician. This is not a guy who has built relationships in the Republican Party. This is not a guy who has shown the kind of characteristics that most independent voters in America want. And here's the thing, Willie, that everybody has to remember. He's going to have hundreds of millions of dollars of paid and earned media attacking him in the months to come. He has relatively little baggage right now compared to Trump. But, you know, this has just begun. And everybody who is other than Trump

and DeSantis are going to attack DeSantis because it's easier to attack DeSantis than Trump. And they're going to try to move ahead of him so they can be the viable alternative. So this is a long way from over. And I think DeSantis has real trouble ahead because there's a lot to attack him on. All right. Before we go to break, we are learning that Senator Dianne Feinstein of California suffered more severe health complications than previously disclosed. Senator Feinstein was taken to the hospital in February for shingles and was absent from Congress for several months. She returned to the Senate last week, and according to her spokesperson, Feinstein's diagnosis had triggered encephalitis, which is inflammation of the brain. She's also dealing with Ramsey-Hunt syndrome, which causes facial paralysis. Feinstein has said she's still recovering and will be taking

on a lighter workload. But according to the New York Times, some people close to her describe seeing her in her current state as frightening. They worry this will cast a shadow over her legacy and achievements. This is also raised questions about whether the 89 year old is fit to continue serving for the rest of her term, which ends in January of 2025. But lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have been quick to defend the California senator. Feinstein has announced she will not seek reelection and will retire at the end of her term. So I guess the question, Claire, is, I mean, I'd like to know who those people are who are saying that her situation is frightening because sort of in the defense of people who are dealing with issues of aging, sometimes you can look a little different, but you still can function. And, you know, that's that's kind of a cruel word to use.

I'm not sure exactly what they mean. They might want to expound upon that a little more. I feel defensive for the senator because it is one's choice. But I also I ask where the family is, where the staff is. If a situation is becoming untenable. I mean, there are people who care about one who should step in. Your thoughts? Well, it's emotional for me. I came to Washington and Dianne Feinstein was someone who was such a pleasant surprise for me because I had some cynicism about senators. And I watched her. I watched her do the work.

She was more prepared. She was more knowledgeable. She was not staff driven. She was really just in her strength at various moments, like when the White House was trying to get her to not give a speech on torture. And anyone who wants to see Dianne Feinstein at her fame, really at her best, should watch the speech she gave on the floor of the Senate about torture. And she was such a role model for me and I think for literally thousands of women in California and beyond. This is really, really hard. And I get it that there have been men that have stayed when they were very ill, but the cognitive issue is real. And I think we've got to be honest about that. She is struggling with her cognitive

abilities. And the thing, listen, I would stand in front of a train for Dianne Feinstein, but I care so deeply about her legacy. And I look at all the women who left when they thought it was time, like a Barbara Mikulski, like an Olympia Snow. I can go, Nancy Kassebaum. There are, you know, just really iconic women who have known that it's time. And it hurts me to see what happened this week when a reporter asked her a question and she clearly was not tracking what was going on in her life. And that's painful for all of us who care about her. And I do wonder why the people who love her are not more aggressively trying to protect her legacy and protect her at this point in time.

Yeah. And that's a tough one because often what defines someone and what makes them happy is their work. And I just know from my own personal experience with my mother that for a number of years, in the last years of her life, she had really lost the ability to talk as much with Parkinson's and her face would appear differently than how she felt, but she could still compute. She still completely understood her vision with her art and she still wanted to do it and she just needed help to do it. And I, you know, I think that it's a very difficult line

that only the people closest to the loved one know when the actual cognitive ability is going away because it may look like it's going away, may be frightening to whatever staffer leaked that or whoever. I mean, yeah, but people age, they look different. I would make the point though, your mother's love was creative. Diane's love, Diane's love is a public facing job where her ability to communicate is the essence of the job. And that's what makes this so hard, is that she cannot be the Diane Feinstein that we all know she is. And that's why it's difficult to watch. It's difficult to watch, but there are other members of the Senate who are having trouble communicating.

Well, that's true. And they're still allowed to do their jobs. There's no question about that. But it is just, you know, and I'm just being honest about how I personally feel about this because she was, you know, she was really very, very important to me. Yeah, understood. Matt Lewis, thank you very much for being on this morning. And still ahead on Morning Joe.

We're following President Biden overseas in Japan, where Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to join the group of seven leaders in person to seek commitments for more aid in his country's fight against Russia. Meanwhile, in Hiroshima, G7 leaders are also focused on curbing what is being called economic coercion by China. We'll get a live report from Beijing about what it means for U.S. business on the mainland. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. That's a beautiful live picture of the White House at 625 on a Friday morning. President Biden has wrapped up his opening day with world leaders at the G7 summit in Japan. After outdoor ceremonies in the morning, leaders held a working lunch while listening to remarks by the Japanese prime minister. The war in Ukraine is expected to be a big focus

of that summit as the group of seven leaders reportedly will impose new sanctions on Russia, specifically targeting export controls and Russia's ability to sell and ship diamonds, which is one of the few remaining industries in Russia not dramatically affected by Western sanctions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky reportedly will join the gathering in person on Sunday. Details not yet being shared publicly anyway for security reasons. Joining us now, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.

So Richard, obviously Ukraine will be front and center here. What is on the agenda? What should President Biden try to get out of this G7? Well, further support for Ukraine, as you just discussed, Willie, will be on the agenda. It won't change the fundamentals, but it will be another demonstration of Western solidarity. Indeed, the whole idea of the West has come back. The G7 was created 50 years ago for the major industrial democratic countries. The idea was to bring in Japan with the major countries of Europe, Canada and the United States. And in some ways, this entire institution is having a rebirth because we can once again talk about the West. Japanese want to put nuclear weapons on the agenda, abolition of them, hence the meeting in Hiroshima. The problem is the world is right now going through, if you will, a nuclear boom, no pun

intended, in the sense that China and North Korea are both ramping up their nuclear weapons as fast as they can. Last but not least, the unwritten story of the or the background story is what we're talking about here. And it's both the debt ceiling debate and the uncertainty over the 2024 elections. So all these other leaders are meeting with President Biden. And as they look at him, they're looking at the uncertainty of the outcome of the debt ceiling. What that says about American politics and whether in two years they're once again going to have Donald Trump to meet with. So there's lots going on at this G7 meeting.

So, Richard, we should note that before President Zelensky reaches Japan, he's actually in Saudi Arabia right now for the Arab League summit, including meeting with Syria's Bashar al-Assad, who, of course, has been propped up by Russia this entire time. So we'll have to see what comes of that. But Ukraine is one topic focused. The G7, China, of course, is another. The president has had to curtail his trip. He's no longer making stops in Papua New Guinea and Australia, which were explicitly about China because he has to be in Washington for debt ceiling negotiations. But talk to us a little bit

about how China is just hovering over what we're seeing there in Hiroshima. China hovers over everything going on in the Indo-Pacific. All these countries are worried about the rise of Chinese power. China's become much more repressive at home, more statist economically, much more assertive in its foreign policy, or worried about what China might do against Taiwan. They're talking about how they can avoid becoming more vulnerable to China economically, how they can restrict certain technology getting to China. The problem is every single leader around the table is economically dependent to one degree or another on access to China's market, on selling things to China. The problem is every single leader around the table is economically dependent to

one degree or another on access to China's market, on selling things to China, on importing things from China. And there's a real tension there. There's a real dilemma. And the question is how far they're going to sort that out. I'm not wildly optimistic, Jonathan. Richard, talk a little bit about how excited China must be over the notion that we would default and what that does for world economics in terms of our long place at the center of all economic activity on the globe and how China has an opportunity here that, frankly, the crazy caucus in the House of Representatives is clearly not giving much thought to. Actually, China's excited about two things, to use your word.

One is the fact that President Biden has to curtail his trip. There's a competition going on. The idea that he can't go to visit one of America's principal allies, Australia. There's competition for places like Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands. So China loves that. If we're not on the playing field, very hard for us to compete with them. So there's that. Second of all, the default is just the sort of thing. January 6th is on this. Certainly it's all the things that China points to when they say, hey, this so-called democratic system ain't so good.

We are much more orderly. We can deliver steady growth. It shows that democracies are unpredictable, unreliable. So China actually really likes that. The one caveat is obviously they're still dependent on the success of the world economically, which in turn depends upon the United States. But in the broad strokes, yes, China likes any sign that the United States is unable to meet its international responsibilities. That said, they're not yet prepared to step up in any way to take our place. For example, their currency isn't convertible. They don't yet have an alternative to the dollar. So China's own limits are pretty profound. But yes, I think your basic point is exactly right. Whenever we fail, to some extent, they feel it's good for them.

So while we're on China, earlier this month, the consulting service CapVision became the latest American company to be raided by Chinese authorities in what has been described as a crackdown on foreign business entities. Joining us now with more on this is NBC News foreign correspondent Janice McEfrayer live in Beijing. Janice, what can you tell us? Well, it's definitely put foreign companies here on edge. This latest raid saw Chinese security agents crack down on several offices of CapVision. It's a business consulting firm that deals in economic data, which is something that Chinese authorities now see as sensitive information in what is an increasingly restrictive security environment here. Staff were questioned.

There has been no word on any detentions. Bain & Company, as well as Mintz Group, have also been targeted in the last month. And it creates this contradiction because we're seeing the investigations and this need for national security considerations almost trumping the appetite for foreign investment here and a big risk because there is no clarity. There is very little transparency and there is now the legal risk facing American companies. I spoke earlier today with Michael Hart. He is the president of AmCham China. That's the American Chamber of Commerce here. And he says the business community is rattled. From our point of view, if you can't do due diligence and you can't collect economic statistics, you can't run a business. So what we understand is the companies have been targeted were those that were doing due diligence for

potential mergers and acquisitions or collecting data for companies trying to understand the economics around their business. So again, if you can't collect information, how can you run and manage a business? If we look at cause and effect, are the raids and these counter-espionage laws a precursor to China wanting to decouple with the U.S.? It's unclear to me what's really been driving the raids. This is one of the things that concerns the business environment, the business climate. This is one of the things that concerns the business communities. We don't have enough clarity on the concerns.

We don't think China really wants to decouple. We think they probably want to de-risk. We think the Chinese understand that the cross-border business is critical for both economies. So I don't see the Chinese having a wide-scale decoupling. State media have been covering the raids, saying that certain Western countries have been stealing intelligence about China's military industry, the economy and finance. Officially, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs here called the CapVision raid a normal law enforcement act and mentioned safeguarding national security and development. CapVision hasn't commented yet, neither have the other companies that have been targeted for investigations.

But U.S. officials here and certainly American businesses are worried. AmCham China just spent a week in Washington, D.C., having meetings with policymakers and with CEOs. And they told me that they heard a dozen times from CEOs that, quote, they want to come to China. They would like to come to China, but they are afraid to come to China right now. Yeah. NBC's Janice Mackey-Frayer live from Beijing. Thank you very much for your reporting. And Richard Haass, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I mean, certainly, if there's no interest in decoupling, that's a funny way of showing it.

There is no interest in decoupling. What they want to become is more selective. But I think that's such a revealing story, Mika. That tells you a lot of what you need to know about Xi Jinping's China. He's been in power for just over 10 years. And what you're seeing is in every sphere of life, he is making questions of his rule, the party's continuity, what they see as national security and their ability to control things, paramount. Even if that means that there's some loss in Western economic involvement,

which used to be the priority for China, this is very much a different China. Control, security, the party, the person all now come first, even if at the cost of a degree of economic growth. That is today's China. Richard Haass, thank you very much for being on this morning. Have a great weekend. And you can check out Richard's weekly column on Substack entitled Home and Away. It publishes every Friday and is available at richardhaas.substack.com. And coming up, Donald Trump is losing a lead lawyer from his defense team. We'll dig into that new development and the state of the many investigations into the former president. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. One of former President Trump's top lawyers has quit. Tim Parlatori was one of the attorneys defending Trump against special

counsel Jack Smith's investigation into the handling of classified documents found at Mar-a-Lago and the former president's efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Parlatori resigned from Trump's legal team this week, saying he informed Trump of the decision directly and he left the legal team on good terms with the former president. Parlatori has called the special counsel's investigation, quote, improper and repeated his criticism of Jack Smith's investigation in the statement announcing his departure. Joining us now, criminal defense attorney and former Watergate prosecutor John Sale and state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Ehrenberg.

Good morning to you both. John, I'll begin with you. He says all the right things, Mr. Parlatori, that he left on good terms. There had been some talk, though, that after hearing Donald Trump at last week's CNN town hall, talked so openly and saying, I took what I took about the classified documents, that he no longer could defend him. What's your reading of this move? Well, Mr. Parlatori has not said anything publicly critical of Donald Trump because ethically that

would have been inappropriate. You know, we can speculate as to why he left. But, you know, I don't really think it matters. I think what I was thinking when I was coming on this morning is if we went to Hollywood with this script, a former president of the United States, the front runner to be the Republican nominee, and he's already under one indictment, he's likely to be under possibly two, three other indictments that wouldn't believe it in Hollywood. I mean, this is a crazy world. But Donald Trump has the presumption of innocence by the Constitution that he wanted to suspend. So I don't think we can make any judgments about the fact that Mr. Polittori left. I mean,

I think what we really should focus on is what are the investigations. And I don't care what bravado Donald Trump exhibits. I've represented a lot of people being under investigation, being under indictment in Manhattan DA. It is not fun. It is stressful. And he is a client that is not going to listen to counsel. That's very, very difficult. And lawyers, they're independent. And if they give their best advice, if it's not followed, they might move on without any adverse consequence. And just when you're running for president, though, you have you can't keep your mouth shut. Like any client, I would say, don't say anything. Don't say anything to the media. But when someone's running for president, they can't say I'm not commenting. So it's just an untenable situation and an unbelievable one.

So, John, obviously also some of the lawyers for Donald Trump may be in legal hot water themselves. So let's talk about the cases. What is your assessment right now? The Manhattan one is moving forward slowly. You know, we were all eyes towards Georgia in the coming months. Where do you think things go here? Well, I think the Georgia, the Fulton County district attorney was giving a signal to the feds so that they didn't make the same mistake that the Manhattan DA made of

starting with the weakest case. I think she was saying, hey, guys, what I'm going to do, and it's probably going to bring indictments, is going to be in the summer. So if you want to do something first, which may be more appropriate, I'm giving you plenty of time. So in sum, we could talk about the investigations forever, but the Mar-a-Lago case, it's all about obstruction. And when everything was fine until they got a subpoena, when they got a grand jury subpoena, that was a game changer. At that point, there was no longer an option to negotiate. The law basically is you have to turn over everything that's called for unless it's privileged. And if something is privileged, there's a procedure. You file a log, what it's called, and you say, hey, I'm not turning over this, this, and this, and this because it's privileged,

and a judge will decide. What you cannot do is you cannot prepare a declaration like one of the lawyers did and say, hey, we've done a diligent search and everything's been turned over. You can't do that unless it's true. So what they're investigating is, did Donald Trump hide, conceal, move documents that were under subpoena? And they've called, Jack Smith has not been aggressive. I don't like that word. He's been thorough. And they've called in everybody. And they've immunized some of the lawyers. And they've called in even the housekeeper. They've called in at Mar-a-Lago, the chef. They've looked at the surveillance tapes. They want to see if

Donald Trump personally knew they were moved. And quickly, the January 6th investigation, the main thing I think there, the main witness to see whether or not Donald Trump had the requisite intent of the insurrection is the vice president. And executive privilege is real. It's a real privilege. The conversations between a vice president and a president are sacred, but that's overcome if it's part of a criminal conspiracy.

And despite what Mike Pence says publicly, he talked to the president on January 6th, he talked to him before, and he talked to him after. And I think those conversations will show if Donald Trump is personally culpable. But as I said, the Constitution that he trashes, the judges that Trump trashes, they're all going to protect him because that's what our system's all about. Hey, David, Sam Stein here. To get back to the original story about the lawyer quitting, look, I know you're a prosecutor, not a defense lawyer, but I'm just sort of curious, have you ever seen a client like this, someone who steps

in it in his own legal cases all the time, who is unreliable in terms of paying for his legal counsel, whose own lawyers end up in legal trouble? If you were approached by Donald Trump to be a defense lawyer, how would you go about even considering the case at this juncture? And I'm curious for your thoughts on what he is like as a client. Yeah, good to be with you, Sam. As a prosecutor, I don't have to worry about those things. I don't have private clients.

I've never seen a client like it. John Sale actually turned down Donald Trump, so it's good to be with John, and he had his own reasons for it. To me, what stood out with the departure of Tim Parlatore is that he's the same lawyer who wrote a letter to Congress setting out Trump's defenses. He said that it was Trump's aides, not Trump, who hastily packed up the boxes and shipped them down to Florida. Trump's hands were supposedly clean. And then Trump went on that live town hall meeting the other day and said, no, no, he's the one who did. Trump did it himself and had every right to do so. So I think the reason why he withdrew Palo Toro is because he was exasperated

with his client, along with perhaps knowing that he would become a witness and possibly a defendant in the case himself. He testified before the grand jury. And here's the other thing that I'm wondering about. Now, The New York Times also reported that there were two attorneys left. You've got James Trustee and John Raleigh leading Trump's defense. What happened to Chris Kyes? Chris Kyes is a former Florida solicitor general, very well respected. He got a $3 million retainer up front, and then he was sidelined by Donald Trump because Trump didn't agree with his advice. Kais wanted Trump to be more conciliatory, more cooperative with DOJ rather than confrontational. So instead, Trump went his own way, the confrontational approach. And look what's happening now.

With each misstep, he's getting closer and closer to an indictment. And his lawyers are dropping like flies. So the Manhattan district attorney prosecuting Donald Trump has rejected a request from the former president's lawyers asking for more information about the evidence they plan to use against him. In a new filing this week, D.A. Alvin Bragg denied Trump's attorneys what's known as a bill of particulars, where prosecutors provide a more detailed explanation of the allegations against a defendant. According to Bragg, Trump, quote, already has more than enough information to prepare his defense and will be given even more in the upcoming discovery phase of the case. Trump's lawyers were also seeking to learn what second crime the DA's office believes he committed. That allowed what are usually misdemeanor charges to be elevated to 32 felony counts of falsifying business records. The former president has pleaded

not guilty to the charges against him and is expected to appear for a hearing next Tuesday by video. Definitely want to see what happens there. Claire McCaskill. But what do you make? What do you think they're asking for constantly? It seems to me that there's vintage Trump playing out in all of these cases here, which is delay, deny, just push papers around, just drag it out. Well, it's not surprising that a defense lawyer would ask for a bill of particulars. And it's not surprising that they want to know the underlying felony that elevates the case from a misdemeanor to a felony because of the way that the statute is written. So I don't think there's anything remarkable about them asking. I think what is interesting is Bragg is holding the line and saying, hey, you're going to get everything you're entitled to through discovery. And that is in the process. And I'm sure that this case is not going

to go quickly. But I don't think there's anything Donald Trump, I mean, John might know better, but I don't think there's anything Donald Trump can do to make this case go beyond next year's election. That would be a long time for a state criminal case to linger. This isn't the feds. The feds take forever. State prosecutors are used to having to go much more quickly than the federal criminal justice system is. I assume that you believe this case would be tried before next November. Well, I'm not a fan of that case going first, because when you try a former president, you want to go with your strongest case. And I think the heart of all of this is him allegedly destroying our constitution. And I think that

should go first. But a bill of particulars, it's not a delaying tactic, but it's not up to Alvin Bragg if he gets a bill of particulars. It's up to the court. So it's not a delaying tactic. It's not up to Alvin Bragg if he gets a bill of particulars. It's up to the court. Right. So it's not a delaying tactic. It's an appropriate motion. But I think it will likely go first. And I think that's unfortunate. You know what? Prosecutors should talk to each other. Even in El Chapo, they talk to each other and they coordinate who should go first.

So it is possible that the prosecutors will have a conversation and maybe one of the federal cases will go first. I just think this is so terrible for our system. And the whole thing is like a nightmare. It's like a movie that just can't really happen. It would never be sold because it's so unrealistic. Because every time he goes on TV, Mr. Trump, he makes matters worse and worse for his own cause. Exactly. Well, there's no need to dispute that. Dave Arbor, let's get you to give you the final word here. Your assessment there on the sequence of these cases or the timeline that you see the state investigation going forward? Yeah, Jonathan, there's nothing to say that the state case in New York has to go first, even though it was the first one filed.

And it seems like there's a lot of delays built into it. So you could see the feds going first, after all. I agree with John Sale. This is the least strong of the four cases. And to get back to Senator McCaskill's question about the bill of particulars. Let me actually say from a prosecutor's standpoint, I think that the prosecutor in New York should give the specifics on what that second charge is. It's important because right now it's a misdemeanor unless you have a second crime. And a bill of particulars is about facts, not about the law.

But the DA there, I think, should give it up anyways because we're talking about the first time a former president has ever been indicted. This is not the time to play hide the ball. Interesting criminal defense attorney and former Watergate prosecutor John Sale and state attorney for Palm Beach County, Dave Ehrenberg. Thank you both very much for coming on this morning. And before we go to break, Sam Stein, what are you working on today? I have a couple of weird stories, but mostly we're looking at the debt ceiling negotiations and, of course, wondering what's happening in Japan, where Zelensky is supposed

to go and talk with leaders. What will Biden do and how he comes back and deals with domestic and foreign issues? That will be top of mind for us today. All right, Sam, thank you very much. Still ahead, President Biden may have given more than a commencement speech over the weekend. It could be a preview of his 2024 reelection campaign. That is straight ahead on Morning Joe. All right. A few minutes before the top of the hour time now for a look at the morning papers on this Friday morning, the Detroit Free Press reports the parents charged in a mass shooting are appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court. Prosecutors say James and Jennifer Crumbly disregarded their son's mental health issues and bought the gun that he used in the deadly will argue that the shooting was not reasonably foreseeable and that charging them sets a dangerous precedent that will, quote, quote, cause injustices. The Beaufort Gazette has a front page feature on South Carolina advancing to a near total abortion ban in a special session called by the governor of the statehouse approved a six-week abortion ban after 24 hours of contentious debate. Democrats unsuccessfully tried to amend the

bill to include things like the state covering funeral costs if the mother or fetus die because they're denied an abortion. The bill now heads to the Senate. We will be watching that. The Atlanta Journal Constitution leads with Donald Trump's visit to Georgia. The former president is expected to speak at the state's GOP convention on June 10th. This will be his first event in Georgia since he launched his 2024 presidential bid. And finally, in Connecticut, the Greenwich Times highlights a new audit that finds the state's pension system overpaid retired workers by a total of one point six million dollars. The audit covered fiscal years 2020 and 2021 and did not include the teacher's retirement fund. Officials now recommend the state returns that money and revises how it pays retired workers.

Yikes. It's just about the top of the hour. Jonathan Lemire and Claire McCaskill are still with us and joining the conversation. We have pulled surprise winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, joining us. Also with us. Although I told him to just stay with Joe and not to come. MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle is here. So I don't know.

I guess Joe should be here, too. But Willie, why don't you take us to our top story, despite Barnicle? Despite Barnicle. We love you, Mike Barnicle. You're giving out dismissals today. I think I'm going to be next year let's see but after yesterday yes we probably deserve a day off after yesterday we've earned it all right let's talk about the debt ceiling a little bit of progress maybe here house speaker kevin mccarthy shifted to a tone of optimism yesterday on those negotiations saying a deal

could be made now in time in order to avoid a default. I just believe where we were a week ago and where we are today is a much better place because we've got the right people in the room discussing it in a very professional manner with all the knowledge and all the background from all the different leaders and what they want. I know and I can see where a deal can come together. And I think that's important. I can see from our discussions, too, where everybody can get to, where this could raise the debt ceiling, take concerns what we have about our spending,

take concerns about wanting to limit, save and grow. I think we can find common ground. Negotiators for President Biden echoed a bit of that optimism, saying there's been progress made here. The president telling his team to continue to push for programs, as he says, to help everyday Americans. That was in a video call from the G7 summit in Japan yesterday. So, Jonathan Lemire, where is this optimism, this bit of optimism anyway, coming from? Where has been the movement as that June 1st deadline laid out by Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen approaches quickly? The optimism really comes from a shift in tone from negotiators.

They feel like they're making progress, but there hasn't been much in the way of breakthrough of details just yet. But both sides, White House negotiators and the congressional negotiators, the Republicans, have spent a lot of time together over the last couple of days on the Hill, working through this process, the president getting updates from overseas. In fact, his White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, just said he'll actually be leaving early tonight, a dinner, a G7 dinner in Japan, so he can go get another update from his team. He got another one, the first one this morning. We're seeing there.

So Claire McCaskill, though, what's emerging as a sticking point, and we should stress, though there's optimism, a deal is not done and the clock is ticking. It's work requirements right now are part of this, where they're on the table. The president said the other day that he could acknowledge he could live with it, but he didn't want them to be too onerous. But there's been a lot of blowback from the left, from fellow Democrats about this. Where do you see it going? Well, first of all, this is really weird because no one is talking about the fact that for all the food programs that are currently in existence,

both TANF and SNAP, which are the two different programs that people can get assistance buying food, they already have work requirements. They already are there. So all that McCarthy is asking for, which is so irresponsible, he's ready to blow up the economy over moving the age from 50 to 55. That's what they're asking for. They're asking that the exact requirements that are there now just be moved up five years. Now, I get it that that's a bad thing to happen, but certainly you see that there could be some room for negotiation. I don't understand why the Democrats aren't pushing back and saying, hey,

we already have work requirements on food programs. And on Medicaid, over 80% of the people on Medicaid are working, disabled, caring for someone or going to school. There's only 7 percent of the people on Medicaid right now that aren't in one of those activities. And by the way, that 7 percent would only save like 11 billion over 10 years. Compare that to the Republican Trump tax deal for wealthy people. Right. You know, three point five trillion. So really what McCarthy is doing is performance politics around this work requirement. He's not going to accomplish really anything. And I get it that the Democrats are pushing back. But the next big question, Jonathan, we all need to ask besides the B.S. that the work requirement stuff represents,

as far as McCarthy is concerned, is how many Democratic votes will McCarthy need? Right. He's not going to get everybody. And if I was in that negotiating room and I'm sure the people that are in that negotiating room are going, OK, if we agree to anything, Kevin McCarthy, how many votes are you going to have? How many of our voters are you going to need? How many Democratic votes are you going to need to get this across the line in the House? No deal should be cut until you know how many votes McCarthy can deliver. And I don't even know that he's done a hard count.