Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/22/24

Episode Date: May 22, 2024

Trump hush money trial closing arguments next week

They don't want Donald Trump holding rallies because what happens at his rallies? This is five weeks sitting in a courtroom when he should be out reaching the American people and telling the American people what he would like to do for this country. And who shows up? Tens of thousands of people show up at Donald Trump's rallies. The Democrats hate it. There's not another person on the planet that can do that other than the pope. The pope. the pope uh republican congressman troy nails nails of texas with a totally totally normal comparison for the former president the pope okay here we go we're going to have a recap of what happened yesterday in donald trump's criminal hush money trial in just a moment plus trump's comments about birth control that he quickly had to walk back.

Also ahead, a former senior adviser to President Obama lays out an alarming Supreme Court scenario for Democrats. If Donald Trump were to win in November, we'll play for you that warning. That's another one, Elizabeth. We're going to get to that. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Wednesday, May 22nd, and we're in Washington. The table's going, what are we talking about today? With us, we have U.S. special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kay, New York Times, Washington Bureau chief, Elizabeth B. Miller, and deputy managing editor for politics at Politico, Sam Stein is with us.

We'll start with Donald Trump's criminal trial, where testimony in the former president's hush money trial has officially finished. The defense only called two witnesses and yesterday rested their case. Former President Trump did not testify in his own defense, despite telling the press multiple times that he wanted to. You plan to testify in court? Yeah, I would testify, absolutely. It's a scam. It's a scam. Do you plan to testify?

Yes. Does the gang order stop you from testifying? No, it won't stop me from testifying. The gang order is not to testify. Do you plan to testify in court? Probably so. I would like to. I in court? Probably so. I would like to. I mean, I think so.

I mean, there's a story of his life. Who shocked me? Nobody's shocked. I mean, this is a guy that when he said, of course, I'm going to testify, I think I'm going to testify. You knew he wasn't going to testify for a couple reasons. One, he's just a walking perjury machine. Seriously?

You've got a new ice cream machine that you say makes ice cream really quickly and creamy. Yeah, well, he's a ninja perjury machine, right? You just stand in front of it for a couple of seconds. I'm never going to look at the creamy the same way. And it creates instant perjury. And so we all knew he was lying. And it is a lie all along. He knew he wasn't going to testify. Again, I wonder who's stupid enough to believe him. Right. I wonder I wonder why his voters that that that keep going back to this guy when he lost because it's not just about it's about everything. Oh, you know what? I've got a plan for abortion that everybody's going to love. And I'm going to talk about it. And then he just

comes back on states' rights. And then he goes, I've got a plan for health care. It's two weeks away. And of course, those two weeks turn into two more weeks. And he has no plan for health care because he has no plan for anything positive for America. And then yesterday, and we'll get to this in a second. What about contraceptions? Oh, I've got a plan for that. You're going to love it. It's a smart plan. It's going to we're going to take it back to the states. And then again, yeah, we're going to take it back to the states, which means that, well, Clarence Thomas is right. First, they were coming for abortion. Then they're going for contraceptives and they're going to come for marriage equality and they keep going on. That's what he believes in his heart. And then he gets back. I don't really believe anything. That's what he that is one thing he

believes that states should be able to take away women's right to get contraceptives, to have abortions, whatever. Then he goes back to his campaign and go, that was really stupid, Donald. You really dumb, Donald. You need to change your opinion. You're an idiot, Donald. That's what they were saying to him. I'm surprised they talked to him that way, but they do, I guess. And so then he changes his mind again. Wait, no, wait, no. Those are Democrats that are not Democrats saying that, just like it was a Democrat saying that he was going to testify when the whole world knew he was lying about testifying because he would perjure himself on the stand and he was afraid of what he would have to admit about this tawdry encounter with a porn star and a payoff through Michael Cohen. OK, so that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We get right out of the box. He's awake. Yeah, I was worried when I talked to him on the phone this morning that he was a little sleepy. He's had his ice cream. He's already got that.

Yeah, OK, you've done good. You know, it is, Mika, actually. And I know it's so funny. I called you've done good. You know, it is me, actually. And I know it's so funny. I called Elizabeth yesterday as well. And it ends up it's not just me. It's everybody in the Times Washington Bureau. When they're tired, they drink Rudy's drip coffee. Oh, which they all drink. That's what's keeping us away. OK. Has anyone tried the coffee yet? Because Rudy says it's really good.

Nobody's tried the coffee. I'm interested. No. I don't want to taste the hair dye and sweat. It's the hair dye and sweat mixed in that gives it a special flavor. You got to report it out. Yeah. Then you put it in the Ninja, and wow, it's fluffy.

Okay. So when asked why, I'm just sticking to my nice. Oh, yummy. What do you think? What do you think? Oh, my God. This is not real, is it? It is.

Yeah. Unfortunately, this is our world. Twenty twenty four. Center. Can you sell center? Okay. So when asked why he didn't take the stand because the defense has rested in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial, the former president refused to answer. so the trial is uh now on break for the memorial day holiday and will resume next tuesday may 28th for closing arguments judge juan mershon has confirmed there will be court next wednesday

making that the first possible day for jury deliberations let's bring in former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg. Chuck, just your thoughts on Donald Trump's inability or refusal to participate in this. Probably his team got him to not testify because I don't think they would have liked that. And just what about this big gap now? And then what happens scheduling wise for this trial where we might be waiting for a verdict? What's the timeline? Yeah, well, let me start with the first thing first, Mika, if I may. Good morning. It's actually a smart decision by Mr. Trump. So don't often use the word smart decision and Mr. Trump in the same sentence, but it would be rare for a defendant in a criminal case to testify of the 50 or so

criminal cases I prosecuted. I probably saw that happen two or three times and it never, never went well for the defendant when he or she took the stand. And so putting Mr. Trump's noise aside, putting the braggadocio aside, it actually was a smart strategic decision for him not to testify. Prosecutors were ready. I think he would have been shredded. And so I think resting without calling Mr. Trump was a good legal decision. What happens now? Well, right now, both sides are working with the judge to fashion jury instructions. That will be the judge's legal roadmap for the jury when they begin their deliberations. The jurors are the judges of the facts, but the judge supplies the law to the jury to help guide their deliberations.

And then next week, both sides will have the opportunity to argue, to close, to sum up the trial. And after that, Mika, the case goes to the jury and we await their verdict. Chuck, why do these jury instructions matter so much to both sides? Yeah, you know, it's a great question, Katty. And there's not an obvious answer unless you're a lawyer and you've sat through this thing. By the way, sitting through this thing can be painful. I hated this part of trial. Once the defense rested, I felt like I was done, but I wasn't.

So here's an example and just an example. But imagine that the government wants to prove that Mr. Trump caused the entry of false records. They want to prove that the ledgers and the documents were false and that Mr. Trump caused them to be false. So a discussion perhaps only a lawyer could love, Katty. What does it mean to cause something? So, you know, I'm holding a mug of water in front of me right now. If you wanted me to cause me to drop this, you could knock it out of my hand. You would be directly causing me to drop this. You could get Joe to knock it out of my hand. You'd be using a proxy to get me to drop this.

You could sneak up behind me and scare me and maybe I would drop it. So you weren't directly causing me to drop it, but you were indirectly causing me to drop it. And so the government wants a broad definition of cause, not just that he made those entries directly on himself, but that he caused someone else to do it. On the other hand, the defense would want a very narrow definition of cause because liability for the defense from their perspective ought to be narrow. Liability from the prosecution's perspective ought to be broader. And so getting the judge to give the right definition of cause, you knock this out

of my hand, you got someone else to knock this out of my hand, you scared me and I dropped it, helps the prosecution. A narrow definition of causality could help the defense. And please, please, because I just want to remind everybody, please, nobody knocked that out of Chuck's hand. There actually is Rudy coffee inside of it. It burns through tabletops and your lower intestines like sulfuric acid. So let's just keep that right there. And there it is made with some special ingredients that, well, let's just say are banned in 47 states. Chuck, I want to talk about this time that you said you hated as an attorney where you're just sitting and waiting. And, you know, I would watch older uh lawyers i wasn't wasn't like specially

going to the courtroom might have very narrowly defined specialty and uh and the law firm where i worked and that was windows they thought i cleaned windows very well so that's what i did most of the day but i'd watch actually the seasoned attorneys and they would sit and they'd be waiting for the jury and they hated it and they hated it because you never knew what was going to happen. Right. They'd say, you know what? 90 percent of the time. It's right. But you know what? You lose some. You should never win. And you win some. You should never lose. So that's what I hear people on TV trying to predict how a jury is going to come back despite what what you know, where they are, whether they're in New York or or or northwest Florida. Nobody knows because they

really do. They take their job seriously. And that once they get behind those doors, it just takes on its own life, doesn't it? Oh, absolutely. I mean, I could say with confidence that I felt my case went in well. I introduced the evidence I wanted to introduce. I obtained the answers from our witnesses that I wanted to obtain. But it would be crazy, foolish for me to tell you that I knew what a jury was going to do. And I think the reason I hated that part so much is that, you is that maybe as prosecutors, we're a bit of control freaks. And this is the thing we absolutely cannot control. Once the case is submitted to the jury, it's theirs and theirs alone. And all you can do is sit and wait. So I will never tell you that I know what a jury is

going to do. I will tell you that I think the government's case here went in well, well enough to sustain a conviction. Whether or not that happens, I have absolutely no idea. Can I ask a question? Okay, let's go for it. Chuck, if so, what is the, I've heard repeatedly how good the government's case is. What would you guess would be the be if Trump is acquitted? Why would the jury do that? What evidence would they hang that acquittal on? Yeah. And Elizabeth, remember, in order to acquit, they also have to be unanimous, right? An acquittal or a conviction requires a 12-0 verdict. Anything in between would be a mistrial hung jury. But to answer your question, in my experience, when a jury acquits, right, and so that's a unanimous verdict, it's typically,

not always, but typically because they have some question about whether the government met its burden of proof. And that's a significant burden. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I will add this. I think it's really important. Can this jury acquit? Absolutely. Will this jury acquit? I have no idea. But an acquittal is never a vote by a jury that someone is innocent. They are not asked that question. It is guilty or not guilty. And so often when there's an acquittal, the press immediately touts it as a finding of innocence. That is not the finding. But it would typically, Elizabeth, be predicated on a belief by a unanimous jury that the government failed to meet its burden of proof. All right. Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, thank you so much for your analysis this morning. Of course, we'll see you again soon. And though he's not testifying, Donald Trump is still talking a lot.

Yesterday, he unleashed a new line of attack against Judge Juan Merchan upon leaving the courthouse. The former president accused the judge of hating him and having bias against him because of where the judge comes from. The judge hates Donald Trump. Just take a look. Take a look at him. Take a look at where he comes from. He can't stand Donald Trump. He's doing everything in his power.

Sam, what's he talking about? I mean, this is typical Trump, right? This is the same exact version of the line he did back in the 2016 campaign where he said the judge against him in the Trump University case was biased because he was from Mexico. He wasn't as explicit in this case. That was pretty clear. Where he comes from could be, and I think deliberately, a phrase to be interpreted however the viewer wants. But I think we all know what the implication was. And, you know, all of this is sort of surreal, right? That statement in its own right would have been a shock to the system six, seven years ago.

And it was. I remember how we felt when it first happened. But it's become sort of normalized because we've been so inundated with Trump. And I think on the macro scale, too, we've just had a 15-minute conversation about a potential that the presumptive GOP nominee might have a guilty verdict in a hush money payment for a porn star. And I think sometimes we don't really step back

and say to ourselves that what we're living through is a very tense, tumultuous and, frankly, a surreal life. And I think the thing that's almost more interesting than all of that is the degree to which and if you talk to Democrats, they'll admit this as much the degree to which it's not breaking through. And by that, I mean, the polls don't move. Trump's base doesn't move. We have lawmakers who are willingly going to the court. There's an acceptance happening. Yeah, there's an acceptance. Exactly. There's an acceptance to it. And it's become baked into our political psyche. Joe. Well, I mean, Elizabeth, it's it's says it's far more than just concerning or nerve wracking. I mean, this is just open, blatant racism that has now been sort of mainstreamed into American political life.

This did shock people back in 2016 when he was talking about the judge from Mexico. But here's a guy now that says, take a look at him. Look at him. See where he's from. And I will tell you, this is what separates Donald Trump for, say, I'll just speak for myself, for me or for most Americans. I look at him and go, Madison Avenue, Upper East Side. That's what I see when I see him. And I'm dead serious. Donald Trump speaks in code because he wants people to see the judge as another. Everybody's another unless their immigrant parents were from Scotland and Germany.

And so you have people and I'll just go back to it. What did John Meacham call it? The clubhouse, the clubhouse set that are totally fine with the grill, a guy, the grill, the men's. Yeah. The men's club grill at country clubs that are perfectly fine voting for a guy who talks about vermin, a Nazi term who also uses sort of the fascist slogan of go back to where you came from for sitting members of Congress that don't happen to be white. And then yesterday, just take a look at him. Just seriously. Like, what is this, 1933? It is. It still needs to be shocking to us today. But but but, you know, and he's here's a Trump has also said we need more people coming from Norway and the Scandinavian countries. That's pretty out there as well. But I think this is this has been going on since 2016, 2015.

And we've just the population has become just used to it. It's can you imagine if another politician had said something like this? We'd be talking about it for days. With Trump, it's just, we're used to it. It's discounted. And he's bringing up a whole new set of generation, I was trying to think of the right word, category of politicians who do speak this way. And you see them in Congress.

And again, the reaction, there's so much of it, Joe, that it's hard to keep track. And again, you know, without going into the origins of fascism and cults, that's exactly how it starts. When there's chaos, there's a fire hose of this type of information and it's too much to keep up with. And overall, communities and different, whether it's the media or voters or political organizations, become desensitized. Yeah. And, you know, and the voters, I won't say they become desensitized because that's giving them far, far too much leniency. The fact is, well, I mean, they're voting for a racist. It is an active choice to vote for someone who said in December of, and I know this because I was a lifelong Republican who on this show in early December of 2015 when he was talking about Muslim registry saying I would never vote for a man like that in my life, regardless of if it were my father or a woman, if it was my mother, I would never. Right. That's an active choice to say I'm going to vote for him, even though he's supporting Muslim registries.

I'm going to vote for him, even though he's using the old fascist line. Go back to where you came from. I'm going to vote for him. These men men grill enablers are saying when he says, just take a look at him. Look at where he's from. This isn't a passive choice. This isn't a oh, I'm so numb. They can't even hear what he's saying. No, Katty. This is them hearing that he's a racist, hearing that he a racist. These are racist terms. They would have been used by everybody in both parties. I keep going back to that Iowa congressman, King, who got kicked out of the caucus,

we're saying four less in 2015. By other Republicans. By the Republicans. This is no Trump derangement syndrome because Republicans and Democrats pre-Donald Trump in 2016 would have considered any of these statements disqualifying. Now, Caddy, it is an active, active decision by members of the Republican Party, by members of

the United States Senate, by members of the United States House, by Republicans, men grill enabler Republicans, by anybody that's voting for him to vote for someone who's for Muslim registry, to vote for somebody who talks about vermin like Hitler did and vote for people who said go back to where you came from for for for members of Congress who aren't white and are now looking at judges who, again, I'm sorry, very American to me. And and and and I just would never, where did he come from? But for Donald Trump, it's all us versus the others saying about this judge. Oh, you know, he's not going to be fair to me. Look at look at him. Look at where he comes from. Look at him.

I'm sorry. It looks like an American to me. I'm sorry. Look at that. That guy looks like I don't know, looks like one of my law professors, looks like an attorney that I may have sat across the table with. Looks like a bit, you know, a business businessman that I may have dealt with some. But for Trump, for Trump, he hears the name and he goes, look at him, look at where he came from. And people are actively, actively choosing when they go in to vote for this guy, to vote for a bigot, a fascist, a man who says he wants to be an authoritarian and a dictator on day one.

Yeah. I mean, if this were another politician who had not used the kind of language Trump had used before, you could interpret Trump's comments, and he phrases it carefully, as saying this guy comes from New York and therefore he's a Democrat and he will be prejudiced against me. But because we know that Donald Trump has a track record specifically of calling out judges who have come from Hispanic countries, there is an implication here that when he says the words, look at him, I mean, look at, not that there is much to see, but look at him, there is an implication that's what he's doing. But you're right about the otherization. And when you talk to people who study what it takes to have democracies fall or authoritarian regimes rise, the two things they point to are you have to have a normalization of politically violent language and you have to demonize the other whatever the other

is from your context and i think we've seen both of those things happen at a third otherization demonization and celebrating violence whether it's paul pelosi or january 6 defendants he loves to celebrate people who have broken the law and defaced our Capitol and committed violence. But there is hypocrisy because, you know, in Charlottesville, when the other was the people who were walking down saying Jews will replace us, there were not very many Republicans who came out and criticized. Coming up on Morning Joe, we're going to have for you Donald Trump's comments on restricting birth control, which he had to quickly walk back. Also ahead, Senate Democrats plan to force a vote tomorrow on the bipartisan border security bill blocked by Republicans earlier this year. We'll have the latest from Capitol Hill, plus a new warning about what a second Trump term could mean for the future of the Supreme Court. You're watching Morning Joe.

We're back in 90 seconds. Former President Trump said he's, quote, looking at supporting restrictions on a person's right to contraception. So related to this is the whole issue of contraceptives. Do you support any restrictions on a person's right to contraception? Well, we're looking at that and I'm going to have a policy on that very shortly. And I think it's something that you'll find interesting. And it's another issue that's very interesting.

But you will you will find it, I think, very smart. I think it's a smart decision. But we'll be releasing it very soon. Well, that suggests that you may want to support some restrictions, like the morning-after pill or something. We are also, you know, things really do have a lot to do with the states. And some states are going to have different policies than others. But I'm coming out within a week or so with a very comprehensive policy,

which I'll get to you immediately. The Biden campaign put out a statement in response that reads in part, quote, it's clear Trump wants to go even further by restricting access to birth control and emergency contraceptives. It's not enough for Trump that women's lives are being put at risk. He wants to rip away our freedom to access to birth control, too. A short time later, Trump attempted to clean up his remarks, writing in a social media post, quote, I have never and will never advocate imposing restrictions on birth control or other contraceptives

and neither will the Republican Party. And Joe, of course, he was all over the place in his career as a Democrat on abortion. And yet look where we are now. Well, of course, you could listen to a lot of things he said during his first campaign. And now he's running around bragging about ending Roe v. Wade, terminating Roe v. Wade one day, the next day saying, oh, we're going to have a compromise 15 or 16 weeks. But Elizabeth, if you look at what's happening here, he said specifically, I'm working on a plan for contraceptives. We'll have it out in the next couple of weeks. Well, I think I think Griswold V. Connecticut was, I think, around 1965. So he's about you know, he's about 60 years late to the game. But he's still talking about another plan for contraceptives. And then he's talking about let's look at the states. He tries to clean

it up on truth social when his people say, oh, there's bad politics. But I mean, this is exactly what Clarence Thomas wrote about in the Dobbs concurrence. We've we've we've we've come after abortion. We're coming after contraceptives next marriage equality and down the line. Well, he was clearly caught off guard. He seemed very tired in that response. He was just kind of freelancing. Just just wait. I've got a great policy coming on that without realizing what he was actually doing was was

agreeing that, yes, there will be a policy and contraception. We don't need a policy and contraception. It's legal in the United States. So I think it's just an example. This was he looked like a very tired candidate right there. And then the comment about, oh, it's important to leave it to the states. It's very smart. It was just kind of a mess of a response. And once again, he was cleaning up. Let's not forget, you know, 2015, 2016.

He he said, I believe it was to Chris Matthews that women should be punished for having abortions. And that had and then had to walk that back. So he has been all over the map on abortion for many, many years. And just again, with Donald Trump, he often says what his what he feels his audience wants to hear, which is many different things at different points. Right. And you have a combination of his ignorance of the issues in general. But then, as you say, Elizabeth, he looked he looked awfully tired, just completely beaten down and exhausted. Perhaps that that worked together to produce the answer. He said then tried to flip flop a couple hours later. But, man, this would have to be frightening that a guy doesn't even know what America's policy is on contraceptives are saying that he's going to be thinking about changing it in the next couple of weeks. Let's bring in right now NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitale. Ali, this is exactly what Democrats, what women's groups, what women, what their loved ones have feared for quite some time.

It started with abortion. And then, as Clarence Thomas said, they would go open the door to other fashions of controlling how women can have their own say over their own reproductive health care. I mean, I think what's striking about both the instance that you brought up back in 2016 with Chris Matthews, I remember being in that green room and being with the campaign staff. And they didn't seem aware of the fact that he had just made a major misstep outside of the lines of regular Republican policy. I think that's, again, what we're seeing here on contraception is a candidate who doesn't exactly know what lines he's supposed to color within in terms of where the party policy is. That's problematic on a lot of fronts, but it's especially problematic when you color outside the lines in an issue where the party is already out of step with where the public needs it to be. And then he's just kind of teasing this as something that doesn't have real life ramifications when it very much does. It very much does. And since it's kind of all connected,

let's talk about the Supreme Court. Former President Obama advisor Dan Pfeiffer is warning about the impact a second Trump term could have on the Supreme Court. Here's what the Pod Save America co-host said. Think about the stakes of the Supreme Court. If Donald Trump wins, he will almost certainly get two more appointments. By the end of Trump's term, second term where he'd win, Alito will be, or Thomas will be 82, Alito will be 78. They're definitely retiring. They're definitely retiring.

If Trump wins again. And it could be just KBJ, like, holding down the fort. And Justice Son-Major will be 72 at the end of Trump's term. So he will definitely get two appointments. If he has two appointments, that means he will have appointed five Supreme Court justices, all of whom will be around or below the age of 60 when he leaves office. That is a court majority, a MAGA court majority that will rule for decades.

We can win the next however many presidential elections and absent something sort of extraordinary happening, Trump's fingerprints will be all over the Supreme Court. And so I think we should make this a big issue. And we know this works because in 2016, that vacant Justice Scalia seat that McConnell held open was one reason, and you heard this on a lot of focus groups and post-election surveys, that Republicans who did not like Trump at the last minute were willing to hold their nose and vote for Trump because they cared about the Supreme Court. So I think we can do that in reverse. Here we go, Sam Stein. I mean, this thought of that Supreme Court under a second Trump term and women's rights have already been scaled back. Our health is now less safe because of Donald Trump and Supreme Court choices.

Imagine exactly what Dan Pfeiffer is imagining moving forward. It's frightening. Well, a couple of things here. One is if Trump is to lose this November, it will almost certainly be because of his appointees to the Supreme Court. By that, I mean he has himself taken credit for appointing the justices who overturned Roe by the issuance of Dobbs. And that line, that individual line, more than anything else up to this point,

I think is the most determinative line of the election. So I think the Supreme Court, Dan is absolutely right, is a monumental issue in that sense. Secondarily, Dan's also right about the actuary tables, right? The justices are getting older. The next president likely will get to appoint one or two. I think there's probably going to be an incentive for the two conservative justices to stay on if Biden is reelected. But yes, this is an issue up for debate. And then three, I think the sort of larger, sort of more morbid discussion is, is this really the way we want the Supreme Court to be decided? I mean, we're basically waiting for someone to croak.

And there's larger conversations to be had about reforming the court to make it so that you do not have this type of intense governing entity be decided by someone's health, well-being, but rather you can do something that has term limits or structures that every president gets a certain amount of appointments. That discussion is not happening. I just want to be clear. Right. Maybe it should be. But it still leads to that. Go ahead, Joe. Well, I just say, Mika, this is this is an extraordinarily important discussion that needs to continue to be had. It's a I wrote a column about this in The Washington Post about four years ago where I laid it out directly. There has to be court reform. You can't have, for instance, Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade was overturned because Ruth Bader Ginsburg went to an event, got sick and died. History hung on that balance. The right, the 50 year right ended because of that. And it is this ghoulish spectacle of people trying to hang on for dear life until their party comes into power. James Fallows has been on our show before and has talked about the expansion of the Supreme Court that has been thought out for the last 20, 30 years, where each president gets two selections and you term limit, you term limit Supreme Court justices. I think America may be the only Western power that has judges appointed for life. It's a crazy process. Now, here's the reason why conservatives who's well, faux conservatives, phony conservatives

will blow their stack over this. They'll go, oh, this is this is this is not constitutional. You're you're undermining. No, we're not undermining the Constitution. If we do this as a country, if we try to depoliticize this process, well, we're reforming the United States Supreme Court, Mika. George Washington obviously set it up. Adams tried to do it. Thomas Jefferson changed the number of people on the court. Andrew Jackson changed the number of people on the court. Andrew Jackson changed the number of people on the court. Abraham Lincoln changed the number of people on the court. After Lincoln's death, they changed the number of people on the court.

This is something that happened regularly until the 20th century. FDR tried it and it didn't. It went sideways for him. So then every president's like, whoa, not going to do that again. But maybe they decided not to do that for political reasons because it ended so badly for FDR. But the Constitution provides for this. And I would love to see Republicans and Democrats in the future look at what Sam's talking about. And that is a reform of the Supreme Court that expands the court, that has term limits for federal judges and gives every president two Supreme Court picks

during her or his term. And that way, it's not left to chance. That way, there's an orderly procedure. And that way, people don't get one point five billion dollars to try to rig elections and transform the way the United States Supreme Court is run. Yeah, no, it doesn't seem like something that's going to be solved right now, which is what makes Dan Pfeiffer's comments even more frightening. But it does. It would be good to address this at some point, given the reality right now. Ali Vitale, you're here to talk about this border bill, which I guess Senate Democrats are planning to force a vote tomorrow. What's the point of this?

To once again highlight the issue. I mean, we watched this bill be negotiated in bipartisan fashion at the end of last year and into the early months of this year. Senator Lankford was the Republican. Senator Sinema was in the room as the independent who tends to bring these parties together. And of course, Senator Chris Murphy was the Democrat. This had a lot of gains in it that Republicans didn't think they were going to get from Democrats as they've had these negotiations over the years. And then, of course, when push finally came to legislative shove, Donald Trump stepped in and basically told party leadership, I'd like to keep this as an active issue in an election year. The border has always been the one issue that he turns to when he's in trouble in the polls or politically. He wanted to keep that alive. Not a sitting member of Congress, not a sitting. Ironically enough, though, the way we

talk about him up on the Hill. But but what Schumer is doing here and he's setting this vote up for tomorrow is trying to say, hey, let's show that Democrats are trying to legislate around this. I would add that Senator Lankford himself, one of the negotiators, the Republican, has said he's now not going to vote for this because it has become, in his words, a prop as opposed to a policy. And Senator Cory Booker is someone who also had voted for this bill initially, trying to get it at least through a procedural vote. Now he has said that he did that to show he was committed to bipartisanship, but now he's not going to vote for this because he thinks there's problems with the underlying

bill, too. So, yeah. Elizabeth, how successful do you think Democrats are going to be in trying to do what they're doing here in the Hill tomorrow, trying to actually capture immigration as something that can work in their favor? And we've we have seen border crossings down by 40 percent since December. Mostly that's because what the Mexicans are doing. It's not because of what's happening on this side of the border, but it could they turn this story around? And it's true that it's been kind of lessened as the border crossings are down. It's less outrage in the headlines. It's one of the biggest biggest it's one could it just disappear as an issue if the mexicans carry on doing what they're doing at the moment i mean maybe keep speaking to it'll probably go back up again but i don't i don't know they are trying very hard this is their this is a very very serious issue for the democrats

but this gives them a big talking point we passed this bill in the Senate and it will never become law. But we passed it and the Republicans were the obstructionists and it was all Donald Trump's fault. We shall see. It's a huge issue with voters and it's they've got an uphill climb on this one. And it's even though, you know, you know, and we keep waiting to see and it doesn't seem to happen anytime soon for Biden's executive action on the border. But I think the White House has decided that should he decide to put this these these restrictions in place, he'll get attacked by the left part of the party. And then also there'll be lawsuits instantly and he'll look very weak. So this is I think this is one way that Chuck Schumer is working with the White House

to try and make it work. NBC's Ali Vitale. Thank you very much. Great job on way too early. Thank you for coming on this morning and coming up a conversation on the strength of our democracy. Our next guest asked the question, is America dictator proof amid Donald Trump's claims he will be one, but only for a day. That's straight ahead on Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Jalen Brown's tying three-pointer in the final seconds of regulation brought the Boston Celtics back from 13 down in the second half and sent last night's series opener against the Indiana Pacers into overtime. Jason Tatum scored 10 of his game-high 36 in the extra period as the Celts took advantage of 21 turnovers by the Pacers

to win game one of the Eastern Conference Finals, 133-128. Series remains in Boston for game two tomorrow night. Barnacle, you're with us now. What did you think? You watched the game? Yeah, I did watch the game, and I watched Jason Tatum nearly throw the game away with a lazy pass over his shoulder and force them into overtime. That was upsetting.

The Pacers are not going to go away here, Sam. No, Pacers are feisty. They took the Knicks down in seven. They're a good team. I was nervous, man. That Jalen Brown three in the corner was clutch, but that looked like that was going to slip away. Yeah, but they've got to really shape.

They've got to get tougher. They've got to get tougher and stay in the game. All right, we're moving on. Before we move on, we've got to get tougher. They've got to get tougher and stay in the game. All right, we're moving on. Before we move on, we've got to talk about another thing in Boston really quickly, Mike Barnicle. And by the way, the Pacers aren't going to have that many turnovers every night. The Celtics are going to have to play better. They're going to have the same fate that the Knicks had.

But, Mike, the Sox, I don't know now, but they put together two really good, and I don't just mean good, good, solid games with a young pitcher giving up two runs in the first inning. And that's when it gets interesting. Do they fold or do they keep going? And the Red Sox were showing this because they're actually winning a game or two in a row here. But also the first series victory at the Trop. Since 2019. In five years. Yeah.

In five years. And how great was Duran last night? You know, Duran has actually really surprised me, Joe. I've liked his speed. I liked his combativeness. I like the fact that he likes to play every day. But I always suspected that he was not a great outfielder. He might still not be a great outfielder, but he's vastly improved.

And that leads to why the Red Sox are still playing well above their heads, I think. Defensively, they have all improved. The Red Sox have now proven that they can play defensive baseball. I will say there's nothing prettier than watching Duran try to take third on a ball in the gap. It's a lovely sight. Look, Katika is desperate for more baseball news. Mika Tu dying for me to keep on script here. I'm taking notes. Yeah, no, don't worry. So let's stay with Major League Baseball. We will begin in Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh's pirate slugger O'Neal Cruz, a rocket, obliterated the ball last night, becoming the first player to record three hits with an exit velocity of over 115 miles per hour in a single game. Look, two of them eclipsed 120 miles per hour.

These are absolute bullets. That included the game-tying double with two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning. The Pirates went on to beat the San Francisco Giants in extras 7-6. Let's go Bucs. Come on, let me keep reading the script. To Philadelphia, Phillies fans seated along the wall in right center field lost a tray of nachos. Devastating. How could this happen to a Rangers home run ball?

Corey Seager's eighth inning solo shot that sent the cheesy snap off the field and onto the outfield grass. Look, we cover a lot of tragedy here, but that one is the worst. As for the game, Phillies ace Ranger Suarez extended one of the greatest season opening runs in league history, striking out 10 batters over seven innings of work to improve to 9-0. Lead the Philadelphia Phillies to its MLB best 35th win. A 5-2 victory over the defending champion Texas Rangers. Now, finally, I can stop talking. Joe, all to you. Couple questions.

You did a wonderful job. Mike, let's talk about a pitcher right now. And I think he's up tonight. A couple years ago, it was, was you know DeGrom night in America now whenever DeGrom would go on the mound before you know he got hurt in the third game every season now though we've got this kid out of Pittsburgh Paul Skaines I think he's up again tonight he went out last his last outing just absolutely Cy Young material. Talk about this kid, how special he is. And I think we're expecting him to pitch tonight, right? I think he's on the slot for

tonight. Yeah, he's 6'5", 235 pounds, throws an average of 102 miles an hour most of the night. You know, he is not yet on the docket for having Tommy John's surgery. Let's hope he continues. But he's a big, strong, healthy kid. And it is awesome watching him watching, watching really talented major league hitters just have no idea how they're going to get around on a high fastball that he comes up in the strike zone, in the strike zone, high in the strike zone, impossible to reach. Pittsburgh needs him. Baseball needs him. But he's a young pitcher. We want him to stay healthy. One of the few young pitchers, please, God, keep Paul Skeens healthy. A great kid. He throws a lot of off-speed pitches. He doesn't depend on the 102-mile-an-hour fastball.

So let's hope he has a few years ahead of him. And yeah, Major League batters are going to have another day to prepare for him because Alex corrects me and says he's going to be pitching actually tomorrow afternoon for the Pirates. I do want to just, we do have to circle back to Katty K because she's not been given an opportunity to gloat over City once again winning the Premier League. I know there was a lot of screaming in your house, especially in the first half.

When it looked like things might get a little tighter with West Ham than expected. But at the end, another title for Man City. I mean, history-making, right? First team to do have four titles in since 18 something or other. As Tom kept telling me all of Sunday when we had to watch over and over again. Yeah, a lot. They were very, very he was it was a good day in my household. My Arsenal loving son, a little less happy.

I'm not sure they've spoken yet since the weekend, but they they put to bed. Harlan came through good team played well strike hard all that nice money as my husband keeps saying seems to produce results okay look at that absolutely incredible i just i just want to say to our uh my my my friend who watches the show regularly and uh emailed me earlier this saying, why don't you do more women's softball? We will, Mika, in fact, be reporting on college softball for women as they get to the finals. And we may even do something we haven't done and report on college baseball for men as well. But we're following women's softball and we'll be reporting on it

when they get to the finals. Good, good, good advice we got from your friends. Still ahead.