Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/24/24

Episode Date: May 24, 2024

The Morning Joe panel discusses the latest in U.S. and world news, politics, sports and culture

A lot of people say to me today, the toughest business people, people that you know about, could I ask you a question? How do you do it? I say, do what? How do you get up in the morning and put your pants on? Where do you put the pants on? I'll explain it to you someday. I'm so tired of politics. I'm OD'd. You know what that means? I'm OD'd on politics. I'm OD'd on Trump. I turn on the television. Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, all different sides. Trump, they're driving us crazy. That's Donald Trump complaining about being in the news too much and something about putting on his pants during his rally yesterday in the Bronx. We'll have much more from that event, which was supposed to be

a pitch to non-white voters in deep blue New York City. Also making headlines this morning, why Ohio's Republican governor is calling a special legislative session to make sure President Biden will be on the ballot this fall and Louisiana will soon to become the first state to classify abortion pills as controlled, dangerous substances. We'll go through that legislation and its possible impact in November's elections. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Friday, May 24th. We made it to Friday. It was in doubt there for a while. I'm Jonathan Lemire and I'm alongside the BBC's Katty Kay. We're in for Joe, Mika, and Willie.

Good Friday morning to you, Katty. Yeah, newsflash, Donald Trump knows how to put his trousers on. I think that's worth waiting for Friday for. We now have that. I suppose we could put that in its appropriate context later, or we just leave it out there like that and make people wonder just what he was talking about. With us, though, to dive into this important story, Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post and an MSNBC political analyst, Eugene Robinson, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign

Relations, Richard Haass. He is the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, which is available on Substack. And you just saw her host way too early, former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department's Elise Jordan, a great group to carry us through this Friday. Thank you all for being here. We're going to start, though, with an update on a story that broke on our air last week around this time. The Louisville Metro Police Chief says the department has taken corrective action against the officer who arrested world number one golfer Scotty Scheffler before the second round of the PGA Championship last Friday. That as police have now released new video of the incident. NBC News correspondent Stephanie Goss has more. Scotty Scheffler, the number one ranked golfer in the world, teeing off Fort Worth.

While back in Louisville, Kentucky, police released new video of his early morning arrest before the second round of the PGA Championship on Friday. These silent images show Scheffler's car apparently being stopped by a police officer who makes contact with it. An unrelated fatal collision had taken place earlier. Traffic was blocked and Scheffler was trying to get to the country club. Police say this video is moments after an alleged assault took place against a detective. According to the arrest report, the golf pro tried to drive around traffic and was told to stop by police. It says Scheffler refused to comply and accelerated forward, dragging a detective to the ground. That moment was not captured in the video. According to police, the detective suffered from pain, swelling and abrasions. But the incident was blocked by a bus and he did not have his body camera on.

Right now, right now he's going to jail. Louisville police announced the detective Brian Gillis has been reprimanded for not turning on his camera. According to records provided by police to NBC News, he has been disciplined six times, including two suspensions for violating department policies. As for Scheffler, his attorney responding to the video released all the evidence that continues to come out just continues to support what Scottie said all along this was a chaotic situation and a miscommunication the golfer spoke out the day of his arrest can't comment any specifics but my situation will be handled it was just a uh just a big misunderstanding Scheffler

is facing multiple charges including assaulting a police officer and reckless driving. His lawyer says he will plead not guilty at the arraignment on June 3rd. The officer also reported that his pants were torn, unable to be repaired after that incident. So we've had a lot of pants talk already this morning. Richard Haas, our Morning Joe Gulf correspondent, we needed to bring you in right away on this. I know you've been following this story intimately. I mean, the video is a little tough to make out, but it certainly doesn't look like much of anything beyond a little bump, perhaps indeed backing up Scheffler's version of events. This was simply a chaotic misunderstanding. I know you've been following it intimately. Jonathan, I don't know. In this world we live in with the crime levels

that we have, the idea that this police department would be focusing on Scotty Scheffler, who is the most religious, straight-laced person in all of golf, over this kind of an incident because the police officer got his trousers torn and, by the way, forgot to put on his body cam. This is preposterous. It looks like the local prosecutors also want to make names for themselves. If you saw the hearing where there was a whole argument over whether to postpone the arraignment, these were third, you know, the old line, 50% of all lawyers, you know,

graduate in the bottom, you know, bottom half of their class. This guy was beyond that. And this just seems to me is local incompetence. If I were running the Chamber of Commerce, I'd be really ticked off. If I were the mayor, when do you think the next time Major League Sports going to go to Louisville if they see this kind of Bush League action? So let's bring in someone who graduated top half of this class. We hope. MSNBC legal analyst. I apologize. Danny Savala. So, Danny, let's get your analysis here of what you've heard so far in this case. So much going on. I am so glad you brought up the video of the hearing because that to me was my litmus test. I was already suspicious reading the police report. But once I saw the hearing, it really confirmed for me what we're dealing with here. Let's start with just the police report. What's really interesting to me and the videos are helpful.

But consider this. So the video, the report goes from Detective Gillis stopped subject and attempted to give instructions. Subject refused to comply and accelerated forward, dragging Detective Gillis. Wait a minute. At what point was the detective in contact with the car that was left out? I've read a lot of police reports in my time and police officers are trained to write reports, not all of them and not in a bad way, but they're trained to write reports in a way that benefits them. And so the big question for me is if he had run over the officer, that would have been in the report. If the officer had been standing in front of the car and he was struck by the car as he accelerated forward. That would have been in the report. It's when they leave things out. And the question for me is you were dragged. Wait a minute. At what point were you in contact with the vehicle? Did you grab at it after he was already pulling away

and you couldn't? He didn't know that you were doing that. That to me is problematic. Now we go to the court hearing. And I'm so glad that you watched that because you saw a 15 minute argument over a routine continuance request. The attorneys for Scheffler were saying, hey, we have a scheduling issue. Can we just do this in June on June 3rd? Not late August, not November, not Christmas. They wanted a several day continuance and the D.A DA was arguing against it. Number one, the key for me is that they were saying everyone needs to be treated the same. He's not special. That kind of language gave me pause because, again, we're talking about a continuance request of a few days.

And the second thing is in that 15 minute hearing, the DA crowbarred in that Scott Scheffler traveled by private jet. And if that is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not there's a continuance request. I have never heard that raised in any normal hearing. Hey, listen, we have a scheduling conflict. Yes, but the defendant has a private jet. It's like a private jet discrimination, you know, just outrageous. We often say that celebrities get special treatment and that's a fair argument. You go back to O.J. There are plenty of examples of celebrities getting special treatment in courtrooms.

But sometimes celebrities get hyper focused treatment from prosecutors. And I've pointed many times to the Alec Baldwin Rust case, which I think is a case of prosecutors in a small town wanting to put a trophy on their wall. And right away in this case, I've seen no less than two, maybe three indicators that the same thing is going on. So certainly, Eugene Robinson, there was accusations of special treatment when Scheffler was on his tee time just two hours after being arrested, saying, well, that wouldn't happen for most people. But now the more we learn about this case and we let's be clear, are only learning about it because he is a celebrity athlete. But it sure seems like even in this small moment, it speaks to a larger point about police and now perhaps prosecutorial overreaction. Yeah. And I love it that the world of golf is now ablaze with this fervor over

civil liberties and police overreach. I think that's amusing. And it's a good thing, you know? Yes, let's take a look, golfers, at what the police are doing out there. And maybe we need some reforms. Yeah, but I'm very glad to see that the Paris commune is still defending private jets. So that's a good thing. Exactly. The world is not totally turned upside down.

So from one rather kind of extraordinary story to another, now the race for the White House. Wish I could have thought about her so way. And Donald Trump's rally in New York City last night. After spending weeks in lower Manhattan for his criminal hush money trial. Trump traveled uptown to the Bronx yesterday to make his pitch to an area of predominantly black and Latino voters. There, Trump claimed that the remaining Israeli hostages in Gaza, whom he said are probably dead. Of course, we don't know that would still be alive if the 2020 election

hadn't been stolen from him. He also claimed migrants were overtaking public spaces while speaking from a public park. Many of the hostages that you're waiting for and everybody's waiting for those hostages, many of them are dead. Many of them are dead. And it's a horrible thing. It's a horrible thing. But many of those hostages are dead. Some will be alive, but many of those hostages are dead. It's a very serious, horrible thing. It would have never happened if the election weren't rigged.

It says right now, you don't have public spaces. They're occupied by migrants in tents. They're coming from so many places. We don't have public spaces. They're occupied by migrants in tents. They're coming from so many places. We don't have any idea. In many cases, we don't even know what the language. You know, you have languages that people don't even know about. And we're not talking about just South America countries. We're talking about countries from Africa.

I think they're building an army. They're 29,000 people over the last... I think they're building... They want to get us from within. I think they're building an army. There are 29,000 people over the last. I think they're building. They want to get us from within. I think they're building an army. This is not, you know, it's interesting. Did you see them? They all have tents. They all have gas fired stoves. I mean, this is not like an illegal immigrant. This is they're building something. They have something in mind. They cannot stay. We will immediately begin the largest criminal deportation operation in our country's history. I'm interesting to hear the cheers from the crowd there, John. And we should point out,

you know, there were some the permit had gone in for something like seven thousand people. The Trump campaign is claiming that they had more like 30,000. We haven't heard of any violations of that permit request for 7,000 yet. So that is probably more like the number. But he did manage to bring in Hispanic and black people from the area into that rally. Size may not have been as big as the campaign is saying. Yeah, it would be the first time that Trump ever exaggerated about crowd size. We should also know. No, no, no, not a thing he does.

Never happened before. We should also note that, yes, he drew a sizable crowd there to a deep blue part of New York City. But if it is 7,000 or so, the Bronx, of course, has a population of 1.4 million. So it's a pretty small percentage still of people who showed up for Donald Trump. But Eugene Robinson, this is, first of all, it's Trump mostly attached to New York City because of the criminal trial, although it is on a couple of days hiatus. But that's why he's been in been in New York and doing some events. It is making a pitch, though, in the campaign is trying to move some black and Latino voters. And they can point to some poll numbers saying they're having at least at this point in the race, a little bit of success.

Tell us, though, what you think of what he's saying. Is this something that's actually going to translate into votes in November? Or is this just sort of a dissatisfaction of the choices? Maybe they're not some black and Latino voters not happy with Joe Biden and are just sort of casting about, looking at Trump, looking at third candidates, but will eventually come home. Well, look, there are a lot of voters across the country, all kinds of voters, who are not thrilled with the choice they have this fall. That said, I think this is more a matter of people coming in to the Bronx from elsewhere and people in the Bronx who were kind of curious at the spectacle. I mean, New Yorkers love a show, and he puts on a show. But in terms of what he's saying, what in the world is he saying? He's talking about his pants. He's talking about, you know, all this ridiculous stuff. And

it's somewhat entertaining. But, you know, it sounds to me, I was looking around last night to try to figure out how many people actually showed up. It seems to really be in the low single-digit thousands. I mean, maybe not 7,000 from the sources I was looking at, maybe fewer than that. So, I think this is kind of a blip. It's a demonstration project. He's trying to show, I guess, that he's getting some love from African-Americans and Latinos. I just don't think this is necessarily going to play one way or the other on the larger canvas of the electorate. I just don't see a big deal. You know, Gene makes the point that there wasn't really the crowd that probably Trump had hoped for. Doesn't seem to really be the energy either. You know, the Trump show back in 2016, it was something that you tuned into a little bit because it was so freaky. And now he has he has lost his ability almost to shock because he said so many horrible things by now.

He's running low on material. And so these big events that, you know, previously he could command a news cycle with. It's just he says a couple of insane things and then it just, you know, drops. Well, speaking of the one of the insane things that he has said lately, it's certainly an incendiary claim is that Donald Trump is now trying to fundraise off a false accusation that suggests that President Biden authorized his assassination during a search of his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida, nearly two years ago. The former president sent out an email yesterday to members on his mailing list with this subject line, Biden's DOJ was authorized to shoot me. Trump and his allies have pointed to a recently unsealed court filing which describes a policy statement outlining the standard operating procedure by which the FBI is authorized to use deadly force if deemed necessary during any situation when a search warrant is indeed executed. It was not unique to the FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago property, and it's actually intended to limit the use of deadly force.

Attorney General Merrick Garland yesterday called Trump's allegation extremely dangerous. That allegation is false and it is extremely dangerous. The document that is being referred to in the allegation is the Justice Department's standard policy limiting the use of force. As the FBI advises, it is part of the standard operations plan for searches. And in fact, it was even used in the consensual search of President Biden's home. The attorney general there makes a good point that President Biden's home, same standard applied. So Richard Haas, obviously, you worked in government for quite some time. You're familiar with such things. But this this seems like a very dangerous accusation. We're used to Donald Trump saying things that are inflammatory. But this one seems to potential for real problems.

Well, I find the most dangerous thing about it is that it once again mainstreams or normalizes political violence. What this is part of is his larger message with his supporters, because if he can say the president was prepared to kill him, as preposterous as that is, that in some ways, Jonathan, empowers his supporters to go out and use force on behalf of Trump and his cause. And that, to me, is what's so pernicious about this. It reinforces the idea that political violence is somehow permitted. It's now entered the American mainstream. That is what is truly dangerous about this. The criminal justice system is full of boilerplate language. We cut and paste and cut and paste from documents all the time. This can be something that's already on a form or it can be something that is literally just highlighted, cut and pasted into another document. This is part of the DOJ's justice manual. This is part of what they

use in language all the time. I am so accustomed to seeing this kind of boilerplate language that my eye usually skips right over it. So this is not something that is unusual. It's something that appears, as Merrick Garland said, as standard language. So it's not something to be interpreted as some kind of authorization to use deadly force, especially because it is so standardized. I mean, it's the kind of thing that I think nobody would have noticed. But Trump seized on it. I mean, look, whether you're in federal or state criminal court, forms are such a part of daily life that usually we end up referring to them by their numbers, not even by the form itself. In federal court, it's a 302. In state court,

it might be something else. But this is not unusual. Criminal justice, unfortunately, is a world of forms. And, Cady, what is also not unusual is that an incendiary claim made by Trump is being amplified by his syncopants and supporters, Marjorie Taylor Greene, among others, also talking about this assassination plot against the former president. Yes, I've been thinking about the differences between the UK general election and the US election that has just been called the UK general election. And I was thinking of things like the fact that it's only going to cost us $75 million, right? I mean, it's bargain basement democracy over in the UK. It's only going to take six weeks, not what sometimes feels like six decades for this election to roll around.

The other difference is that you do not have one candidate putting out statements to raise money, saying that the other is locked and loaded against him or accusing. Keir Starmer is not out there accusing Rishi Sunak of trying to assassinate him and whipping up his supporters who might then have violent intentions against members of the Conservative Party. So two very different election scenarios. But I think that locked and loaded comment is a real indication of just how far out of most of Western Europe's kind of political parameters America is right now. And as Richard was saying earlier, it is this rather alarming normalization of violent language. And we know that some of the things that lead to the demise of democratic institutions and rises of autocracy, one of the key elements of that is normalizing violent political language because it leads to a whole load of other things. So just one more thing that's different. And we have seen political violence. We have seen Trump inspire the riot January 6th at the U.S. Capitol. And as he talks about this perceived assassination attempt against him, let's remember

his lawyers argued that he should have complete immunity, which includes potentially assassinating political opponents while in office. So this is indeed, indeed dangerous rhetoric. MSNBC legal analyst Dan Stavallis, thank you for your insights this morning. Have a good weekend. Still ahead here on Morning Joe, Donald Trump touts his relationship with Vladimir Putin in new claims that the ex-president can get Russia to free imprisoned Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovitz. We'll dig into that new bizarre and dangerous campaign promise. Plus, we'll go live to Beijing amid heightened tensions between China and Taiwan.

You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be back in 22 a.m here on the east coast as we turn to look at some news from overseas china has staged drills for a second consecutive day with a clear message aimed at taiwan voters reports reports that the beijing government conducted mock missile strikes today and dispatched bombers carrying live missiles and exercises designed to punish the island for, quote, separatist acts in the wake of that country electing a new president. A statement released by a branch of the People's Liberation Army said the drills were to test the ability to jointly seize power, launch joint attacks and occupy key areas foreboding to be sure. Joining us now live from Beijing, NBC News international correspondent Janice McEvoy. Janice, so good to see you this morning. So tell us more about these drills and

the intent Beijing is trying to send. Well, what China is making clear is that they don't like Lai Ching-feu, who was sworn in as Taiwan's 16th president earlier this week. And within days of taking the job, they've launched these military drills that are not the heaviest or the most extensive that we've seen in recent years, but they are expansive enough to send a message, one of strong punishment, according to officials, and also to serve as a reminder that China is rehearsing for what could be an eventual blockade of the island. Taiwan has scrambled its jets and military to be on alert. And officials there have called China's actions, quote, irrational provocation. Now, the island has become accustomed to having PLA jets and Chinese ships doing patrols and incursions, activities that have become almost normalized

in recent years. But what we are seeing and hearing now is much sharper language and much sharper rhetoric. Wang Yi here, China's foreign minister, saying, quote, all Taiwan independent separatists will be nailed to the pillar of shame in history. And the escalation follows Lai's inauguration speech, which I attended earlier this week, where Lai affirmed Taiwan's sovereignty and also urged China to stop making threats. And an important line in that speech, he said China should, quote, face the reality of the Republic of China's existence. And it's that sort of language, Jonathan, that that positions Taiwan and mainland China as equals. That has offended the leadership here in Beijing.

And anything short of endorsing China's position was, of course, going to invite an angry response. Janice McEfrayer, live in Beijing. Thank you so much. And joining us now is the co-founder of the cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike and co-founder of the think tank called Silverado Policy Accelerator. Dmitry Alperovich, his book is titled World on the Brink, How America Can Beat China in the Race for the 21st Century. It's available now. Dmitry, we've seen the Chinese kind of buzzing Taiwan, encroaching onto this air defense identification zone, the zone around Taiwan with both ships and with aircraft. For the last three decades,

China has been building up its military with longer range missiles. How seriously do you take the prospect of a war between China and Taiwan? Look, as I write in the book, I think we're on a path to conflict here. It's not immediate. I don't think it's going to happen this year or next. But in the next 48 years, I think Xi Jinping is committed to taking Taiwan. And I think he's— With an actual invasion. With an actual invasion, because I don't think that a blockade scenario can work, because Taiwan has capabilities to break through that blockade, and you're going to end up in a war anyway. So we might as well just launch one to take over Taiwan. But he wants this to happen under his watch while he's in power. In 2032, he'll be 79, may not get another five-year term. And their system, unlike ours, perhaps, they don't tend to elect their leaders into their 1980s. So

that next eight years is going to be really dangerous. What does that invasion look like, though, Dimitri? How does that start? How does it proceed? Can it be done without a blockade? I mean, because of the resupply issue, how does this work? Well, you're going to have a blockade. And what they've done just now in this exercise is they've completely encircled the island with 19 warships, 49 combat aircraft. The actual invasion would be several magnitudes more than that. Of course, you're going to need to bring in hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy this island of 24 million people. This is going to be a massive invasion. And I believe it's going to start with an airborne assault on key installations in Taiwan, the port facilities facing the Taiwan

Strait, the airfields in Taiwan, to try to occupy that and bring in massive amounts of troops onto the island. Richard, what would be the hazard for U.S. forces in the region under Dmitry's scenario if they wanted to try to defend Taiwan, given that the PLA, People's Liberation Army, now has long enough range missiles that it can actually strike U.S. assets in the region, how would they get close enough to defend Taiwan but far enough away to keep themselves safe? Well, there's that challenge, Cady. There's also the challenge of time. China has the advantage of proximity. They potentially have the advantage of time. China has the advantage of proximity. They potentially have the advantage of surprise. And the United States does not maintain enormous forces in that part of the world. And the question is, to what extent would China create something of a fait accompli? It's

one thing to defend Taiwan. It's another thing to liberate Taiwan. And the real question to me is our ability to get there early. That was actually the question I wanted to bring to Dimitri, which is we can't change Chinese dreams. We know what the mainland we want. We know that they constantly talk about rejuvenation. They can't deliver high levels of economic growth. So now Taiwan is the way they legitimize themselves. What is it that we're not doing? Taiwan, the United States and Japan, the three critical entities here. What is it that we're not doing that we need to do in order to persuade Xi Jinping that as much as he wants Taiwan, it would be a fool's errand to go after it? Well, I think we need to engage in aggressive deterrence across the entire spectrum of our capabilities.

Certainly military. We need to expand our ability to deploy missiles and naval mines and drones near the Taiwan Strait to be able to strike the Chinese armada as it's crossing the strait. But we also need to engage in economic deterrence. The name of the game for Xi is going to be to try to keep America out of this conflict because he knows that if we're not coming to Taiwan's aid, he can defeat Taiwan. He can defeat the Taiwanese military. So he's going to try to send us a message that he can ruin our economy by increasing our reliance on semiconductors produced in China, critical minerals like rare earths and others that are refined and processed in China that we need to manage our economy.

And certainly, Elise, we know that Xi Jinping has been watching the world's response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, so robust at first, and then obviously here in the United States, really delayed with Republicans throwing up roadblocks. He has to be keeping an eye also on the American political system, knowing that certain candidates for president might be less inclined to intervene than others. No, definitely. And he's watching which candidates he thinks, who would be more receptive, perhaps, although I don't think that Donald Trump necessarily would be. Dimitri, I love that you cited two presidential examples for grand strategy going forward when dealing with China. And you cited Harry S. Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

What is it about those two presidents? What can we learn about how we can pursue a relationship that's productive with China? Well, since the 1940s and really through the early 1960s, also with John F. Kennedy, of course, we focus on another conflict with the Soviet Union, of course, with the Cold War, the first Cold War, as I call it, because I think we are in the second Cold War with China. And we focus on deterring the Soviet invasion of West Berlin. In fact, President Kennedy in 1961 went on American television and warned America that we're going to fight for this outpost surrounded by East Germany that Khrushchev wanted to take in that summer of 1961.

And we were even going to be willing to risk nuclear war to defend freedom in that part of the city. Well, I think the same thing is now playing out in Taiwan, where we have to make a case to the American public that Taiwan is really important to the U.S. interests, not just because it produces so many semiconductors that we rely on in our new digital economy, but also because of its vital geopolitical position. General Douglas MacArthur in 1950 had called for Mosa, or Taiwan as Taiwan was called at the time, an unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is key to the domination of Asia. If China takes Taiwan, it's going to be able to expand its security and economic influence in a really vital part of the world and diminish ours. OK. There is, of course, some feeling amongst in Beijing that if Europe and America won't defend Ukraine to the hilt,

why on earth would they defend people out in Asia? And the Chinese are watching that. By the way, for the authors amongst us, Richard Haass and Jonathan Lemire, that little pin that Dimitri is wearing is not a flag pin as I thought it was. It's a book pin. We are missing a trick, guys, in our book sales. I've never seen something like that. Gotta promote it. That's right. Yeah, with a pin. I definitely, we need little book pins.

Yeah, and I can read. The new book is called World on the Brink, How America Can Beat China in the Race for the 21st Century. It's available now. Dmitry Alperovich, thank you very much for coming to join us. And coming up, our next guest set out on a mission to understand the U.S. Constitution by living the same way as our founding fathers in the 1700s.

Bestselling author A.J. Jacobs joins us to talk about his, quote, year of living constitutionally. That's coming straight ahead on Morning Joe. The White House on this Friday morning, and with many voters setting their sights on November's election, one citizen has gone back to the past to learn how to improve America's future. A.J. Jacobs is the New York Times bestselling author of the book, The Year of Living Biblically, in which he lived out an entire year adhering to the laws of the Bible. Now Jacobs has undertaken a more modern,

and you could even say patriotic task, with his new book, The Year of Living Constitutionally. One man's humble quest to follow the Constitution's original meaning. This time for an entire year, Jacobs dressed, wrote, drank, and even battled like a citizen of colonial times. A.J. joins us now with something of a costume and a beverage appropriate from the times. A.J., so good to see you this morning. Good morning, John. I actually was just at the earlier this week with our fourth grader on his class field trip to the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a great museum. People should visit it. And they certainly make the

point about how it's such a pertinent living document. Well, you did just that. Exactly. I kept reading in the news that the Supreme Court believes that we should follow the original meaning of the Constitution from 1789. So that's the conservative majority. And I said, let me take them at their word and actually try to be the ultimate originalist and live like they did back then. So I carried a musket on the streets of New York. I gave up social media and wrote with a quill pen. I quartered soldiers. And the idea was to have this, hopefully a crash course, an entertaining crash course in the Constitution, but also to show that the Constitution needs to evolve. It can't be frozen in time.

So let's dig into this a little more. A.J., in the beginning of the book, you explain how and why you will live constitutionally, writing in part this. I will exercise my First Amendment right to free speech, but I'll do it in the old fashioned way by scratching out pamphlets with a quill pen and handing them out on the street. My right to assemble? I will assemble at coffee houses and taverns, not over Zoom or Discord. If I'm to be punished, I will insist my punishment not be cruel and unusual, at least not cruel and unusual by 18th century standards. Thanks to the Third Amendment, I may choose to quarter soldiers in my apartment, but I will kick them out onto the street if they misbehave.

My goal is to understand the Constitution and expressing my rights as they were interpreted back in the era of Washington and Madison. I want, as much as possible, to get inside the minds of the founding fathers, and by doing so, I want to figure out how we should live today. Well, I'm glad you weren't quartering in the medieval sense. At first, I was like, but then I realized you meant quarter in your apartment. At first I was like, ah, but then I realized you meant, you know, quarter in your apartment. So what was it like your sleepover with these soldiers? Well, first of all, it's very difficult to find a soldier to quarter nowadays. I went to Times Square and asked a bunch of sailors if they wanted to quarter. And it was not, I was able to find one,

a friend of a friend who was quartering, who would be willing to quarter. My wife didn't love having a guy in our house, but he was very nice. How long did you quarter him for? My wife said three days. That's enough. So but I felt that's the Third Amendment. The Third Amendment says you don't have to quarter soldiers. But if you consent to, that's also your right. AJ, you said you want the Constitution to adapt. It's a living document. OK, but we've only had, what, 27 amendments, 10 with the Bill of Rights, so 17 since the

inception. What is it you'd like to see? Is it amendments? What is it you think the Constitution needs to do to gain traction? Well, great question. We need more amendments, but it's impossible to get amendments through in this polarized community. The founding fathers would be appalled that it's so hard to get amendments through. So you need to amend the amendment process, but it's a catch-22. So the way that we have to evolve the meaning as society changes is by involving evolving the interpretation.

So, AJ, you wrote your whole book, the era, of course, with a quill. Apart from the fact that must have been a lot of ink splots and deleting places and a whole new novel experience for you. What did it give you beyond the physicality of wielding a quill to write like that? Well, what I learned in the book is that there are many parts of the 18th century we do not want to go back to. It was a racist, sexist, smelly, dangerous time. However, there are aspects of it that I found are worth revisiting. And one is writing with offline. I used a quill. I don't think you have to. But I loved just the way it sounded, the way it felt. And it changed the way I thought, because I was not distracted by the

dings and chimes of the internet. I was able to think more deeply and subtly. And I shudder to think what would happen if the founding fathers had tried to write the Constitution on a Google Doc. I don't think we would have a country. The book is titled The Year of Living Constitutionally. One man's humble quest to follow the Constitution's original meaning. It is available now. New York Times bestselling author A.J. Jacobs. Thank you. We appreciate that. Thank you. Good to be on forenoon, Joseph. Still ahead here, the New Yorkers. Susan Glasser will join us with her

new piece. There is literally nothing Trump can say that will stop Republicans from voting for him. We'll have her explain. Plus. They burnt a $250 million. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Meanwhile, there weren't extension cords to plug our computers into. There were hundreds of thousands of customer service tickets. A customer sent a box of shit to the office. I was like, we need to pump the brakes a little bit.

That was the trailer for the new documentary, MoviePass, Movie Crash, which details the rise and fall of the once popular movie subscription service. Ahead, the director of the film and the CEO of MoviePass will join us live in studio. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Welcome back to Morning Joe. It appears Israel is expanding its operation in the southern Gaza city of Rafah. The IDF says it's now fighting in neighborhoods near the heart of the city. This comes about three weeks after the Israeli military first pushed into Rafah, carrying out limited operations against Hamas. According to the United Nations, more than 800,000 people have left the area already. The move comes as the International Court of Justice is expected to rule today

on a request to order Israel to halt its operation in Rafah. The court, however, has no enforcement power and its rulings have been ignored in the past. Meanwhile, ceasefire discussions are set to resume at an undisclosed location in Europe this weekend. Israel announced yesterday that it will send its negotiators. Sources tell the New York Times that CIA Director Bill Burns will also head to Europe for those talks. It's not known if Egyptian and Qatari mediators will be there as well, John. So many negotiations so far, and not many of them have actually led, of course, to ceasefires. A ceasefire release of hostages in news this morning of the bodies of a few more Israeli hostages have been recovered. And it's also official that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin

Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress. House Speaker Mike Johnson made the announcement during a speech yesterday marking Israel's independence. And tonight I'm happy to announce something else to you, that we will soon be hosting Prime Minister Netanyahu at the Capitol for a joint session of Congress. Yes. This will be a timely and I think a very strong show of support to the Israeli government in their time of greatest need. Johnson had given Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer a deadline earlier this week to sign the invitation for Netanyahu. Schumer then agreed to do it, despite opposition from some Democrats. It's not yet known when the Israeli leader will address Congress or if he will meet President Biden.

Obviously, a lot of tension between those two men. Richard Haass, Prime Minister Netanyahu has addressed Congress before and took a pretty partisan tone as he did so. What would you anticipate hearing from him this time around? Could it impact the contours of the conflict? I don't think it'll be partisan this time. Based on my own recent meetings with him, I think what you'll see is him coming here to defend Israeli policy every step of the way, to basically look at all the criticism and say what Israel did was justified, how it's used force has been incredibly controlled. He will make the arguments as best he can to both demonstrate that the U.S.-Israeli relationship is strong

and that Israel has nothing to apologize about. And he's hoping it helps him here. And more important from his point of view, he's also hoping it helps him back home. It's an interesting choice because Netanyahu is not the speaker who you think, oh, this is the new coming of Churchill, who is really going to sell the West on continuing to support and continuing to keep the arms flowing. So I'm a little skeptical that this is going to do anything but really hurt President Biden and politically draw him more into Netanyahu's realm. I think Netanyahu wouldn't mind hurting President Biden politically. Another story I wanted to make sure we got to this morning. Former President Donald Trump is now claiming that he's the only one who

can get Vladimir Putin to release American journalist Aaron Gushkovich from a Russian prison. Trump said so yesterday on his social media website, writing in a post that if he wins the election, the reporter would be released before he even assumes office. Trump added this, Putin, president of Russia, will do that for me, but not for anyone else. And we will be paying nothing. Dushkovich has been considered wrongfully detained since he was taken into Russian custody on espionage charges back in March of 2023, more than a year ago. Asked about Trump's post, a spokesman for the Kremlin told Reuters that Putin has, quote, naturally not had contacts with Donald Trump. But, Cady, it can't be underscored

just how dangerous this is. It's sort of signaling to Russia, hey, keep him in prison. Maybe we, you know, until the election, maybe there's some sort of deal that we can arrange. We know Trump is not exactly a significant supporter of Ukraine. Perhaps that could be at play here. This is, you know, literally set a chill up a lot of people's spines when this post went up. Yeah, I mean, we know that Vladimir Putin has said that he would rather have Joe Biden reelected than Donald Trump, but not many people believe that was actually what he meant, that that was just being said for kind of the cameras. Gene Robinson, the posters had a history, of course, with journalists being held hostage by foreign regimes. Is there anything more, Donald Trump's, you know, allegations aside,

is there anything more that the White House could be doing, do you think, to try to get Evan out of prison? You know, I don't know what. I mean, I don't know what that is. The White House has been trying to see if there is a deal. I mean, they've been making demands and requests and all the things that one does. But they've been looking for some sort of deal that that would would get him home. And so far, it hasn't been there's been nothing that the Russians have been willing to to buy. They have they obviously prefer keeping Evan Gershkovich. It's just outrageous. And yes, it is. It is chilling. But it's just deeply, deeply unfair and cynical and awful. But of course, you know, Vladimir Putin doesn't believe in journalism the way we do. He doesn't believe in the rights of a free press. He believes in power.

Richard, whatever the validity of Donald Trump's Truth Social post and whether or not he's had any kind of contact with Moscow. Does this now throw the U.S. election date into the case of Evan Gershkovich and when he might get released? I'm afraid it does. He doesn't need to have contact with the Kremlin. Literally, he just had it. And it sends a signal that this ought not to happen on Joe Biden's watch. And I can imagine that this is the sort of thing Putin would love to do if Trump were to win. And it's a way of giving him something and then who knows what would be the reward for it or the response to it. So, you know, what I heard

made me as uncomfortable as the rest of you. But I actually think it could turn out to be to be true that this is a way of this is this is signaling without having direct contact. And I think Putin would be more than happy to play this game. We should also note former Marine Trevor Reed, who was wrongfully detained in Russia, took to social media last night saying that after he was arrested in 2019, Donald Trump didn't do anything to get him out. Certainly our thoughts are with Evan Gershkovich, Gershkovich and his family.