Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/29/24

Episode Date: May 29, 2024

Jury deliberations set to begin in Donald Trump's criminal trial

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, June 29th. We are hours away from the start of jury deliberations in Donald Trump's criminal hush money case. We'll have expert legal analysis on yesterday's closing arguments and when the jurors could return a possible verdict. Plus, we're used to seeing followers of Donald Trump outside the courthouse. But yesterday, the Biden campaign held the surprise event there. I don't understand that. We'll tell you who was there and dig into that campaign strategy. Also ahead, the latest from Gaza, where Israeli forces are moving into the city of Rafah. It comes days after an Israeli airstrike ignited a deadly fire at a camp for displaced Palestinians. But let's dive right

into our top story. After 21 days of heated testimony, the defense and the prosecution delivered closing arguments yesterday in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial. NBC News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett has a recap for us. The first trial of an American president soon in the hands of seven men and five women. Prosecutors closing their case, arguing former President Trump orchestrated a criminal conspiracy to influence the 2016 election to pull the wool over voters eyes they say by ordering the payoff of stormy daniels and then covering it all up prosecutor joshua steinglass trying to establish a pattern of mr trump burying damaging stories that could derail his 2016 campaign pointing to a key conversation secretly recorded by mr trump's then attorney michael cohen the star prosecution

witness where mr trump discussed an alleged payoff of a different woman steinglass calling recorded by Mr. Trump's then-attorney, Michael Cohen, the star prosecution witness, where Mr. Trump discussed an alleged payoff of a different woman, Steinglass calling it jaw-dropping. So what are we going to do? Funding, yes. And it's all the stuff. But much of Closing's focused on the credibility of Cohen. Quote, we didn't pick him up at the witness store the defendant chose michael cohen steinglass said acknowledging cohen's criminal history and admitted lies under oath but telling jurors

you don't need michael cohen to connect these dots but as the ultimate insider he can do just that the defense has also tried to discredit cohen as motivated to lie desperate desperate to put Mr. Trump behind bars, pointing to Cohen's own podcast. Revenge is a dish best served cold. And you better believe I want this man to go down and rot inside for what he did to me and my family. But Steinblas took that head on, arguing Cohen is understandably angry because Mr. Trump dropped him like a hot potato after the feds came calling in 2018, urging jurors to see this case not about Michael Cohen. It's about Donald Trump. In his closing arguments, Trump attorney Todd Blanch tore into the prosecution's case and its reliance on Cohen's testimony, blasting Cohen as

the human embodiment of reasonable doubt, branding him the gloat, the greatest liar of all time, and the MVP of liars, saying he lied to Congress, judges, prosecutors, bankers, his family, adding he came in here, raised his right hand and lied to each of you repeatedly, pointing to one of the trial's most dramatic moments when Cohen was confronted with phone records, suggesting he never spoke to Mr. Trump about Daniels in an October 2016 phone call lasting just 96 seconds, but instead had called Mr. Trump's bodyguard to complain about a teenage prank caller. Blanche arguing, he told you he spoke to President Trump. That was a lie. And he got caught red-handed. That is perjury.

Blanche striking at the heart of the 34 low level felony counts Mr. Trump faces for allegedly falsifying his business records, arguing none of the invoices, vouchers or checks were false, saying the legal retainer language on the records wasn't criminal or sinister, but merely generated by accounting software at the Trump organization. And there was nothing wrong with it. President Trump is innocent, Blanche said. There is no crime, period. This is not a trial that should happen. It's a very sad day. This is a dark day in America. NBC's Laura Jarrett reporting for us there. Here is the timeline for today's proceedings. Judge

Juan Bershon will give the jury its instructions at 10 o'clock Eastern time. That's expected to last about an hour. After that, jury deliberation begins. The judge says the jury will deliberate until about 4.30 this afternoon. Schedules for Thursday and Friday will depend on the jury's progress. Let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin and former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin and former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg. Also with us, of course,

the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire. Good morning to you all. So Lisa, I'll start with you. You were at your post again yesterday down at the courthouse. So the case from Donald Trump's defense team is Michael Cohen, the star witness, as he believes he is, is a liar, the greatest liar of all time, as Todd Blanche put it, to which the prosecution said he is. And that's exactly why Donald Trump counted on him to do his dirty deeds. How did it play out in court yesterday? Well, I think one of the things that is missing from that sort of juxtaposition there is how much other evidence the prosecution has that has absolutely nothing to do with Michael Cohen. So if you listen to

Todd Blanche yesterday, Michael Cohen is the central character in this drama. You listen to Josh Steinglass yesterday. He's nothing more than a narrator. He's a tour guide through this mountain of evidence. I thought it played pretty well that he acknowledged what Michael Cohen is and was because he was saying, again, you played this clip from Laura. We didn't pick him up at the witness store. We didn't choose this guy. The defendant chose this guy and he chose him exactly for the characteristics that his lawyers are telling you now makes him quintessentially untrustworthy. And I thought that was a really good moment for Josh Steinglass, who had a number of very good moments yesterday.

So, Chuck, three hours. We talked about this ahead of the closing arguments yesterday, about just how long a day didn't end until eight o'clock last night. Three hours from Donald Trump's defense team and then almost five hours from the prosecution. At the end of the day, what did it add up to for you? At the end of the day, it added up to about eight hours. Just math, too. Yeah, very good.

I was told there would be math on this test. I was prepared. Look, I think that's too much. But part of that, Willie, is informed by my own experience as a federal prosecutor in a district where if I had begged for 30 minutes to close a case like this, I would have gotten 20. So I don't know what the right amount is. And I know that prosecutors and defense attorneys, you know, want to say everything they can because if they leave something unsaid, they will believe that was the thing that made the difference in their case.

So I get it. I think it's too much. And I think there's a law of diminishing marginal return. So, Lisa, walk us through what seemed like an important moment in the courtroom yesterday where Trump's attorney, Todd Blanch, was admonished by the judge, Judge Marchand, because Blanch had sort of said to the jury, look, you might be putting this guy in prison. You might be sending him to jail. The judge said, whoa, whoa, whoa, Like that's not necessarily what's going to happen. Walk us through what happened and why that matters.

So there was an objection to it. It was sustained. The prosecution asked for something called a curative instruction. That's an instruction from the jurors that they're not to take that into consideration. The reason it was so serious is first of all, Blanche was a very experienced prosecutor. He worked in the Southern District of New York for almost 10 years. As Chuck knows, and even I know, and I was never a prosecutor, you don't mention anything in summations having to do with sentencing. Why? Because that's the province of the judge. The jury has absolutely nothing to do with the sentence. And so by raising the specter of prison, that was a big no-no, particularly given who the defendant is here. Because what Blanche was trying to do was

think about who you might be sending to prison. This is the former president of the United States almost trying to elevate the burden improperly. And so the curative instruction was, you're not to think about this. Sentencing is totally for me to deal with. And there's not necessarily a sentence of imprisonment that would go along with a conviction. Andrew Weissman and I were on air together last night and he said, if you're the prosecution, that's like the best possible position to be in because he has lifted that extra burden that Todd Blanche wanted to place on the jury by telling them, you know what, you can convict this guy and he might never do a day in prison, don't trouble yourself about it.

You know, Chuck, I understand from my preeminent source in this trial, Mika Brzezinski, that there are two lawyers on the jury. So when I start hearing about Michael Cohen's a lion, Michael Cohen's this, Michael Cohen's that, and everybody's focusing on Michael Cohen, just as a lawyer, and I know Lisa and you, also lawyers, what are you thinking about? When you get back there, you're looking at the documents. And I just, again, it seems to me that if you've got two lawyers that are going to be back there, they're going to be saying, OK, it doesn't matter whether you like that guy or not. It's in the documents. We've got the evidence here, whether that evidence acquits Donald Trump or whether it convicts him. I wonder if that's your thought as well.

Yeah, I agree with that, Joe. Look, if I have a good case, good evidence, good documents, good witnesses, all are welcome to the jury. Lawyers, zoologists, I don't care. Also, you can't look at any one person and describe that they would be or would not be a good juror based on their occupation. But I think you're right. I think lawyers take a particularly rigorous approach to analyzing evidence and following instructions. Again, if I have a good case, that's exactly what I want. So let's look ahead to today, guys. And Lisa, the jury instructions, 10 o'clock this morning, expected to last about an hour. And then it's in the hands of the jury, this case. Why are the jury instructions so important to what happens next? Because the jury instructions

inform how the jurors understand what are sort of complicated charges here. So remember, the charge here isn't about hush money itself. It's about the falsification of business records and 34 of them in particular. But what makes this a felony is the accusation that these business records were falsified essentially in service of concealing another crime. And so in that, the jury instructions are going to be critical. What does it mean to have the intent to defraud, for example, to the extent that the prosecution has alleged that that underlying crime is a conspiracy to promote Donald Trump's election through unlawful means? What are those unlawful means? We know,

for example, from yesterday that Judge Marchand's final jury instructions allow for the jurors to have not a meeting of the minds, but their own opinion on what those unlawful means are. And they're sort of a grab bag of what they can be. And so the jury instructions here are absolutely critical. In particular, look for an instruction on what it means to falsify business records with an emphasis on the word cause, because Donald Trump has been accused of either falsifying the records himself or causing them to be falsified. And Josh Steinblas really emphasized yesterday this cause aspect of it. It doesn't matter that Trump may have never seen the invoices or the general ledger entries. If he set this whole thing into motion, he caused

Allen Weisselberg to instruct Jeff McConaughey, to instruct other people to make these business records in a certain way. That will be enough so long as the jury instructions make clear to the jury that that's how they can find what it means to falsify. Interesting. Lisa, I have a question for you, but first I want to read from Chuck's new opinion piece in U.S. News and World Report. It's entitled Even if he's guilty, Trump could be acquitted. Justice would still be served. And you write in part, quote, this, Chuck, to me as a former federal prosecutor. The evidence is compelling that Trump directed a plot to conceal the alleged tryst from voters during the 2016 presidential election. And if Trump is acquitted or if there is a hung jury,

no matter how you feel about his innocence or guilt, that is OK. Our justice system is imperfect. Any endeavor that includes human beings is imperfect. We ask juries to listen and deliberate. We ask them to serve as the conscience of our community. We ask them, actually, we empower them to determine whether a defendant is guilty, is charged, and we must live with that decision, whether we agree or disagree with it. So, and Chuck, let's just take this one layer deeper, sort of an inception thing here. Even if he is convicted, there are a lot of legal minds out there that think he's got a pretty good appeal on legal grounds. Forget the facts, but on legal grounds on whether this case should have been brought in the first place or not. So again, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind fine. Again, it's not a slam dunk. This is not

a basketball game. It's a process that over time, as you said, works regardless of the outcome. I believe that's right. I tried dozens of cases, Joe, as you said, works regardless of the outcome. I believe that's right. I tried dozens of cases, Joe, as a federal prosecutor. Number one, I couldn't predict what the jury would do in any of them, although in the overwhelming majority of those cases, the jury convicted. But when they don't convict, and it was painful because I still believe, I still to this day believe in the cases that I brought in, which the jury acquitted. And that's painful because I feel as if there was a injustice.

But that's not really accurate. When the jury decides, it decides. Everybody in the system knows that's final. Putting aside the appeal that you just discussed, Joe. And that's OK. We live with it. That's our system. We ought to be proud of it. It's flawed, and it's still the best system in the world. Justice is a self-defining concept. Whether acquitted or convicted, the jury has spoken, and we must accept that. All citizens must accept that. Yeah, it's that acceptance is really important.

I couldn't agree with you more, Chuck. Lisa, another factor of this, everyone's, of course, talking about this is whatever the jury decides, waiting to see what this jury will come up with. But one thing you've also been studying in court is the judge. It's impossible not to. It's such an important player in all of this and what his experience has been throughout all of this. Just studying him, how do you think he's going to be? You've already made it clear that his instructions, you expect them to be specifically clear, especially around certain subjects. But if they can't decide, how long can he keep them in there and would he? It's a difficult question to know, Mika, but I think what he will do is encourage them to continue to deliberate if they indicate that they're having trouble,

encourage them to deliberate until they are absolutely positive that no more movement can be can can happen. This is a judge who has earned the respect of observers in the courtroom for his demeanor. He has the quintessential judicial temperament and that should pay real dividends with the jury in particular. All juries love the judges that are in charge of them. That's sort of just a bug and a feature of our judicial system because the judges are the ones who care and feed for them. But my expectation is that this particular jury really has affection for Judge Marchand, who has been solicitous of their well-being throughout, has maintained an even temper through even the most trying of times. And so if he says to them, I am going to encourage you to go back to the jury room and continue to deliberate, I think that they will take that seriously unless there's absolutely

no possibility that they can reach a verdict. Now, of course, there are 34 counts here. And so one possibility is that they convict on certain counts and hang on others. And that may be a situation where he is more than willing to let them come back hung on certain counts. In particular, because Donald Trump signed nine of the checks, one possibility here is that you see a mixed verdict where the jury comes back and says, you know what, we're going to hold him accountable for the counts having to do with the checks he personally signed on some of the others. We're having trouble reaching agreement, Your Honor. So, Chuck, let's go back to your experience as a prosecutor, what it is like now to have made

your case, to have made your closing argument. It's in the hands of the jury to try to look in their faces, to try to read their reactions over the course of all these weeks. What is it like to sit and wait as a prosecutor who feels he has made his case to see what the jury will decide. Absolutely flipping miserable. I hated it because there's nothing you can do at that point, Willie. It's out of your hands entirely. And so what I mostly did was pace the halls. I'd wander into the courtroom and back out. I tried to eat lunch, but I couldn't. I tried to turn my attention to the next case, but I couldn't. You know, it's funny. I've had juries come back quickly where I thought it was a complex case and it would take them a long time. I've had juries take a long time where I thought it was a simple case.

But to answer your question, miserable. So, Chuck, quick follow on that. It's impossible to predict any particular jury. But from your experience, a case like this, how long it took, the number of counts involved, give us even an approximate as to how long these jury deliberations might take. What should we expect? My only sense of that, Jonathan, is that you have 34 counts and lots of documents, and they're going to work through it methodically. There's a bit of folklore attached to, you know, Verdict Friday. Jurors often will reach a verdict at the end of a week, so they don't have to come back next week. But that's not a rule. That's not a law. That's just something that I've observed on occasion. Again, I didn't know when my own juries would come back, so it would be hard for

me to tell you when this one will come back. Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Thank you both so much for coming on this morning. We will see you soon. And still ahead this morning on Morning Joe, the latest from the Middle East following that deadly airstrike on a tent camp in Gaza, housing displaced Palestinians. Why the White House says Israel's actions in Rafah so far have not crossed President Biden's red line. Richard Haass joins us next with his expert analysis. We're back in 90 seconds. 21 past the hour, it appears the munitions used in Israel's deadly strike on Rafah were made in the United States.

That's according to The New York Times, which spoke to weapons experts and reviewed visual evidence. While the attack received international condemnation, Israel is still pushing forward with its offensive in the southern Gaza city. NBC News international correspondent Raf Sanchez has the latest. Palestinian families fleeing Rafah any way they can as an NBC News crew saw Israeli forces pushing into the heart of the city for the first time. But the White House says it hasn't seen evidence of Israel crossing President Biden's red lines. We still don't want to see the Israelis, as we say, smash into Rafah with large units. We still believe that, and we haven't seen that at this point. While just outside the city, at least 21 people killed in an Israeli strike on tents along the coast,

according to the health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza. The IDF denying they attacked a safe zone. It comes just two days after an Israeli airstrike ignited this firestorm at a different camp, killing dozens of civilians. Facing international criticism, the IDF revealing results of a preliminary investigation, saying it used small bombs to target two Hamas commanders, but that a secondary explosion started the enormous fire. Our munition alone could not have ignited a fire of this size.

The IDF says hidden Hamas weapons might have caused the blast, but offered no firm evidence. An Israeli official earlier said a gas tank could have sparked the flames. Meanwhile, NBC News has learned the U.S. military has been forced to halt aid deliveries into Gaza by sea after three officials said bad weather damaged its temporary pier. This video showing part of the causeway floating away from the beach. It's the latest setback for the American aid effort after military boats washed up on the coasts of Israel and Gaza over the weekend, while a U.S. service member remains in critical condition after an accident on the pier last week. NBC's Raf Sanchez

reporting for us from Israel and joining us now, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. He's author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away, available on Substack. Richard, good morning. Always great to have you at the table with us. So let's talk about this red line. Admiral Kirby saying yesterday what we saw outside of Rafah in that refugee camp where 45 to 50 refugees were killed by an Israeli bomb or an explosion that came after the bomb in really horrific pictures that were making their way around the world. That did not cross the red line. So I mean, this is a serious, not a rhetorical question. What is the red line? What does the red line mean? Just so everyone watching is clear.

The red line was essentially not to go in in a very heavy way, using large ordnance, not to go into Rafah in some ways, the way Israel had previously gone into Gaza, using large weapons from a distance, sure to cause lots of civilian casualties. So the red line, how would I call it? Well, it was set fairly high. It was how Israel was going to do this. So, John, how much pressure is this president feeling right it? Well, it was set fairly high. It was how Israel was going to do this. So, John, how much pressure is this president feeling right now? Obviously, some tough questions in the briefing room yesterday to Admiral Kirby about what happened in that camp. What is the relationship right now with Prime Minister Netanyahu as we see these horrible images? Yeah, I helped break the story yesterday before Kirby's appearance that

the administration decided this did not cross the red line. I mean, the relationship with Netanyahu is not good. There's still a lot of bad feelings between the two men. And the administration wishes that Israel would show more caution in its conduct in Rafah. But at the same time, administration officials tell us that they feel like Israel has not gone all the way in yet, in part because of U.S. guidance. And this missile that was used was U.S.-supplied, in part because it can be more targeted and to try to avoid incidents like this, tragic incidents like this. We heard from the vice president yesterday, Joe, say this was tragic. But right now, there do not appear, outside of what Kirby said yesterday, a full-on invasion of Rafah. Short of

that, there really doesn't seem to be much U.S. objections to what Israel is going to do there. They're still so this president is still supportive of the campaign. Well, and Richard, what happens if Israel, obviously, Richard, the president doesn't want Israel to use a large ordinance, as you said, that they did in the early phase of the war, where Israel was condemned for using massive bombs in civilian areas. At the same time, at the same time, Richard, what is Israel to do? Are they supposed to just sit there while conditions in Rafi get worse, while the possibility of famine spreads and while Hamas regroups? I mean, let's just state the obvious. The United States would never do this.

We didn't do this in Mosul. We didn't do this in Afghanistan. We didn't do this in Iraq. We didn't do this in Mosul. We didn't do this in Afghanistan. We didn't do this in Iraq. We didn't do this in Vietnam. We didn't do this in World War Two. If we were struck, we struck back until we won the war. So I guess what what confuses me is what is it? Is it in the United States or Israel's best interest that Israel just sits outside of Rafah and this suffering continues indefinitely? Or do they go in and kill Hamas terrorists? Here's the dilemma, Joe. Israel has obviously decided to continue to degrade Hamas. There's some major military elements of Hamas left. But here's the but. In the course of doing it, you had this sort

of incident the other day where 40 plus innocents got killed. That's inevitable. That's, as Mr. Rumsfeld once said, stuff happens, awful stuff happens. And that sort of thing is going to happen again and again. This further isolates Israel, further builds anti-Israeli feeling in this country and around the world, makes it impossible for the Saudis to normalize, becomes a recruiting tool for future generations of Palestinians. And it still doesn't solve the problem of what comes next. So the question the administration has to ask, it's not whether Israel crossed the red line. That seems to me too technical, too narrow. The real question is, is this still wise? Is this worth it? Is this helping Israel? Is this helping the United States? So the question is not

how Israel's going about it now. The real question is whether it still makes sense. And I think the United States has to really raise the question, should we be supporting a ceasefire? That the benefits of this Israeli operation don't outweigh the cost. Obviously, you're not going to get any hostages back so long as this gets on. And it's still not going to deal with the fundamental challenge of how to govern Gaza, much less the West Bank. So I actually think the first order question is not this red line issue. I think for the administration is whether to come out publicly against what Israel is doing. The Israelis are going to say, if we do that, we've got to finish the job. The Republicans are going to say that. The problem with that argument, Joe, this is a job that cannot

be finished. Israel continues to fight a conventional war in an unconventional setting. So I'm not sure that what they're doing, ultimately, the benefits will justify the costs. Right. So Richard, I remember on 9-11 watching the towers fall. And the second that happened, I knew. I just knew we were going to war and eventually Osama bin Laden would be killed. On October 7th, I knew amidst that tragedy, Hamas could never rule Gaza again. So you are correct. They can't eliminate every last Hamas terrorist. But certainly, Israel, the United States, and yes, our Arab neighbors, our Arab allies in that region, would all agree that Hamas can never rule Gaza again. So how do we get to that point?

100%. But in order to do that, you need a comprehensive strategy. Yes, you degrade Hamas and Hamas has been significantly degraded even without this operation. But then you've got to you've got to come up with a political alternative. You've got to build a situation where there's other representation for Palestinians. You've got to build a situation where you have others providing security. Right. It's not a zero sum game. It's not all or nothing. I guess the question is, at what point does Hamas have to be degraded so the Saudis, the Jordanians, the Emiratis, the United States, our allies can go in, rebuild Gaza and have an Arab peacekeeping force to keep the peace. Well, two things, Joe.

What's keeping the Saudis and others from going in is not just the remaining strength of Hamas. It's the lack of an Israeli political strategy for what comes after to satisfy at least some Palestinian political aspirations. So only Israel is refusing to put that on the table now. And that's what the Saudis and others need to form an international force. What's Israel is refusing to put that on the table now. And that's what the Saudis and others need to form an international force. What's missing is something political. Second of all, Hamas could be degraded more, but we shouldn't kid ourselves. Any international force that goes into Gaza is not going to be a peacekeeping force. It's going to be what I would call a peacemaking force. There are still going to be significant pockets and elements of resistance.

People are going to get killed doing this. We have to understand that. This is going to require a significant Arab or international military presence for a long time. So we need a political element of the strategy and we need a serious military element of the strategy. But more than anything, what's holding the Arabs back from getting into Gaza is the lack of a political strategy. They need political cover. Let's be blunt. They need some political government from this Israeli government, which refuses to give it because there's no consensus in this Israeli government to open up a political dialogue with Palestinians, much less allow the Palestinian Authority to be part of whatever Arab force is created in Gaza. Well, let's not kid ourselves.

They also want, before they send their peacekeeping or peacemaking forces in, they want as many Hamas terrorists killed as possible so their soldiers coming in can actually keep the peace. And in all of this, barely a mention of the hostages, Richard. Is there any hope for their return? I don't I don't even hear them as part of this conversation. Look, you're right. I think what's increasingly the tragic reality is there's probably not a lot of hostages left who are alive. I think that's increasingly the operating subject.

There are people in Israel who are saying, let's just have a ceasefire. We've reached the point of diminishing returns and let's get the hostages back. Let's get an accounting. Let's get all the hostages back. That is one school of thought. The other, as Joe was suggesting, is allow this to go on longer to further degrade Hamas, in part on the assumption that most of the hostages are never coming back alive. So that consideration has faded. But that's a powerful still, how to put it, debate within Israel about the priority of the war versus the priority of the hostages. Prime Minister has clearly come down on the side of the priority of pursuing the war against Hamas.

A lot of other people, military and otherwise, have come down on the other side. All right, Richard, thank you. Coming up, why this is an interesting question. Why was the communications director for the Biden-Harris campaign outside the courthouse with Robert De Niro yesterday for Donald Trump's criminal trial. We'll ask him when he joins us ahead on Morning Joe. Not Robert De Niro, but the communications director. boy that's a beautiful picture of the monuments in washington at 6 37 on a wednesday morning there are new signs this morning pointing to a possible dismissal of the charges against world number one golfer Scotty Scheffler. Scheffler's arraignment not scheduled until next Monday, but the Jefferson County, Kentucky attorney announced yesterday he will address allegations against the golfer in

court this afternoon, while Scheffler's lawyer reportedly set to hold a news conference outside the courthouse shortly afterward. Neither side provided further details about today's event. Scheffler was arrested, you'll remember, outside the Valhalla Golf Club earlier this month, charged with felony assault of a police officer and three misdemeanors. The Louisville detective involved in the arrest alleges Scheffler disregarded his instructions and struck him with his vehicle, but video from a pole-mounted camera across the street does not appear to substantiate the detective's account. The detective did not activate his body cam during the incident. Scheffler was booked and released in time to tee off for the second round of the PGA Championship.

Mike Barnicle is at the table. Richard Haas remains with us as our golf expert and analyst on Morning Joe. So it looks like these might go away and that the officer's initial account doesn't quite match up to the video we saw. That's exactly what it looks like. Quite honestly, these charges never should have been brought. But can we just talk about the golf for a second? I mean, the most amazing thing is this guy gets arrested, does a stretching in the jail cell that day, goes out and shoots a five under par round. I have seen athletes with the ability to compartmentalize. This sets a world record

for compartmentalization. Let's just be clear. Yeah. He said, Mike, he was sitting in the jail cell doing his stretching because he hoped he'd get to the first tee in time to play that day. And he was watching the TV through the bars on ESPN of them talking about his arrest, went out and shot the 66. Next day, he kind of blew up a little bit. He said it hit him that next day. But it looks like anyway, these charges may go away. Well, first of all, it is such a relief to be talking about something like this other than the other trial. You heard criminal defendant. You got worried. I was scared. I didn't want to go there. But anyway, so 830 that morning, Scotty Scheffler's wearing an orange jumpsuit in prison.

He's been fingerprinted. He's been booked. He's been photographed. And then the idea, as you mentioned, Richard, he gets in his car. Well, he goes back to the golf course and shoots a 66. The mind game involved in that had to be phenomenal. It was. He is the world's number one for good reason. He would have been in the thick of the tournament had it not been for that one round where he had to let down the next day. But again, the idea that we're having this conversation, honestly, it's wonderful. Well, it's both wonderful and preposterous.

Given the real issues out there, the idea that the legal machinery, shall we say, of Kentucky is focusing on this. When I expect there's one or two real problems they might have to focus on. Just saying. But but you're happy if you're happy. Aren't you relieved that we're talking about this? I am. And I'm ready to talk about baseball. Oh, wow. Moving right along. OK, OK. That was a historic about baseball, though. Oh, wow. Moving right along. Okay.

Well, that was a historic performance on the mound in San Diego yesterday. Padres reliever Jeremiah Estrada set the record for the longest strikeout streak in baseball's expansion era, adding another three last night to complete a 4-0 shutout of the Miami Marlins, extend his streak of consecutive strikeouts to 13. He's a relief pitcher, so they happened over a series of games. Still, all 13 strikeouts in that streak have been swinging, John. I mean, that's extraordinarily impressive and a record. And also, we should note, speaking of baseball, the Negro League today, Mike,

its stats are going to be incorporated into the major league baseball record. Yeah, so that's what I was going to get. Josh Gibson. No. Josh Gibson is now, because of this move that will happen later today, will be the all-time leader in these categories. Career batting average at 372. Career slugging at 718.

Career OPS nearly 1,200. Single season batting average 446. Single season slugging nearly 1,000. And so on. Extraordinary. What do you think? I think that they never got their due, obviously, because of the racial climate in this country for nearly well for well over 100 years. And the idea that there are three or four members of the Negro

leagues who are on that list, top 10 hitters of all time. And it's a wonderful thing. It's a wonderful thing for the country to realize what we missed because we were such a segregated society and it's a wonderful thing for for all the players and the memories of the negro league it was always said josh gibson was the babe ruth of the negro leagues now he's just the josh gibson of professional baseball one last thing for you richard the new york yankees the pitching staff without Garrett Cole. How about these guys who have picked up the slack and kept us right near the top of the American season? We're not so surprised that the hitting's come through. Soto, Judge and the rest that

we were hoping for predicted. But the pitching without Cole and the rest of baseball has to think about when Cole, if and when he rejoins the team, he heals. Then the Yankees are, you know, Yankees against the Orioles, I think, the two best teams in the East. Phillies and Dodgers, probably the two best teams. I think the Phillies look amazing. You got it. That's a great four.

Four great teams this year. Yeah. Sox, how do we feel, guys? Any chance? Wild card, maybe? Make a little run? That's great. Those are the four great teams in baseball.

Yeah, we are. We established that. Say no more. Say no more. All right, Richard. Go ahead, Jim. I do want to say, I want to ask my two Sox friends if they actually saw the game last night.

Did either of you guys see the game? Yeah. I followed it afterwards. Yeah, I mean, they pitched well. Braille was good. It was a nice win, Mike. I mean, they won down. They won in Baltimore.

They remain over.500. They're still overachieving. I mean, they're in the mix for the wild card. No, we you and I are definitely have overachieved. We all we all are overachieving. And none of us were born with the natural talent. I speak, of course, only of Mike, Jonathan Lemire and myself of Sidon Raffaella, who made another extraordinary catch last night going back to the fence a couple of games ago. I mean, again, this is this is a human highlight, real stuff that people will be talking about this kid. And, yeah, I think maybe they got a little over their skis last night. The radio announcers, when they were asking whether he may be the greatest center fielder of all time, how old is he, 21, I think.

But if he stays healthy, I mean, Mike, this kid is going to light it up, and he's going to win a lot of gold gloves. Yeah, he's not only gold gloves. He's actually a platinum glove center fielder so far. Now, you know, he's young. We'll see what happens. But the point, the larger point that you raise, how about this club? Look, at the end of the day, it's baseball.

It's still baseball. I enjoy it. I love the wins, obviously. We're not going to get as many as we'd like to have, but it's baseball. It's still baseball. I enjoy it. I love the wins, obviously. We're not going to get as many as we'd like to have, but it's baseball. It's the best sport going in this country. And for you Doomsday Red Sox fans, only two and a half out of the wild card. It just looks impossible. Well, there you go.

Well, exactly. And I mean, we've had some great pitching this year. It's exciting. They're underachievers, a little engine that could. But I agree with Mike. When they're playing baseball, when you and your children can sit

down and watch the game together, it's magic. So peaceful. I want them to win, but if they don't win, it's still it's just, it's a miracle. As Mika says, I just enjoyed my time at Fenway. You, I just enjoyed my it's called Fenway.

You did. You had a great time. I had a great time. We had a wonderful time this weekend. Mike had a wonderful time. I had a great time. It was a great time. I'm still like Democratic Senator John Fetterman is going to join the conversation as President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris head head to Pennsylvania today. Also a Grammy Award winning singer, Darius Rocker, is going to be live in the studio. Very excited about that. To discuss his memoir, Life's Too Short. Morning Joe, be right back. 51 past the hour. Far right House Republican Bob Good may pay the price for a lapse in loyalty to Donald Trump. The former president has endorsed Good's challenger, Virginia State Senator John John McGuire in next month's primary. It comes despite good appearing at Trump's hush money trial less than two weeks ago to push Trump's false claims about the case.

This is a crooked sham trial to try to hurt the nominee who's going to be the president of the United States. Whether or not they like it or whether or not they want that to happen, President Trump is going to be reelected. This gag order is to ensure that he cannot defend himself fairly. So we're here to have his back. We're here to defend him and to tell the truth about this, this travesty of justice, this political persecution, this election interference. Wow. So that didn't work for him. Good has been a devoted supporter of Donald Trump, frequently calling him, quote, the greatest president of my lifetime. But last year, Good endorsed Ron DeSantis and the Republican presidential primary. And at the time, Good said that the Florida governor was more of a true conservative than Trump and had less baggage. In a long social media post yesterday, Trump wrote

that Good had turned his back on, quote, our incredible movement and that his recent loving endorsement was too late. Anybody want to take notes? Yeah. Coming up, we'll recap the key moments from closing arguments in Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial and get expert legal analysis on the case ahead of jury deliberations. Plus, we'll dig into the Biden campaign's surprise event outside the courtroom. Morning Joe will be right back. A few minutes before the top of the hour on this Wednesday, May 29th, Jonathan Lemire and Mike Barnicle are still with us and join the conversation. We have the president of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's Politics Nation, Reverend Al Sharpton with us this hour. So Donald Trump's criminal

hush money case is hours away from going to the jury. Both the defense and the prosecution delivered their closing arguments yesterday, wrapping up last night around 8 p.m. Judge Juan Merchan will give the jury its instructions at 10 o'clock Eastern time this morning. That's expected to last about an hour. After that, deliberations will begin. The judge said the jury will deliberate until about 4.30 this afternoon, and schedules for Thursday and Friday will depend on the jury's progress. As for the closing arguments, the defense went first yesterday. Donald Trump's lead attorney, Todd Blanch, addressed the jury for a total of two hours and 57 minutes. He spent much of the time

focusing on former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, calling Cohen as a serial liar who could not be trusted. The judge admonished Blanche at one point for suggesting to the jury that they would send Trump to prison if they convicted him, calling Blanche's comment while assuring them that a guilty verdict would not necessarily mean a prison sentence. Meanwhile, the prosecution took nearly five hours to deliver its closing argument yesterday. Veteran assistant district attorney Joshua Steinglass reestablished the facts of the case, focusing heavily on two main exhibits, which he called the smoking guns. The first is the bank statement with notes allegedly handwritten by Allen Weisselberg that lay out the plan to reimburse Michael Cohen. That bank statement was allegedly later brought

to Donald Trump to review. The second exhibit, a page of handwritten notes from Trump's former corporate controller, Jeffrey McConney. McConney testified that he wrote the notes during a meeting between himself and Weisselberg about the reimbursement payments. Stein Glass also tried to rebut the defense claim that the prosecution's case hung solely on Cohen's testimony. Joining us now, NBC News legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissman. Andrew, good morning. So we are just about three hours away from court, an hour or so of jury instructions from the judge to the jury,

and then it goes to the jury. For how long, we don't know. We can't even speculate. There's just no way of knowing how 12 people may or may not come to agreement on this case. But what did you hear yesterday in terms of these summaries, these closing arguments

that may compel the jury one way or another? Well, I thought when we first talk about the defense summation, the one that went first, I thought one of the notable things was what the defense did not talk about. It was it was pretty striking to me, for instance, the two so-called smoking gun documents, Exhibits 35 and 36, the handwritten notes that detail exactly how the payment scheme was going to work, they were not in any way substantively addressed by Todd Blanch, the lead attorney for Donald Trump. That was really surprising. For evidence that is clearly going to be central to the government's case and summation, you have to say something. Hope Hicks' testimony, the very damaging admissions that she testified to were not addressed by Todd Blanch. David Pecker's really damning statements were not addressed by Todd Blanch. There was just a slew of problematic

evidence for the defense that Todd Blanch decided he would not address. And that is really a gift to Joshua Steinglass, the experienced DA who was giving the state's summation. And then on the state side, I think one of the reasons it was so long is because this is the former president and potentially the future president. I think that Mr. Steinglass was worried about whether the jury would at least subconsciously be holding the state to a higher burden of proof than even proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And so I think he really wanted to hammer home all of the facts and make sure he wasn't leaving anything on the table and went through everything exhaustively. And so I think that's one of the reasons you saw a sort of unusually long summation for a case of this duration. So, Andrew, let's get your take on that

moment we were just talking about when Blanche seemed to suggest to the jury, like, look, you might be putting this, my client before President of the United States, it's in prison. The judge really reprimanded him, said, no, no, you can't do that. But moreover, seemed to suggest to the jury that, look, you can convict him. But moreover, seemed to suggest to the jury that, look, you can convict him. And that doesn't necessarily mean he'll go to prison. Do you think that opened the door? Do you think that will change the calculus of some of these jurors who are, as you just say, aware of the weightiness of this moment, that this is the former and potential future president of the United States? Could this open the door perhaps to more likelihood to some sort of conviction? Well, just let's start with everybody knows whether you are a former prosecutor,

a former defense lawyer, maybe not even a lawyer at all, that when you are giving an address in front of the jury that's deciding guilt or not guilt, you do not raise the subject of sentencing. It is not for the jury. And so as Judge Mershon said to Todd Blanch, he said, there is no way that this wasn't intentional. And Todd Blanch actually had no response for that. So it clearly was a strategy to make it harder for the jury to think about a guilty verdict, thinking they were sending the defendant to jail. And so Judge Mershon wanted to give an instruction, and there was no objection at that point by the defense, that was going to really take that issue away because the bell had been rung by Todd Blanch. And so the judge said,

not only are you not to consider it, but he went a step further in a way that was unusual to say, and you should know, jail is not required here. So he's like, don't think about it. But essentially he's saying, to the extent that that is now in your head, you need to remember there may be no jail here because it's not required. I will decide. So I think the judge was trying to do everything he could to unring the bell that was improperly rung by Todd Blanch in his summation. So, Andrew, given that this case, despite all the notoriety around certain witnesses, is really a nuts and bolts paper trail case that was exhibited yesterday, we just showed the parts of the paper trail. What about the aspect that one of the

principles in this paper trail is in Rikers didn't testify. Would that affect or impact the jury, do you think? You know, that's a great question. That did not come up as much in the summations on both sides as you would expect. The jury, unlike us, never learned in the course of the trial where Allen Weisselberg was. That was something that the judge thought was improper to have in the case. And so they did not know that he has been in jail twice and is currently in jail both times for crimes that one could easily conclude he did not just as part of the Trump organization, but to protect Donald Trump. And so we will see today whether the judge gives a sort of fairly standard instruction that says, do not consider why certain witnesses were or were.