Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/7/24

Episode Date: May 7, 2024

Israeli forces enter Rafah and take control of key border crossing

Noam is not letting up on this. In fact, not only is she willing to shoot her dog and goat, now she wants to shoot other dogs too. South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem is not backing down, defending her decision to shoot her own dog. Now implying President Joe Biden's dog Commander, which no longer lives in the White House after several biting incidents, should be put down. She reportedly writes that the first thing she would do if she got to the White House is make sure Joe Biden's dog was nowhere on the grounds. Commander, say hello to cricket. Dear Lord, this woman has a taste for dog blood. It's like she thought all dogs go to heaven was a personal challenge. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. She can't seem to

kick it. She tries to blame it on us, but she wrote it, Willie. It is Tuesday, May 7th. We have a lot to get to this morning. We're going to go through yesterday's key moments in Donald Trump's criminal trial, including the judge's warning about potential jail time for the former president. Also ahead, Georgia's former lieutenant governor, a lifelong Republican, says it will vote for President Biden. We'll read from his op-ed calling on other Republicans to do the same. And we'll get the latest from Capitol Hill on the threat to Mike Johnson's speakership. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius. He's out today with his new thriller entitled Phantom Orbit and

the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, and his book, The Big Lie, Election Chaos, Political Opportunism and the state of American politics after 2020 is out today in paperback. It's book week. Timely. It is book week. It's amazing. But we begin this morning with the Israel Defense Forces announcing they've taken operational control of the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing. The military released this video overnight of troops entering the area and beginning a, quote, precise counterterrorism operation. Israeli officials say they seized the crossing after receiving intelligence it was being used for terrorist purposes. No evidence to support that claim was provided.

The IDF also conducted airstrikes that targeted suspected Hamas positions in Rafah. The move comes just one day after Israel ordered about 100,000 civilians to immediately evacuate parts of the southern Gaza city. Officials say they will operate with extreme force in those areas, Willie. And shortly after Israel ordered civilians to evacuate Rafah, Hamas announced it would accept its interpretation of a ceasefire proposal. Its interpretation is the operative part there. Hours later, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement saying the proposal Hamas agreed to does not meet Israel's demands. NBC News obtained a copy of the draft. The first phase calls for a 42 day ceasefire, as well as the release of 33 hostages in exchange for a much

larger number of Palestinian prisoners. In the second phase, there would be the enactment of a quote, sustainable calm. Two officials familiar with the revised proposal tell The New York Times there were minor wording changes that were signed off by the U.S. and Israel. That includes the phrase sustainable calm. But sources tell The Times Hamas viewed that term as an end to the war, which Israel was expected to push back on. Of course, negotiations are set to resume today in Cairo. CIA Director Bill Burns is expected to take part in those. Joining us now live from Jerusalem is NBC News Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel. Richard, we can talk about the ceasefire in a moment, that agreement and those two dueling interpretations

of it. But first, Rafa, what's happening down in southern Gaza this morning. So Israeli troops overnight took over the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing. So that gives Israel effective control of this key entry point into Gaza. It also gives them a foothold into the city. Israeli officials say that this is not the start of the widely anticipated big Rafa offensive, something that President Biden has opposed. They say that this is a tactical move, but it is also something that strengthens their hand as they go back into negotiations. So they are holding part of Rafa. They did leaflet the area. But our crew in Rafah started documenting the Israeli bombing campaign really just hours after the leaflets were dropped. So they didn't give very much time for people to evacuate the area.

We talked yesterday how they were using text messages and leaflets to tell people to to get out out of this part of Rafah. But within hours, they were bombing, and according to medical officials, in overnight attacks, including that incursion into the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing, at least 20 people were killed, including children. Obviously, a perilous mission and furthering perhaps the humanitarian crisis there. Richard, let's talk about this ceasefire and help us understand what we're looking at here, because you have one brokered by Egypt and Qatar. Hamas says, yes, we agree to the terms of the ceasefire. Israel says, wait a minute, that's not the ceasefire we agreed to. So what are we talking about here? So it is it is quite complex,

but I think you have to understand this as a negotiating process. There was quite a bit of progress over the last week or so. Israel, backed by the United States, put forward a document. It was presented to Hamas. It was presented to the Egyptians and the Qatari negotiators. You remember that Secretary of State Blinken praised that offer, saying it was very generous. Hamas took it. They said they were reading it positively. But then the Israeli government, Prime Minister Netanyahu, didn't send a negotiator to follow up

on the conversation, didn't send anyone to attend the final talks because from Israel's point of view, the document was done. It was as good as it was going to get. Even Secretary of State Blinken said it was very generous. So why go to the meeting? Because showing up at a meeting like in any negotiation implies that you're going to have to negotiate a little bit more. Israel didn't go, and Hamas and the negotiators, working off that document that was there without the presence of the Israeli delegation, said, yes, we agree to the terms.

Here it is. But the terms that they presented were not exactly the same terms that Israel had presented. So now Israel says, fine, we will go back. They're sending a, quote, working level delegation to Cairo today to see if they can find some common ground based on this, on these two interpretations of the document that was sent. But what it does do is it puts quite a bit of pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Because in this document, Hamas openly says, we're willing to release all of the hostages, all of the women in phase one,

three phases, each one 42 days. We're willing to release all of the rest of the hostages in phase two. So the Israeli hostage families are hearing that. Opponents of Prime Minister Netanyahu are accusing him of not taking the hostage release seriously, are hearing that. And it would be very difficult at this stage for the Israeli government, Prime Minister Netanyahu in particular, to walk away from this deal entirely without at least sending a negotiating team. And members of his right-wing coalition praised him for not sending a negotiating team. So we're seeing this process play out.

And Hamas sort of outed the Israelis by coming public yesterday with with its with its own agreement, saying, don't don't paint us as the people who are rejecting everything. We're willing to we're willing to negotiate. We're willing to release the hostages. You just need to show up and finish this deal. NBC's Richard Engel explaining a very complicated situation. Well, to us, Richard, live in Jerusalem. Thanks so much. We appreciate it. So Joe and Mika also reporting that Israel wanted 40 hostages back in this deal. Hamas was offering 18. They landed on 33. But now we're hearing that Hamas said that may include the remains of some hostage who have died, to which Israel said, no, no, no, that's not what we're talking about here. So we're still a long way from anything that can be considered workable at this point. up to date uh based on your reporting about where we are uh obviously uh the hostage negotiations go on uh this is there's a step uh obviously a positive step as far as the families of the

hostages are concerned the promise of ultimately releasing all the hostages at the same time as as we've said here uh the prospect of haas staying in power indefinitely in Gaza, just just not a possibility for the overwhelming majority of Israelis. So where did the negotiations go from here? So, Joe, my sense is that like so many negotiations in the Middle East, as this one gets closer to achieving its goal of a final deal. Differences between the sides, recourse to fighting, as in Israel's attacks on parts of Rafah over the last 24 hours, become part of the negotiating process. I'm struck by the absolute commitment that President Biden has shown to getting this deal done. He has kept working at it. He keeps sending his CIA director, Bill Burns, back. I think from what I hear, Bill Burns is really acting as the guarantor of this deal,

saying to all sides, the United States undertakes to guarantee the basics, the framework that's being negotiated here. The most difficult language, obviously, is about how long this period of ceasefire lasts. Is it a permanent end of the war, as Hamas wants? Is it a lull of some weeks, months, as Israel has been willing to concede. The phrase they've come up with, sustainable calm, is an attempt to satisfy both sides. It's classic diplomatic language. It allows both to claim victory in a sense. Some Oskins say we got a permanent truce. Israel says, no, no, no, it's sustainable calm. That's different. My feeling, Joe and Mika, is that the one thing that we need to bear in mind is that after everything that's happened, Israel is not going to settle for a

Hamas win. Anything that really looks like they've capitulated to Hamas demands isn't going to fly. They want the hostages back. It's a demand of the Israeli public that's deep that Netanyahu can't ignore. But perhaps that phrase, sustainable calm, will be sufficiently vague that Israelis can sell it to their public. But I don't think anyone should assume that Israeli operations to destroy what remains of Hamas military power are not going to continue over the next months, not necessarily over the next weeks. But this, you know, that part of the war isn't over and it won't be. I don't think Israel is prepared to see Hamas come back as the dominant governing force in Gaza. Jonathan Lemire, we know President Biden had a call with Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday. What do we know about what came out of that call?

So the president, first of all, stressed the need to get humanitarian aid back into Gaza and was able to push Prime Minister Netanyahu to agree to reopen a crossing there that allowed that to resume. He also said that the U.S. maintains its need for the want and goal for these hostages to be released and to support efforts to do so. He also issued yet another warning, another warning to Netanyahu against an all-out invasion of Rafah. Certainly, the president stressed, we understand the need to get Hamas leaders. We've been behind you on that since October 7th. But civilian casualties must be avoided. Israel still has not really presented a plan to do so. And that call happened in the hours before this confusion about what ceasefire

agreement may or may not have agreed to. Hamas has said they're taking one agreement. Israel says that's not good enough. That was not part of that call yesterday. But U.S. and Israeli officials have since been in constant contact about what's next. And now today, with this very fraught backdrop, the president's going to be on Capitol Hill for Holocaust Remembrance Day for the commemorations of the six million Jews who were killed during World War II. And he'll be speaking about that moment, but also more broadly about anti-Semitism. What we saw on college campuses in recent weeks is part of when some of those protests, pro-Gaza protests, spiraled out of control. And then more broadly, just the surge in anti-Semitism that we've seen across the country and globe

in recent years, particularly since October 7th. And there are certainly domestic political considerations for this president as well. But David Ignatius, let's talk more about what happens next. There's some reporting this morning in Axios and other places, some tension between Israel and Washington. Israeli officials claiming that Washington knew about this Hamas deal, but didn't inform Israel, and Israel was therefore caught off guard. I think there is more pressure, to Richard's point earlier, on Netanyahu to take some sort of deal or at least hold off the invasion of Rafah to let negotiations continue. What more, if anything, can this president do to get Netanyahu to listen?

So, Jonathan, I think the hardest part of this is that there are sharp divisions within Israel now. There's growing dissent, unhappiness from some of the senior people in the Israeli Defense Forces who've been uncomfortable with Netanyahu really for months. But that's, I'm told, come to a head in the last week. What they want, what they're demanding is a clearer plan for how Israel gets from here to a stable Gaza. And they are not seeing that yet from the Netanyahu government. The IDF wants, as it pulls its troops back, to be confident it's not going to have to send them in all over again and have a repeat of this. So for now, I think that's a key element. I do think President Biden's personal guarantees through Director Burns shuttling back and forth between Doha and Cairo have been a key element in this. When an American

president sends his personal emissary and says, we guarantee that this outcome will be as we describe it, that's the most a president can do it. He puts U.S. credibility on the line. I think that's been important in speaking to the Israelis. I think Biden's call with Netanyahu yesterday was a crucial one. He was putting it on the line. The United States needs this end of fighting. We need the ceasefire agreement to work. You have to help us get it. Similar things have been said, obviously, to the Hamas side through Qatar and Egypt. So I think we're in this tense final phase of a negotiation. It's one in which the president's credibility, his interests as president and the future of this region are totally engaged.

We'll see what he says publicly, because that will be a moment in which she speaks to the country, not in private to his negotiators. Yeah. All right. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you very, very much. And still ahead in just one minute, Donald Trump's criminal trial will pick up again just a short time from now back in New York City. We're going to go over what we learned yesterday as prosecutors focused on the Trump organization's paper trail, and the judge holds the former president in contempt again. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 60 seconds. Beautiful look at lower Manhattan at 17 past the hour. It is day 13 of Donald Trump's criminal trial, which resumes later this morning, a day after the judge issued his sharpest warning yet of potential jail time for the former president for continuing to violate his gag order. At the start of court yesterday, Judge Juan Merchan found Trump in contempt for a 10th time, fining him an additional $1,000.

But in his ruling, the judge stated, quote, it appears that the $1,000 fines are not serving as a deterrent. Judge Merchan also acknowledged the magnitude of potentially jailing Trump and how disruptive to the proceedings it would be, stating, quote, the last thing I want to do is put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well. There are many reasons why incarceration is truly a last resort for me. But at the end of the day, I have a job to do. So as much as I do not want to propose a jail sanction, I will, if necessary.

Willie? And when the trial resumed, prosecutors delved into the documents that are at the heart of this case. That came in testimony from former Trump Organization controller Jeffrey McConney and current employee Deborah Tarasoff, an accounts payable supervisor and a 24-year veteran of the company. They both explained the mechanics of reimbursing former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen for the $130,000 paid to adult film actress Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet about an alleged affair with Donald Trump. Trump has denied any sexual Stormy Daniels to keep her quiet about an alleged affair with Donald Trump. Trump has denied any sexual encounter with Daniels. They also described how several of the large sums that went to Cohen for the alleged purposes of

hush money payments came directly from Donald Trump's bank account. And for the first time during the trial, a check from the alleged scheme was shown in court. Let's bring in former litigator, MSNBC legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin. Lisa, good morning. You had a front row seat yesterday inside the courtroom. So perhaps not as splashy as David Pecker when you hear about someone from accounts payable, but really important to this case. Totally important. And as understated, what you just said was maybe as one Rashaun telling Donald Trump that it appears that the one thousand dollar fines are not working as a deterrent. Yeah. Yesterday was an incredibly important day in court and not at all a sensational one because document by document,

Makhani and Tarasov went through the 34 business records that are alleged here to have been falsified. And the prosecutors made them read from those documents so that the jury can understand what specifically about each and every one of these documents is allegedly false. So, for example, Michael Cohen's 12 invoices all say pursuant to our retainer agreement, here is my bill for services rendered. What's false about that? There was no retainer agreement. There were no services rendered. And similarly, they had to go through the checks and the check stubs, the check stubs, each one of which says that it's pursuant to a retainer. And then they had to go through the general business ledger entries that similarly say that this is pursuant to a retainer and for legal services. That is not at all exciting for the jury

and you could see that there were times that their attention waned, but it is the heart and the crux of the charged crime here and perhaps the most important date legally in this trial, if not at least the most exciting one. And the fact that we learned they came directly from Donald Trump's personal bank accounts and not from the Trump Organization's bank account. And also when Tarasov was asked, did this go through the legal department at the Trump Organization? Because we're, they claim, talking about legal retainers. She said no. And she admitted that that was unusual. So how damning

was the testimony to Donald Trump yesterday? I think the testimony was damning to Donald Trump in a number of ways and not even ways that I think the jury fully appreciates yet, but hopefully on closing argument will. One of the things that Jeff McConaughey said, for example, that I thought was hugely damaging was he talked about an episode early on in his employment where Trump called him in because he was delivering something to Donald Trump in terms of his cash balances from a week to week basis. That was one of McConaughey's responsibilities. And Trump is on the phone. He said, hold on, hold on, Jeff, you're fired. And he's waiting for McConaughey. And when he gets off the phone, he goes, no, you're not fired. But my cash balance went down. Why was that?

McConaughey explains, well, I had bills to pay. And Trump instructs him, basically, from this point forward, you don't just pay the bills as they're tendered to you. You negotiate. And McConaughey said that was a teaching moment for him. Remember, if a person is telling you, as the person responsible for paying out all of his bills, negotiate everything, it's kind of at odds with that to then have these invoices come in for thirty five thousand dollars every month without any explanation. Two lines saying pursuant to our retainer agreement. Here's my bill for services and expect to be paid thirty five thousand dollars with no questions asked. That's not who Donald Trump was. And the prosecutors want the jury to understand. And these are not disgruntled employees. In fact, Tarasov is still an employee

of the Trump organization, but just telling the truth on the stand yesterday. So let's talk about Judge Mershon, his warning again yesterday, saying to Donald Trump in that order, I don't want to put you in jail. But if you keep violating the gag order, clearly a thousand dollars per violation is not making a dent here. I'm going to have to do it. Do you think we're going to reach that point? I'm hopeful that we won't reach that point. And one more, Sean, I compared him on another show a couple of weeks ago to the disappointed parental or grandfatherly figure that we all have that gets quieter, the angrier he gets. His tone yesterday was definitely one more of sorrow than of anger. He was very understated. Hopefully he is impressing upon the former president. This is, as he said, this is the last thing I want to do.

And yet, if I have no choice, I will do it because the statute provides him only with two options, either $1,000 per violation or incarceration up to 30 days. And he said, point blank, this isn't really making a dent to charge you $1,000 per. The one bright side for Donald Trump, if you can call it that, is the district attorney had alleged four violations. Only one of them, one Marshawn found yesterday, was violative of the gag order. Two of the alleged violations are about Michael Cohen. The Trump team made some inroads with Marshawn by showing him that Trump's statements about Cohen were close in time, if not on the same day, to statements Cohen made about Trump

on X that were highly inflammatory. And they said Trump was just defending himself against a politicized attack. Mershon didn't agree with them per se, but he said it was close enough that he couldn't find beyond reasonable doubt that Trump should be held in criminal contempt. So look for Trump to try and test those lines a little bit more, particularly if Michael Cohen or Stormy Daniels continues to talk. On the other hand, if he goes after jurors again or he makes a statement about a different witness, do I think Juan Rashan is a man of his word? I do, Willie, and we'll see. So, Jonathan Lemire, there's been this debate about whether Donald Trump actually wants to be put in jail, maybe for a day or for one night, just to have the story and to say, see, look, they locked me up.

I'm your retribution, everything else. We heard some commentators and other networks saying, oh, please put him in jail or win him the election. On the other hand, Donald Trump doesn't really want to go sit in a jail cell for a night. So the thousand dollars per violation isn't quite working. There's a sense maybe Donald Trump's calling the bluff of Judge Mershon. We'll see where this goes. We will see where it goes. But I can tell you, Willie, speaking to a lot of people close to the former president, he does not want to spend a night in jail. That was the case. He talked about it last summer when he was indicted in Georgia and had to go for that

mugshot that he was rattled by some of that. He has been quizzing people at his Mar-a-Lago resorts and other places about prison, people, some of whom he knows have spent time there. And he has made it very clear that he does not want to happen. This is something his whole life he's been very fearful of, of this possibility. So this is a he's trying to put up a brave face. He's trying to rally his supporters. He's trying to say, I'll be a martyr by going to jail for a night or two, because there'll be more evidence of this deep state conspiracy against me. But let's be clear, he doesn't want to go in jail. And there's been no evidence that this trial is bringing more voters to his side either. Where we haven't really seen it hurt his standings, at least to this point.

The trial, the polls largely stay unchanged. Trump has slipped a little bit. Biden gains, but it's hard to assign credit to the trial for that. A verdict, however, may change things. But Lisa, just walk us through the mechanics, if you will. Let's say it happens and Judge Bershon finally says enough is enough, whether that's this week or next week, whatever it might be, and says, Trump, you violated the order again.

We've got to put you in jail for a night or two. It would be such a logistical nightmare with Secret Service agents and such uncharted territory, to be sure. But give us your best guess. What would this look like? So I'll give you my best guess and also based on conversations that reporters are having amongst themselves in the courthouse. There is a general consensus that if Juan Merchan were to find that Donald Trump has to spend time in jail, it wouldn't be in the notorious Rikers Island complex. It would likely be in some sort of holding facility adjacent to the courthouse where Secret Service can be nearby. It's also my understanding that there have been some preliminary conversations between Secret Service, court corrections officers,

and the court itself about what that might look like, because it's not at all clear that Secret Service is prepared to or would leave Donald Trump's side. So accommodations will have to be made for that if and when this time comes. But for anybody who's hoping to see Donald Trump in some form of orange jumpsuit shipped off to Rikers Island for criminal contempt for violating the gag order, I can assure them now that that's probably not how this will go down at all. And John, I just want to say, I fully agree with you that Donald Trump does not want to spend even 24 minutes in jail, let alone 24 hours. And that's evident by how hard Todd Blanche has tap danced to assure Juan Rashad that Trump did not knowingly or intentionally violate the

gag order. You just simply would not fight this hard if your client wanted to make a martyr out of himself the way that Trump is trying to portray to his supporters. Lisa, just from what we saw happen yesterday, putting all of that aside, did anything happen yesterday that would interrupt the notion that this is moving at a very, very fast pace? No, the opposite, Mika. I would say at the end of the day, Judge Mershon, we finished 11 witnesses so far. Judge Mershon wanted a read from the prosecution about how things are moving overall. And Josh Steinglass, who is sort of the lead prosecutor, said, well, and there was a big laughter in the courtroom.

Merchant said, could you elaborate on that? And that's when Josh Steinglass said, for the record, that he thought that he could be finished or rather the prosecution could be finished with their case in chief two weeks from today. That's eight remaining trial days. And that would include, presumably, the testimony of Michael Cohen and perhaps Stormy Daniels as well, each of which are expected to last for multiple days. So I think this is moving at a rapid clip and even faster, maybe, than the district attorney's office had even anticipated.

MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, thank you very, very much. We'll see you again soon. And coming up, former press secretary Jen Psaki is out with a new inside account from her time serving in the White House. She joins us with that ahead on Morning Joe. We'll be right back. On Saturday, he hosted an event at Mar-a-Lago for wealthy donors. It was a luncheon that included around a dozen potential running mates, all of whom are auditioning to be his number two on the exciting new reality competition show, So You Think You Can Pence. Only Donald Trump could end up with a running mate and a cellmate the same month.

But among the hopefuls are Marco Rubio, Elise Stefanik, J.D. Vance and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, who I really love that she thinks she still has a shot. I mean, she had a shot. She used it on her dog. And now. Oh, my God. The executive editor of The New York Times is pushing back against criticism that the newspaper has received for its coverage of the 2024 election. In an interview with Semaphore, Joseph Kahn responded to attacks from some on the left who say the Times reporting is too critical of President Joe Biden and could enable Donald Trump to win back the White House. There are there's so many things wrong with that right there. There are people out there in the world, quote, who may decide based on their democratic

rights to elect Donald Trump as president. Khan says it's not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It's the job of Joe Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening, to say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote. That's essentially saying the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate because we prefer that candidate's agenda. Oh, this is so interesting. Joining us now, Editor-in-Chief of Semaphore, Ben Smith. He conducted that interview with Joseph Kahn. He's also the author of the 2023 book out today in paperback entitled Traffic,

Genius, Rivalry and Delusion in the Billion Dollar Race to Go Viral. You know, Ben, you can go online for for five seconds and find examples of the Times being hammered for being too anti Biden, too anti Trump, too anti Israel, too anti Palestinian. It's just it goes with it, even though it's seen as a center left newspaper. The goal is to play it straight down the middle. Talk about the frustrations that the executive editor is feeling right now. Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, it's a moment when Democrats really want the media in their corner. And what you know, what a lot of people see is this basically battle over democracy.

But what's happening inside The New York Times is a sense that during particularly the summer of 2020, they aligned themselves too much during particularly the summer of 2020, they aligned themselves too much with particularly a kind of progressive wing of the Democratic Party, you know, on account of their staff, on account of the sort of cultural forces. And I think Khan sees his job as pulling the institution back from what he called excesses in that moment. Kind of inconvenient time, perhaps, for Joe Biden, for the Times to be kind of symbolically focused on dragging itself back from that brink. Yeah, what did Marty Barron say at the Washington Post? We're going to work, not war. It seems to me that even if readers look at these newspapers and sense that it seems like they're going to war against some of the more extreme elements of Donald Trump's platform against his future plans.

Again, the editor, people in the newsroom, their jobs not to pick sides, their jobs to report the facts. And, of course, in my opinion, because we don't have to play it down the middle, the facts are heinous enough to speak for themselves. Yeah, I mean, I think there's a question of, you know, what the what is exactly does it mean to play it down the middle? Is in the you know, is the job of the media to fight for democracy or in a democracy? Do we have this very constrained, specific role lane and we're supposed to stay in it? And I think in some sense, what the Times is deciding is the second the second option there. So, Ben, let's talk about the traffic book that

was out this year, last year, and that you've updated in paperback. It kind of takes us back to the beginning, which to me doesn't feel that long ago, but I guess it is now when you were a young buck coming up and there was all this disruption in media and it wasn't just about legacy anymore and it was going to be Gawker and Huffington Post and BuzzFeed, which you obviously did so much work with and helped to build. How different has it ended up, which is one of the points of your book, than you all viewed it when you began? In other words, it was kind of a progressive group of young, almost New York based journalists. And this chase of traffic

and clicks led us to a different place. Yeah. I mean, I wrote the book in 2020, sort of looking back at this era that began with blogs. Now, it sounds embarrassing to say that I was a blogger at the time. And it was both presumptively of the left and kind of left-leaning. And also, there's just a sense that this was the future, this sort of progressive new media. You know, I think you look back now, and that was wrong in two ways. One is that the people who were best able to use these populist tools of, you know, the digital media, social media, turned out to be the right, turned out to be Steve Bannon, Donald Trump.

I mean, the other big surprise for me in writing the book was the realization that I had to write a chapter about the New York Times, which did emerge in some ways as the winner of that period. John? We didn't hear you there, Willie. Yeah, Ben, let's talk a little more about this sort of landscape in terms of the media now. Where do you see it going? Because it seems like nearly every day there is reports of layoffs. There's reports of consolidation. There are very few outlets that seemingly have the resource, the ability to do their job the way they see fit, to do what the readers and viewers demand. Give us this forecast for us, if you will,

the future of all this, when the news has never been more important, world events never moving more faster, but we seem to be struggling to keep up. Yeah, the big story in media right now is fragmentation. And it's a hard, confusing story to cover. Everything is getting smaller. TV is getting smaller. Traditional news outlets are getting smaller. And tons of small and medium sized podcasts and newsletters and things are springing up around them. But it's a moving target. There's no center. The data point that I'm kind of obsessed with is the biggest podcast. A lot of podcasts out there, the most popular one is Joe Rogan. Big audience, but he's only got 5% of that podcast market.

If you guys only had 5% of the morning news market, that would be a big problem. It's essentially a landscape in which there's no huge player. There's tons and tons of medium-sized players. And if you're on the New York subway, you have no idea what other people are listening to in their AirPods. Basically, people are retreating from these big, open social media spaces into Jonathan was saying, the situation has gotten tougher and tougher. More fragmentation, but also more failure. You look what happened over the past year from the L.A. Times to the Messenger to you name it. It seems one business, whether it's traditional newspaper or whether it's website-based, one after another has fallen.

A couple of questions. One, why is it that The New York Times seems to only be getting stronger? And two, what is the lesson from all these failures for the startup to the next few years? You know, in some sense, the big story is the decline of local. The New York Times is getting stronger in a sense because it's because why would you read the Los Angeles Times, the Cleveland Plain Dealer? You can just get just as easily get the New York Times. And in the same way with something like search engines or, you know, the rich get richer, the best platform gets more data and more money and gets better. In some sense, the Times is the winner of this kind of nationalization of news and local press everywhere is the loser.

And the way in which the industry is shrinking, the real the real thing that is hitting the news industry, you know, isn't tech journalism or media journalism or business journal. It's local news. And that is just continuing to get decimated and eroding this very baseline foundation of news gathering in America. And I think, you know, those of us who are trying to build new things, like us at Semphore, being very careful, very focused. I mean, in a way that is not totally unlike television, actually, on the voices of individual journalists who can connect to people who are maybe a little skeptical of institutions. But I do think that none of us are chasing the kind of scale that we were, for instance, at BuzzFeed. All right. Semaphores, Ben Smith, thank you so much. His book is entitled Traffic, Genius, Rivalry and Delusion in the Billion Dollar Race to Go Viral. It's out in paperback today. Thanks, Ben. And still ahead

on Morning Joe. Did you believe that you were targeted deliberately, that people knew who you were, knew that you were landing on that flight and deliberately targeted you? I believe so. Yes. I wholeheartedly believe that. That was WNBA star Brittany Griner speaking with MSNBC's Joy Reid in a cable exclusive about her arrest, which led to her Russian confinement. Ahead, we'll hear more from Greiner detailing the mind game she says the Russians played on her behind bars and whether or not she thought she would ever make it home. Ted will dig into Georgia Republican Jeff Duncan's blistering new op-ed where he blasts those in his own party who fall in line with Donald Trump and what he's revealing about who he will vote for this election cycle and why.

Morning Joe will be right back. Before I see things the right way. Sitting on 40. Kicks to DiVincenzo. Three-pointer. Down it goes. Dante DiVincenzo breaking a tie with 40 seconds left. Put the New York Knicks ahead for good in another thriller at the Garden last night. Point guard Jalen Brunson, the all-star, notched his fourth consecutive playoff

game with 40 or more points. He had 43 last night, including 21 in the fourth quarter to lead the Knicks to a 121-117 victory over the Indiana Pacers in the opener of their second round series. Game two tomorrow night at Madison Square Garden. Jonathan Lemire, back page of the Post this morning. Where am I going? Over here. Thrilla Nova, the three Villanova players, the Nova Knicks, as they've become known, combining for 92 points when you put Josh Hart in there as well.

They were trailing most of that game. It was a little dicey, but, man, the Garden came alive there at the end. Yeah, that's when I think the Pacers are really going to regret letting slip away. They led most of the way. You have a chance to steal game one on the road, put the pressure squarely on New York, seize control of the series. And they just couldn't close out.

And Jalen Brunson, credit to him and his Villanova teammates, he's been so good in these playoffs. I mean, Will, you weigh in on this. Some Knick fans are already suggesting he's a top five Knick of all time. That seems a little premature for a franchise that does not have too many championships, but does have Patrick Ewing and Bernard King and Walt Clyde Frazier, just to name a few. But there's no overstating what he's done these playoffs. They're a shorthanded team. He's carrying them.

That's a big win. Well, he's high on the list. Let's see how deep they go here. I mean, my gosh, if he brings them a title, the first since 1973, he climbs. But, man, they're talking about names like Michael Jordan and Jerry West in terms of consecutive 40-point games in the playoffs last night. He's just doing it and doing it so consistently. 21 in the fourth quarter, putting them on his back.

So game two tomorrow night. And, John, how about the story developing out west? Defending champion Nuggets on the ropes a little bit here. The Timberwolves dominating Denver on their home court again last night. Anthony Edwards, Carl Anthony Towns of Minnesota each scored 27 points. T-Wolves improved to 6-0 in the playoffs with a 106-80 blowout of the Nuggets in game two of their second round series. Minnesota can sweep Denver with wins Friday night and Sunday night back on their home court.

So, you know, you never want to count out the Nuggets, Jonathan, but losing two on your home floor gets you pretty close. Yeah, I suspect the Nuggets won't get swept. They're the defending champs. They still have the best player in the league in Nikola Jokic. But this is stunning. Also, first of all, Minnesota did this last night without Rudy Gobert, who missed the game because of the birth of his child,

yet suffocating defense, holding Denver to just 80 points. And Andy Randolph is about to be the face of the NBA. This guy is only 22 years old. He's an extraordinary young talent. They're just stunned to beat Denver like that at home. And they will place, you know, the winner of that series, of course, gets the winner of the Oklahoma City-Dallas series, which kicks off tonight, as does the Celtics and the Cavaliers.

That's right. Game one up in Boston tonight. Chris Porzingis still out. Unclear when he's coming back. Celtics still favored in that series. But it should be a good couple days of basketball here. How are you feeling right now about the Knicks? I feel good.

I mean, that one, that was, I wasn't feeling great for about three and a half quarters last night, and then they turned it on. And there's just, there's nowhere else like it when the Garden gets to a playoff game like that and the Rangers will have one there tonight. Place is absolutely rocking. So I feel relieved, let's put it that way,

after that game one win. Yeah, and this is obviously deeply premature, but it was pointed out to me yesterday. This hadn't occurred to me. We're potentially on track for a Boston versus New York conference finals in both the NBA and NHL. The Bruins and Rangers, Knicks and Celtics all very much alive right now. That would be something and, frankly, test our friendship.

It did cross my mind, but I dare not say it out loud. Let's see what happens here.