Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/8/24

Episode Date: May 8, 2024

Stormy Daniels testifies in Trump's hush money trial 

Trump posted and then quickly deleted an angry statement about Stormy Daniels testifying, saying that his lawyers had no time to prepare. Yeah, no one could predict that the Stormy Daniels trial would involve Stormy Daniels. Donald Trump was in court yesterday face to face with Stormy Daniels for the first time in years, forced to listen to her account of an affair she says they had back in 2006. We're going to go through her testimony and get expert legal analysis on this trial, as well as a major development in the classified documents case. Also ahead, we'll play for you part of President Biden's speech yesterday at a Holocaust remembrance ceremony where he condemned a rise in anti-Semitism

and violent protests over the war in Gaza. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. Yeah, good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. I interrupted you before you even got to the date, Rika. This will get the emails flooding in. I'm sorry, sweetie. You forgive me? You forgive me? Yeah. Okay, good. Don't do it again. I won't. Okay, go ahead. Yeah, okay.

All right, so. Good, good, good, good, good. Willie, Willie, on a serious note, it was so great. You know, a picture can paint a thousand words. It was so great for the world to see the American president. And the American speaker of the House next to each other for Holocaust Remembrance Day. And if anybody out there, if anybody in America or anybody across the world thought that there was an inch between those two gentlemen, those two leaders, two of the most powerful leaders in the world on the issue of anti-Semitism are whether America was going to back down in our defense of Jews. That picture eliminates any hope or any thoughts for anti-Semites, racists, bigots in America and across the world. It was a beautiful I thought it was a beautiful picture. And it's one more example in recent weeks of Joe Biden and Speaker Mike Johnson being able to work together for all the right reasons.

It has been a turn, hasn't it, in the last couple of weeks, beginning with the Ukraine aid that Speaker Johnson finally was able to push over the finish line with some nudging and some help from the White House. But that was a very striking image, a bipartisan image yesterday. And it has to be said, an incredibly powerful direct speech from the president of the United States about anti-Semitism in this country, about the campus protests, and yes, about our relationship with Israel, making the point that there is no daylight between us and Israel. This is our strong ally. We support Israel, he said, even when we disagree. It's OK to disagree on policy.

It's OK to disagree at times about Israel's prosecution of the war. But we will defend Israel and we will not tolerate anti-Semitism here at home. A very strong moment, especially, Mika, when contrasted with where his opponent was yesterday. Yeah, and that is that's our top story. Stormy Daniels scheduled to return to the witness stand tomorrow in the Donald Trump criminal trial. The adult film actress testified under oath yesterday about the sexual encounter she says she had with Trump in 2006 and the $130,000 deal that was struck for her silence 10 years later during the 2016

presidential campaign. Daniels described how she first met Trump at a 2006 celebrity golf event in Lake Tahoe and later met him in his penthouse where Trump discussed putting her on his reality show, The Celebrity Apprentice. She says the two had sex, sharing graphic details about the encounter. Trump attorney Todd Blanch moved for a mistrial, saying Daniel's testimony about the alleged encounter was, quote, unduly and inappropriately prejudicial and full of information that the defense deemed irrelevant. Judge Juan Merchan shot down the request, but acknowledged there were, quote, things that would have been better left to unset and that he would strike some of Daniel's testimony from the record. The judge added he was, quote, surprised there were not more objections from the defense.

When asked if Trump... Exactly. I just wanted to say, Mika, exactly. You know, you don't call for a mistrial after you're sitting there. Maybe he was half asleep with Donald Trump while she's giving this testimony that, I don't know that you'd call it graphic, but it went into very personal details that, as the judge said, would have been better if nobody had heard inside that courtroom. But when somebody goes there, the judge stands up and or the defense stands up and they object. So right. And so that would have stopped the testimony. The defense didn't stand up and object along the way because the judge clearly thought and at one point even told Stormy Daniels, hey, too much information.

OK, you just you just give us a general outlines. We don't care what you two did. Like so. But again, that's the judge is exactly right. If the defense had a problem with it coming in, that's when you stand up and you object. Well, that's a really valuable point. I think there's also a discussion in a debate here. And we're going to have our our experts talking about this. But whether or not the prosecution overreached a little bit and might it be too much for the jury? Just like, come on, man, like I don't need to hear. I don't even want to repeat it. I mean, we heard if you can look it up. But some of this stuff was graphic and kind of disturbing, actually. But at the same time, you could argue that she is I guess the prosecution has to prove that there was something that happened that he was paying for to cover up. I don't know. When asked if Trump ever told Daniels to keep things between

them confidential in the aftermath of the encounter, she said, quote, absolutely not. But once the Access Hollywood tape went public in October of 2016, Daniel said Trump's then-lawyer Michael Cohen wanted to buy her silence. During cross-examination, the defense tried to paint Daniels as a liar and extortionist. But Daniel said her motivation was not money and that she just wanted to get her story out publicly. She also acknowledged that she hates Trump. Speaking of experts, let's bring in former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin and MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savalas. And Jonathan Lemire is with us as well. He's the host of Way Too Early and White House bureau chief at Politico. Lisa, let's just first, how do we put into words what went down yesterday at trial?

And where do you think the prosecution landed with their questioning of Stormy Daniels? Was it effective or was there some perhaps overzealousness there? You know, Mika, I have a slightly different take on all this than I think some folks do. I didn't think that the testimony was graphic at all. I actually thought that while she provided lots of details that were extraneous in the judge's mind at times or in Team Trump's mind, they were things like the color of the tile on the floor of the foyer of his hotel penthouse or the fact that his toiletries kit in the bathroom had Perc Plus and Old Spice in it. When it came to what actually transpired between them,

she was fairly circumspect. She added one detail about the sexual encounter that I think the judge wished she hadn't. But when he said that at times, she said too much. There were things that were said that were better left unsaid. A lot of that had to do with her own state of mind and what she was experiencing at the time. In terms of the prosecution, they don't necessarily need the

jury to think that she's credible. But what they want is the jury to understand what the impact of her story would have been had Michael Cohen never in the final days of the campaign rushed to reach a settlement with her. In other words, in a but for universe, but for Michael Cohen's intervention and Keith Davidson representing her to get to this NDA that was ultimately signed and paid in the last days of October, what would have happened? What would the impact have been on the campaign, a campaign that was already reeling from the Access Hollywood allegations and the things that followed in those ensuing days, including a number of other women beyond Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels coming forward to The New York Times on October 10th and saying that they

had been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump or victims of his sexual misconduct. That's what they want the jury to hear is what would that have sounded like? And can you understand then why Donald Trump and Michael Cohen were ultimately motivated to want her to say nothing, given what that story would have sounded like. Yeah, and I think I'm with Lisa here, Willie, that, you know, it wasn't graphic sexual testimony. I mean, you would have found, you will hear more graphic offensive statements in the first 15 seconds of the Tom Brady roast on Netflix than you heard in Story Daniel's testimony. Oh, my.

That was something. Wow. Wow. It was more just disturbing. Kaboom. I mean, we will talk about that at some other point, Willie. Two words. Oh, my God. She's incredible. Wow. Yeah. That's what he said. So anyway, Willie, it wasn't graphic sexually. I think what Mika's talking about, what I'm talking about, there were parts that you read and you go, oof, what's Melania thinking about it?

Or oof, what's Ivanka thinking? There were things where she got into his personal life and was talking about things that I'm sure made him extremely uncomfortable on a personal level, but she did not get into any really graphic detail other than maybe one time. She just, you know, I'm not going to even say it on. This is a kid's show. So I'm not going to say she she described one thing. But even that was

it was pretty generalized. I do wonder, though, why the defense didn't object to it. But regardless, I don't I don't think the prosecution heard its its its case. They laid out she laid out what happened. Then the cross had had their their point back. But again, it's for people watching this. This it wasn't any graphic description of sex. It was just things that I think made us all uncomfortable for Trump's family. Yeah, I think maybe more cringy than graphic, perhaps, as you listen to it.

Like you said, some of the things about Melania and Ivanka that people can all go read some comparisons he made. But so, Danny, I guess the question is, the defense did not object, but their general objection to Stormy Daniels as a witness is, what does any of this have to do? What does this tawdry detail, this salaciousness have to do with a case that the prosecution alleges is about paperwork? So what do you say to that as we listen to Stormy Daniels' testimony yesterday? Years from now, if there's a conviction and this goes up to the appellate division and it's overturned so far in this trial, Stormy Daniels testimony to me stands out as the main issue that they might have on appeal. They asked for a mistrial and you have

a quote from the judge saying, oh boy, some of this stuff, maybe it shouldn't have come in. Obviously I'm paraphrasing, but if you're a defense attorney, you're marking your notebook and now you have your first major issue. So years from now, when we're talking about balancing the risk versus the benefit of putting Stormy Daniels on the stand, was this worth it? Consider this. I think the prosecution could have gotten most, if not all of the evidence they needed from Stormy Daniels from other witnesses. And I think they've already done that. The transaction from Michael Cohen to Stormy Daniels. Is there any doubt at this point that they've proven that element beyond a reasonable doubt? Somebody paid Stormy Daniels. It seems to be Michael Cohen.

Nobody seems to really dispute that at this point. So the next thing you have Stormy Daniels on for is to describe the increasing market value of her story as the election approached. OK, that's helpful. But we already got a lot of that from Hope Hicks. So with every witness the prosecution decides to put on, they have to do a risk benefit analysis. What is the risk of putting this witness on the stand

versus the benefit? What do we get from her? And at the end of the day, yes, they got some good stuff. And in fact, they got some really good stuff because in my view, and maybe I'm a defense attorney, maybe there's a grain of salt to be taken with this. They essentially got in character evidence about how slimy Donald Trump is. Who can unring the bell in their mind of Donald Trump waiting till she comes out of the

bathroom and plopping on the bed in his boxers? Who can get the him the image of him answering the door in his satin jam jams out of their mind. They can't do that. So this was very effective. But as we just learned in the Harvey Weinstein case, if you're the prosecution and you push the envelope with the evidence you get in, this evidence is devastating. Make no mistake. We're all talking about it. So we can have a dispute about, oh, was it really that salacious? Was it really that sexy? Was it really that prurient? Doesn't matter. The jury heard it. They can't unhear it, even if the judge strikes the testimony. Striking the testimony is often a hollow victory, a hollow benefit after the

testimony's already come out. So, I mean, look, was Stormy Daniels a wise witness? Yes, in the sense that she put in all this great evidence for the prosecution. But it's evidence that has nothing to do with the elements they have to prove. This is not a sexual assault case. This is a false entries in business documents and then concealment of some other crime. So on appeal, in my view, you have your first major issue for appeal. So two years from now, we're back here saying the conviction got overturned. This is terrible. Well, this might be what we look at. And we can say, well, the prosecution took a calculated risk and it's yielded benefits in the last 24 hours.

But maybe in a couple of years, those benefits will not have been worth it. And Lisa, that's basically, as you know, the argument that defense has made is that this testimony yesterday from Stormy Daniels was designed just to humiliate Donald Trump in a public setting. And they say has nothing to do with what's being charged here. What do you say to that? In a technical level, I understand what they're saying. But on another level, it has everything to do with what's being charged here. The jury has to find in a relative absence of direct evidence that Donald Trump had knowledge of and intent to falsify business records, that he nonetheless was motivated to do it. And there's a ton of circumstantial evidence. But Michael Cohen will be the only person who gets on the stand and directly ties Donald Trump to that knowledge and intent. So what do they have to do? They have to work

backwards to convince the jury Donald Trump had every motive and incentive not only to do the deal, but to cover it up. How do you convince the jury that he had every motive and incentive? You hear, forgive the pun, straight from the horse's mouth what that interaction looked like. And for her, this was a traumatic incident. It recast Donald Trump from sort of the womanizer that we understood this episode to be about to the predator that the Access Hollywood tape made him out to be. It completely reinforces a frame of him that was existing in the political dialogue at the time and makes all the more credible why Donald Trump and Michael Cohen and all of their underlings would work so hard to conceal the true nature of the payment, disguise it instead as legal services and invoices pursuant to a retainer agreement,

something that Deborah Tarasoff and Jeff McConaughey in very dry testimony the day before yesterday described an excruciating detail for the jury. So so, Danny, let me push back a little bit and and and and get get some insight from you here. First of all, if the defense is letting that come in and they're not objecting and the judge isn't overturning the objection, though really embarrassing to Donald Trump, was relevant. And it was relevant because it was embarrassing to Donald Trump. Donald Trump. And again, I don't want to repeat it here, but Donald Trump doesn't want voters, let alone his wife, to hear what he said to Stormy Daniels about the status of their marital relationship. Donald Trump doesn't want voters more than he wants his daughter to hear what Donald Trump was saying, you know, making comparisons there.

So it seems to me that really goes to the heart. As Mika said, and Willie said, this is sort of cringeworthy. It's not rated R testimony. It's just all very cringeworthy. But if you're running for president of the United States, you don't want those things to come out a couple of days before the election. So doesn't the very nature of that, what makes it so cringy, what makes it almost over the top, doesn't that really go to Donald Trump's intent? Of course, any presidential candidate would want to stop this information about the status of his marriage, about an affair with a porn star, about what he said about his daughter.

Any presidential candidate would not want those words out, would they? Joe, we are in heated agreement. You're right. I mean, you do not want all that evidence that came in was helpful. But the question becomes, if you're a prosecutor and you're building your case and you're making a risk reward balancing analysis as to every witness, you have to decide, can I get this information from somewhere else with less risk? That's why you see people like a banker called a third party who wasn't doesn't have any skin in the game, who will give you an objective analysis of a transaction. That's why you call it Keith Davidson. That's why you call a hope. We already heard from

Hope X, who was a very credible witness that it was chaos in the White House, that everybody was worried about how this story and all the McDougal stories and everything else would hurt the campaign. Tell me, if you will, really quickly, what part of the testimony would you pull out and take up on appeal? What do you think is the defense's strongest case, specifically in reversible appeal, that it was overly prejudicial and wasn't worth the probative value? Sure.

I think Stormy Daniels' testimony could have been accomplished with three words in the sense that we had sex. Everything else was probably unnecessary. And then, to me, testimony like saying, well, he was a lot physically larger than me and I wasn't intimidated, but it's out there. He was bigger than me. He was blocking the door. It goes back to the issue. This is not a sex assault case. And the defense is going to argue and right or wrong. This is what they will

argue on appeal that this they that kind of testimony turned this into a quasi sex assault case, which painted the defendant in an unnecessarily bad light in a way that you can't unring the bell. So my my point is that, yes, it was really helpful that Stormy Daniels described in an environment where her story had all this value because it was close to campaign, even testimony, by the way, where Donald Trump didn't seem concerned about Melania finding out. That was good. And they actually elicited that in a very clever way. All the evidence about the transaction between Stormy Daniels and yes, the underlying incident, the fact that they had sex, that she got up there and said that they had sex.

That is all relevant. But you always ask the question, can you get this information from a less risky witness? We're only halfway through cross-examination. It could get worse. Maybe it won't. Maybe she'll survive and be fine. But Stormy Daniels is one of those witnesses that tends to not just answer the question asked, but add her own editorial. And that is a really dangerous thing.

I promise you the prosecution is sitting at their desk saying, just answer the question. Please just answer the question. Please, just the question. No editorializing. Sounds like you've done that before. So many times, Joe. So many times. So we get day off today. Testimony cross-examination resumes tomorrow. Lisa, you are our eyes and ears down at the courthouse. You were there again yesterday. Just some atmospherics of what it was like to be there when Stormy Daniels walks into the courtroom and sits down across from Donald Trump,

a man she's now been connected to publicly for almost a decade. Well, I think part of it, Willie, the shock of seeing Stormy Daniels, she doesn't look anymore like she does in the public imagination, because in our heads, she's frozen in time in that picture in 2006 taken at the golf tournament. It's a picture that the prosecution used to create effect yesterday. But that's not the Stormy Daniels who walked into court. Stormy Daniels, who walked into court yesterday, sort of looked like a cross between a suburban manicurist and a librarian. You know, she was

wearing her glasses, her hair was sort of piled on top of her head in a haphazard way. The beauty is still there, but the glamour is gone. She by no means looked like an adult film star. And yet the prosecution worked really hard at the very beginning of her testimony to sort of ground her as a person of considerable intellect and ambition before she

became an exotic dancer. And that speaks to the world that we live in, not the world we wish we lived in. They knew that once she sat down in that chair and she announced what she did for a living, there were going to be some cultural biases she was working against. And therefore, it was really important to them to counter those by saying Stormy Daniels was a person with a full scholarship to Texas A&M University. She wanted to become a veterinarian. She stayed home for a year to save money for incidental expenses, started dancing exotically. And then she was off on a very, very different career path. But the intellect is still there.

The curiosity is still there. The danger of that, however, is she wants to tell her story and live her truth. And doing that in the confines of a court proceeding that's primarily about, as Danny noted, falsification of business records. That's a challenge. Right. Well, it will continue today and we'll be, of course, following it all day live and we'll return to this topic. But we do have other. That's right. She. Thank you. Alex just reminds me a court is not in session today. She'll be back on the stand tomorrow. The other big story that broke yesterday in Florida, former President Trump's classified documents trial has been postponed indefinitely. The trial had been scheduled to start later this month, but U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon announced the delay in a new order yesterday. Cannon argues it would be imprudent to finalize a trial date when various pretrial issues and deadlines have yet to be resolved.

Trump is charged with mishandling classified records and then obstructing the government's attempts to retrieve them. He has denied any wrongdoing. Special Counsel Jack Smith and his team have argued Trump's lawyers have had ample time to prepare for a trial. And Joe, this is one of those situations where a lot of legal experts have been saying that this is the most clear cut case, maybe even one of the most serious cases. And yet this is the judge that was picked. And this is the way things go. Welcome to the American judicial system. You know, it's it's very interesting. Jonathan Lemire, I'll go to you and then please go to our experts but you know early on

I had judges and lawyers always tell me you know what you will win most of the time things go the way they should go but you know what 20% of the time you will win cases that you have no right to

win and 20% of the time you will win cases that you have no right to win. And 20% of the time a jury will come back and be assured that you will lose 20% of cases that you should have never lost. And there is just, it's exposed to the world that right now we are trying what many experts consider to be the weakest case. And what many people like myself and I've said this before, we're in a case that I don't think for a variety of reasons should have ever been brought. But we're there and they're trying it. And then you have the case that most legal experts say is like it's like the strongest case. I mean, this guy stole nuclear secrets. This guy stole war plans out of a government building on secret war plans and what we would do in invading Iran. This guy sold sensitive secrets that other countries would pay tens of millions of dollars for,

probably even more. Stole them, lied to the FBI, lied to the Justice Department, had his lawyers lie to the FBI, lied to the Justice Department, and then tried lie to the FBI, lie to the Justice Department, and then tried to get, according to testimony, his IT director to destroy the cameras, destroy the evidence when he wouldn't do it. Then allegedly we're hearing he tried to flood the rooms. Talk to the maintenance guy who also said, no, I'm not going to do that. So you have you have the most important case of all the cases brought against Trump.

And it's where the judge is going to make sure it never sees the light of day. I mean, it's just ain't that America for you and me. It's just that it's it is it is uneven. But again, I have faith in the judicial system. At the end of the day, everything does balance out. So I'm not here like, you know, like, you know, trashing the American judicial system. Sometimes stuff just happens. And here we have just a great irony. We're living through a case that a lot a lot of people don't think should have ever been brought. And we're never going to hear a case that's actually central to Donald Trump's crimes, which I perceive to be his greatest crimes.

And she's just burying it. Yeah. And your faith in the legal system goes up again. Another phenomenon that we've all had to live with the last 10 years is that Donald Trump always gets away with it. And that's what so many Democrats and other Americans have been saying for such a long time, including yesterday. This really, in some ways, not a surprise. Donald Trump, one person said to me yesterday, won this case the moment that judge was assigned to it. She, of course, was his appointee, you know, and she has done everything she can every step of the way to slow this thing down, to bring it to a halt. There were reporters

assigned to that case who were sort of posting on Twitter X in recent days, like, you know, this trial is supposed to start in two weeks. And there's obviously no sign it's going to. Yeah. And she didn't just postpone it. She did so indefinitely. And let's remember, if Donald Trump were to win an election this November, he would control the Justice Department, a federal case. He could make that he could extract his attorney general to make this one go away. So maybe this one will never, ever see the light of day. So, Lisa Rubin, let's get your analysis here, just as what we heard from this judge yesterday in this indefinite delay. Do you have any sense? Is there even worth taking a haphazard guess as to when this trial will begin?

Is there any chance of that before the election? And lastly, is there any recourse here for Jack Smith? Let's start with can this case be tried before the election? I think that ship has long since sailed. Yesterday was no surprise. I can't underscore how little of surprise it was. It was more surprising that Stormy Daniels got on the stand and said that she had sex with Donald Trump than it was that Aileen Cannon postponed her trial date. She has a number of motions that have even yet to be scheduled that are required under the Classified Information Procedures Act. She has a number of pending motions that have been fully briefed for months now on which she has made no decision. I wouldn't venture a guess at when this case would be ready for trial. And

I believe that's by design. I continue to be disappointed by Aileen Cannon and her execution of the role of federal jurist here. So just to make a point here, that's sort of in the background, Joe. Lisa Rubin says, I continue to be disappointed in this judge. We look at some of these decisions. They seem basic. What you don't see here on this broadcast is conspiracy theories. Oh, that Trump is pulling the strings based on no facts. You don't see here hair on fire.

This is the way it went. And because of, as you pointed out, the justice system, it's not perfect, but this is the judge we got. This is the judge we got. And guess what? Nobody is alleging that the clerk of courts in the Southern District did anything wrong. You know, you draw a judge and that's the judge that comes up and her number came up. And, you know, this sometimes you've seen in stories, oh, you got the hanging judge or oh, you got this. It's what happens unless somebody has information that the Southern District, you know,

a clerk of court wanted to risk their career and their freedom by rigging this process, which they I'm sure they did not. This is the judge. We have no basis. There's a judge. Yeah. No, no, it didn't. That did not happen. I'm saying this just happened sometimes. And this judge we got. I do want to say, Willie, though, just to follow up on what Jonathan O'Meara said, if people say, oh, Jonathan O'Meara is being too political when when he's talking about all the mistakes she's made, that's that's not from a center left or a left wing or a right wing point of view. You look at what the 11th Circuit said, the most conservative circuit in America. They excoriated her for an earlier ruling,

excoriated her on appeal, just just just absolutely humiliating her. I it's one of the reasons I thought that she would be a bit more careful, a bit more circumspect, play more down the center, play more by the rules than she has. But she has not. I mean, you look at what she's talking about regarding jury instructions. It's crazy. It's crazy. A 12 year old that went with her mother to take a kid to to court day as a lawyer something, would have come up with a better ruling than she's come up with. It's bizarre. And I am sure that if that's appealed, now that there's time, the 11th Circuit will excoriate her again. I guess she's either ill-equipped, extraordinarily ill-equipped, or she just doesn't care what the world thinks of her. She's she's right now looking

like everything she's doing, she's doing to help Donald Trump. Yeah, totally unaffected, it appears by that admonishment you described from the 11th Circuit. Also, Danny, layer into this, as Lisa said, we're talking about classified documents here. So there are certain procedures that have to be gone through what can be shown in court, what is even admissible in court. She did set the earliest pretrial hearing on that for July 22nd, which gives you some sense. That's just sort of the beginning of things for late July. So where do you see this headed from here? Her order sets out all these different dates and there are justifications.

The thing that strikes me is that normally when you're in federal court, federal court is where your cases move really quickly. And just in my experience, it's just my experience. Normally the judge always has a trial date set and they leave it sort of to the litigants. And it's always a trial date that is way sooner for the comfort of all the litigants. And they leave that burden on the parties to figure out, hey, if you want to make a joint application to move the date, you go ahead. But I'm setting this trial date. Maybe I'll move it someday, two weeks out. That's been my experience in federal court. So to not have a trial date at all, I think, is a little unusual. This order, it can be criticized. There are justifications in it because of all these different motions that are pending. And yes, you have these complex issues.

But Jack Smith has argued in court that these issues are not so complex that they require an inordinate delay. He said as much that these documents can be managed. Yes, there are different tiers of classification, but this is something that can be managed. The challenge is for Jack Smith, there really aren't a lot of comebacks from this, not in the way of appeal. And there's been a lot of talk of trying to make her recuse herself. They're not there yet. They don't have it. They're just like another litigant who feels like the judge is against them, which is normally the defense side, if I can just say.

Maybe I'm editorializing here. But yes, I sympathize with Jack Smith. Sometimes you feel like you draw a judge that just isn't deciding anything your way. Lisa, give you the last word on this. Is she slow walking this, in your opinion? I think she is. But I also think, based on some reporting from David Latt, that this is a judge who is overwhelmed and is second guessing herself at every corner. She seems to be overwhelmed with anxiety about the import of the case. And so a combination of insecurity in your own decisions, the gravity of the case before you, and maybe also some inclination to slow walk where you don't have trust in yourself. That's a toxic brew.

And we're, you know, we're all drinking it right now. We're watching it play out. Lisa Rubin, Danny Savalas, thank you so much. Digging through an awful lot this morning. We're lucky to have you. Thank you very much. 37 past the hour, a cloudy day in Washington, D.C., where the White House is remaining optimistic a ceasefire deal can be reached between Israel and Hamas.

Negotiations resumed yesterday in Cairo. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby says he believes the two sides should be able to close the remaining gaps. The biggest sticking point is whether Israel will end the war. Under the current proposal, the second phase calls for a, quote, sustainable calm. Hamas interprets that as Israel withdrawing its troops. Israel, however, says each phase of the ceasefire is temporary and that the IDF will continue its mission of dismantling Hamas. Meanwhile, the U.S. has paused shipments of thousands of weapons to Israel. The White House made the decision last week over concerns the weapons would be used in Rafah,

a southern Gaza city where more than a million people have sought refuge. Among the weapons not being shipped are 2,000 pound bombs. A senior administration official tells NBC News they are focused on ending the use of these bombs and the impact they have on dense urban areas. President Biden condemned a rise in anti-Semitism during a speech yesterday at a Holocaust remembrance ceremony. The president drew a parallel between the Holocaust and October 7th attacked by Hamas, the October 7th attacks, which he said were driven by an ancient desire to wipe out the Jewish people. He also addressed the protests across college campuses over the war in Gaza.

This ancient hatred of Jews didn't begin with the Holocaust. It didn't end with the Holocaust either, or after, even after our victory in World War II. This hatred continues to lie deep in the hearts of too many people in the world and requires our continued vigilance and outspokenness. Now here we are, not 75 years later, but just seven and a half months later, and people are already forgetting, they're already forgetting that Hamas unleashed this terror. It was Hamas that brutalized Israelis. It was Hamas who took and continues to hold hostages.

I have not forgotten, nor have you, and we will not forget. In America, we respect and protect the fundamental right to free speech, to debate and disagree, to protest peacefully, and make our voices heard. I understand that's America, but there is no place on any campus in America, any place in America, for anti-Semitism or hate speech or threats of violence of any kind, whether against Jews or anyone else.

Violence attacks, destroying property, is not peaceful protest. It's against the law and we are not a lawless country we're civil society we uphold the rule of law and no one should have to hide or be brave just to be themselves Amen and too many stories I know too many stories of too many Jewish students who have been afraid to walk across their own campuses and go to classes who parents have called them So great to see Speaker Mike Johnson there sitting with him. Let's bring in the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt. Jonathan, I want to read you part of a Wall Street Journal editorial.

First, though, before I get there, just back page. And it's been 403 days now since Vladimir Putin seized Evan and and holding him for committing absolutely no crime at all. Maybe Marjorie Taylor Greene might want to think about that before she tries to do Vladimir Putin's bidding again, as well as the other Republicans on the back bench. They keep trying to do that. But I want to read to you part of this editorial from The Wall Street Journal. The president was right to recognize the, quote, ferocious surge in anti-Semitism in America and around the world. And his condemnation of it on campus is important. Violent attacks, destroying property is not peaceful protest, he added. It is against the law. He's right, and he should name names. National Students for Justice in Palestine, SJP, whose campus chapters led the encampments, called October 7th, quote,

a historic win for the Palestinian resistance. That's the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust that SJP were calling a historic win. Columbia's SJP declared, quote, full solidarity with the Palestinian resistance on October 9th, praising the, quote, historic attack despite the odds. And, you know, Jonathan, I'm so glad the Wall Street Journal editorial page brought that up because it's something I was just I just keep thinking about is debates about these protests go on. These groups that were running these protests, they're claiming they're running it because of the people of Gaza. No, they were praising the slaughter of Jews. They were praising the raping of Jews. They were praising women being torn from their homes, daughters being

raped repeatedly to rape to death and then paraded around like animals around Gaza while people cheered. They were calling that. I'm sorry, I've got to keep going. Little babies being shot in their cribs, in their bassinets. These groups that ran the college protests were calling that a historic win for the Palestinian people. They were calling children being forced to watch their parents being shot point-blank range and children and parents being forced to watch their parents being shot point blank range and children and parents being forced, watching their own children being slaughtered before their eyes. These groups that organized and ran the college campuses that Columbia faculty members

saluted, they were calling that a historic win right after the slaughter. So they can say it was about bombing in Gaza. No, it was about exactly what they say it's about. Right. When people say who they are, you believe them. It was about genocide against the Jews from the river to the sea, wiping Israel off the face of the earth. Yeah, look, Students for Justice in Palestine, Joe, it's about the farthest thing that you could imagine from the Greensboro Four or from the protesters of the 60s. As you said, this is a group of people who applaud slaughter.

And I should say at ADL, you know, we track extremist organizations like SJP. And on October the 8th, while we were still trying to figure out what had happened on the morning of 10-7, we were still trying to understand who was alive and who was dead. SJP released organizing toolkits and discussion guides and action plans on October the 8th, long before the IDF went into Rafah, long before the IDF went into Gaza. Because this is a group that doesn't want a two-state solution, Joe. They want to globalize the Intifada, which Jewish people appropriately hear is the mass murder of Jews everywhere. And, you know, we come back to the president's speech, right? What he did yesterday in this moment of unprecedented anti-Semitism was give an unprecedented statement of solidarity and support. I've never heard a president give a speech like this before.

And I worked in a West Wing. You know, I've worked in a couple of white houses. I know what it takes to put something like this together. He was clear. He was crisp. And he drew that line, as he said, from the Shoah to Hamas. And that was important because, you know, I'm here in Philadelphia today, Joe. I was at Penn last night sitting with students and faculty members at the University of Pennsylvania, as I've done at Harvard and USC and Columbia and other places. And these students, they are desperate. They are exhausted and they are angry because they don't feel protected and supported. President Biden said, I see you. I have an ironclad commitment. And I think that they and the country needed to hear that yesterday.

You know, Willie, when when I always talk about how important it is for presidents to go to hurricane zones, when people have just been through a hurricane and their entire lives have been wiped out, A president being there, and I've seen it firsthand. Bill Clinton wasn't particularly popular in my district, but when he came after hurricanes, man, it meant something to those people. They were like, the president of the United States is here with us and he cares. Those kids, and I call them kids because I've got kids in college. And when I do it, I hope people understand it's a it's a term of endearment. And my heart hurts for them because I know I know they're young and it's just horrible. They've been chased across campuses.

Their parents have called them home. I know specifically of so many instances on certain days where they hid in their dorm rooms and were afraid to go to class. Of course, Columbia, of course, had had remote classes at the end because they couldn't protect their Jewish students. How important I know how important it is that the president of the United States stood up and said, I'm with you. This is unacceptable. What has happened to you? And Willie, I'm so glad to hear from Jonathan that this was the first of its kind in a speech just powerfully supporting the Jews and striking out against anti-Semitism wherever it may be. Yeah, there are a lot of Jewish students, as you both have said, who don't feel safe and also don't feel seen. And as Jonathan, you put it a minute ago, President Biden said yesterday, we see you, even if your school presidents or administrations don't see you, even if they're canceling your

graduations and putting your classes on Zoom and negotiating with people who are calling for intifada and from the river to the sea and giving them a fair hearing when they're not protecting you. That was a big moment. I'm curious what you thought, too, about the bipartisan nature of the event that we were talking about before. A striking picture of Speaker Johnson. Congressman Scalise was there, along with Hakeem Jeffries, the congressman from New York as well, the leader. What does that image mean to the country and to the world? I think that image, Willie, means everything. I mean, look, whether you're a Republican or a Democrat, standing up to hate shouldn't be hard. And to see Speaker Johnson, who doesn't agree with the president on much,

and to see minority leaders, Jeffries, and to see the president all there together, all standing, clapping together. Think about the State of the Union, where you stand up and clap based on your party affiliation. Yesterday, we were reminded we are all Americans and we are all opposed to intolerance. And, you know, it's interesting the point about are these kids. I mean, again, I sat with Penn Law School students yesterday who are going to cravath, you know, who are going to clerk for federal judges. These are not young people like we think about them. These are sophisticated, measured individuals. By the way, there were faculty members there.

One professor, she said in this roundtable, the environment here is hellacious. We need your help. I mean, to hear a, you know, a 20 year member of the faculty craving, seeking some support and protection, that shouldn't be happening, not just at Penn, anywhere in America. But to your point, Willie, about the bipartisan nature, you guys all probably know that the Education Committee has called to testify, I believe it's next know, Elise Stefanik and members on both sides and answer why are they negotiating with these individuals, many of whom, by the way, are not even students. I went to the encampment yesterday at Penn. These are not students. There's a reason why at Harvard they won't show IDs when asked. It's horrible. It needs to end. And again, the administration, I should say one other thing. It wasn't just IDs when asked. It's horrible. It needs to end. And again, the administration, I should say one other thing.

It wasn't just a speech yesterday. The Department of Education, which has launched 100 Title VI investigations, released new guidance for university presidents on what launches a Title VI investigation. That means the students' civil rights are violated. And let me tell you, when you set up a blockade to prevent Jewish students from walking to class, when you demand to hear their political ideology before letting them pass, when you menace and threaten and stalk them, those are Title VI violations.

And college presidents have a legal obligation. Jonathan, when they have a circle and they say, we're not letting you walk across the main lawn, the main quad of the campus, and when you try to, they push out at you and push you away. I'm going to tell you, if I were a parent paying for that, for my student to go there and they turned over the main quad to activists, many of whom who aren't students, many of whom were part of an organization that was applauding the raping and the slaughtering and the burning of Jews, the worst slaughter since the Holocaust. Man, I would raise hell. I would.

This cannot stand where these weak administration officials are saying where their parts. You know what? They're parts of the campus where Jews can't walk because we have to respect these outsiders. First Amendment rights. I just it's it is so maddening to me. I can't even begin. And by the way, I just want to read this again and I'll then I'll go to Willie here. But I just want to read this again, because, again, I love I think of people who watch our show as a family because they are a family. We've been together for 17 years and I've gotten the loveliest, loveliest emails. People have disagreed with me saying that college campuses

should not put up with this. But they always say, hey, it's the students. You've got to listen to the students. You've got to get it. No, this is this has not been organized by the students. I want to read this again. Correct. The National Students for Justice in Palestine, the SJP, which are running all of this, whose campus chapters lead the encampments on October 7th. They called October 7th, quote, Willie, a historic win for the Palestinian resistance. And those people you saw in Colombia. declared full solidarity with the Palestinian resistance on October 9th, praising the, quote, historic act despite the odds. Mike Barnicle, what they're praising, again, these organizers that organize these protests, praising the worst slaughter of Jews since Adolf Hitler's final solution, the Holocaust.

Yeah, you know, Joe, the president obviously referred to that yesterday. He also referred to something that involves just what you're talking about right now, the fact that it was October 7th when this atrocity occurred, when this war crime occurred, October 7th. And yet in the interim time, October 7th. And yet, in the interim time between October 7th and today, so many people seem to have forgotten what happened on October 7th. And the president spoke to it yesterday. And Jonathan, when he was speaking to it, he was speaking about something called hate. And hate is a more powerful weapon than any bomb or any missile used in warfare. And hate

exists today in an unparalleled way, I would think. And the idea that the president of the United States has to speak about the growth, the wild growth of anti-Semitism, at least to me, to this parent, was kind of shocking. It is. I mean, I think people sometimes don't even realize it, but at the ADL we track anti-Semitism. The number of incidents, verified acts of harassment, vandalism, and violence, Mike, they're up 140 percent year over year, almost 900 percent greater today than 10 years ago. I mean, at the ADL, this isn't, you know, a storm. It's not even just a tsunami. This is like a planetary hurricane because it's not just happening in America.

It's happening in Europe. It's happening in South America, like pointed attacks against Jewish communities. And yet it is astonishing that in 2024, the president has to say, love thy neighbor. Don't hate your fellow Americans simply because of who they are. Is that what we want? So I'm glad he said what he said. I hope, you know, again, Israel is allowed to prosecute the war in Rafah against these terrorists who seek to slaughter Jews based solely on who we are. I mean, it's not right. Not now. Not ever. All of us should stand up against it. CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt. Thank you so much for being on this morning. We appreciate it. Thank you, Jonathan.