Morning Joe - Morning Joe 8/29/23

Episode Date: August 29, 2023

D.C. election interference trial set for March 4

What I'm hopeful for is there some way that we can we can find some kind of agreement to to to look at this a little bit more fully. Mr. Secretary, I can tell you, you said there was only two dead people that would vote. I can promise you there are more than that. That is Mark Meadows, Donald Trump's former chief of staff, making a brief appearance on the infamous Find the Votes call with Georgia's secretary of state on January 2nd, 2021. That exchange was part of his legal team's defense yesterday as Meadows spent five hours on the trial date set now for the former president in the federal election interference case, which could come the day before Super Tuesday. Plus, President Biden is clearing the way for a major federal response in Florida ahead of Hurricane Adalia's expected landfall. But the latest forecast for that storm, which is projecting to be a big one.

Good morning. Welcome to Morning Joe. It's Tuesday, August 29th. I'm Willie Geist. With us, we've got the host of Way Too Early, White House Bureau Chief at Politico and author of The Big Lie, Jonathan Lemire, NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent, Ken Delanian, and former litigator and MSNBC legal analyst, Lisa Rubin. Good morning to you all. Let's dive right in as we begin with a start date now set for Donald Trump's federal election interference trial. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered jury selection to begin on March 4th of next year. That's just one day before Super Tuesday. Prosecutors had asked for the trial to begin in early January of next year, while Trump's lawyers proposed it begin in April of 2026.

Yesterday, Judge Chutkan said neither of those dates were acceptable, but, quote, this case is not going to trial in 2026. That decision was met with pushback inside the courtroom from Trump attorney John Loro, who was cautioned twice by the judge to turn down the temperature when he was speaking. Loro claimed it was a violation of the oath to do justice that the former president be tried so soon, arguing he would not have enough time to prepare his client's defense. Judge Chutkan dismissed those concerns, noting that Trump has been aware since last year that he was the focus of Jack Smith's investigation and could have been preparing his defense

during that time. As for when the date falls on the political calendar, the judge said, quote, setting a trial date does not depend and should not depend on a defendant's personal and professional obligations. Mr. Trump, like any defendant, will have to make the trial date work regardless of his schedule. And, quote, Judge Shutkin did note there is a strong public interest in the case being resolved sooner rather than later and that the quicker it goes to trial, the more it reduces, quote, a defendant's opportunity to commit crimes while on pretrial release. Trump was not president at yesterday's hearing, but he was quick to respond, as you can imagine, on social media. In one post, he wrote, quote, Trump hating judge blasting her for scheduling the trial one day before Super Tuesday. He also claimed he would appeal Judge Chutkin's decision, something he does not have the power to do.

So, Lisa, I'll start with you on the date of March 4th. Ambitious compared certainly to what the Trump team wanted, which was kind of an outrageous demand to push it into 2026. A little bit later than what Jack Smith wanted, but not a whole lot later. No, not a whole lot later, but reasonable, Willie. And I think one of the reasons it's reasonable is for the ways in which Judge Chutkan was discussing with John Laurel yesterday. The fact that these twelve point eight million pages of discovery about which he made a whole lot weren't actually 12.8 million pages of discovery. And she noted for him how much of that is duplicative, how much of that is already in the public domain, and how much of it they've already had in their possession and had

an opportunity to review for months. And Laurel just wouldn't concede any of that. And I think they really lost her by refusing to engage with her on terms that she found reasonable. So, Ken, you were at the hearing yesterday. What was the tenor? Just reading through it, it certainly looked like there was a lot of back and forth between Judge Chutkan admonishing Loro at several moments in the hearing. What was it like in there? So, Willie, full disclosure, I was actually standing outside doing live shots for MSNBC, but I was reading word for word as our colleagues inside were typing what she was saying into the Google Doc that I was looking at. And I was really wishing that we could all watch it on television because it was a remarkable hearing where the sort of reality distortion field of the Trump defense in this case, you know, kind of came crashing again on the shoals of this hard nose judge who just wasn't taking any nonsense. I mean, she just she just and she made a number

of statements that would have been beneficial for the public at large to watch her say, for example, that Mr. Trump is going to be treated with no more or no less deference than any other criminal defendant, that he like any other busy, prominent criminal defendant, he's going to have to adjust his schedule, whatever it is, running for president or running a large corporation to the necessities of the criminal trial. And she's in charge of that. And she, as Lisa said, I mean, it seemed like a huge miscalculation by John Lauro and the Trump defense because she begged them, begged them to come up with a more reasonable alternative than April 2026, which she immediately said at the start of the hearing was a non-starter. It wasn't going to happen. She rejected their notion that,

you know, this massive amount of discovery made it impossible for them to get ready for trial in even a year. And so they didn't give her an alternative. And so she went with a date that was really just two months removed from the January date that the special counsel's office had proposed. And there was also some really interesting, I just want to read this one thing from the special counsel, Molly Gaston, the attorney, just a really interesting kind of appeal to how important it is to get this case to trial. She said that the defendant is accused of historic crimes. This is Molly Gaston from the special counsel's office. And there's an incredibly strong public interest in a jury's prompt consideration of those claims in open court.

And Judge Tanya Chutkin agreed. She said that the right to a speedy trial wasn't just the defendant's right. It was the public's right. And she agreed that the public had a right to hear this case before the November 2024 election. And look, nobody thinks this March 4th date is firm. There are a lot of reasons to think it will slip. Laura made clear he's going to file a motion to argue that Donald Trump is immune because he was president from these criminal charges. And that's something that could go all the way to the Supreme Court while this trial is pending. So this may slip. But the bottom line here is that Judge Chania Chutkan clearly wants to get this trial moving sometime next year before the election. And that's

hugely significant. So, Lisa, Ken led me to my next question to you. It's in your experience as a litigator. Is this date negotiable? Is it movable? Is this just a marker that the judge is putting down that may move? I think it's somewhere in between. I think Chania Chetkin really does mean that March 4th is a date that she is aiming for. It's not negotiable in the sense that they can't go back and talk about it next week. But through motion practice or appeals, could we be looking at a date further down the road? Absolutely. But is it her intent to try this case before the election? And will she do that? I believe she will.

So, John, obviously, Trump and his team have lumped all these investigations together as, quote, election interference. In other words, suggesting that this Justice Department is trying to prevent him from becoming president of the United States again. Does this add a little fuel to his case, if unfairly, that the day before Super Tuesday, a day when he likely would be crisscrossing the country and going to key states and campaigning, that he's going to be sitting in a courtroom. Does the eve of Super Tuesday help him make that case? Yeah, I mean, that's the political argument they are making.

Trump took to Truth Social yesterday to say exactly that, that the timing here can't be a coincidence, that basically they're picked the day before Super Tuesday to try to hurt my chances for becoming the Republican nominee and therefore becoming president again. And, you know, certainly we have no reason to believe at all that that is factored into the judge's decision. But that is what Trump is saying and how he's trying to whip up support from his supporters. That has been the argument from day one, is that he's saying that the Justice Department that belongs to my top rival, President Biden, is trying to prosecute me so I can't unseat President Biden.

That's the argument. And he's gonna keep making it. But it does underscore, as we look at the calendar there, just the challenge that lies in front of him, that there are all these dates. And we know that like Alvin Bragg in New York has signaled he will step aside, you know, if he played differential to the Manhattan to the federal case, that that should go first.

But as you see here, the Iowa caucus in January, we have the we have dates, of course, there are other votes in February and March. And now he's going to be shuttling from courtroom to courtroom while also trying to mix in political rallies. And there's certainly obstacles that no presidential campaign has ever faced before. And Georgia will be sprinkled in there as well once they decide on something. Meanwhile, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows took the witness stand for five hours yesterday in the first hearing for his motion to move that Fulton County election case to federal court. The bulk of the questioning surrounded what his official role as chief of staff entailed. Meadows framed his actions in the aftermath of the election as part of his job as the former president's top aide. His legal team argued any action he took simply was connected to that role,

including that infamous find the votes call we played for you just a moment ago, where he was on with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break. So look, all I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more that we have because we won the state. There's nothing wrong with saying that, you know, that you've recalculated. There it is on tape. Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis and her office say

Meadows' actions were a violation of the Hatch Act, which prohibits government officials from using their official roles to influence an election. NBC News reports a lawyer for the DA pressed Meadows about whether solely advancing the interests of the campaign would be outside the scope of his responsibilities. I would not agree with that, Meadows said. Raffensperger also testified for about an hour after being subpoenaed by the prosecution. There's not been a ruling as yet. The judge said Meadows would need to be arraigned in the case as scheduled if there has not been a decision by then. That arraignment for Meadows, Donald Trump and 17 others has been scheduled for next Wednesday, a week from tomorrow, September 6th. They're set to begin at 9.30 a.m. and run at 15-minute intervals. There's no word

yet on whether those arraignments will be in person or virtual. So some kind of speed dating there, just getting them through 15 minutes at a time, Lisa Rubin, to get them arraigned. But let's go back to Mark Meadows. Does he have a case that this should be moved to a federal court? He has more than a frivolous case, but I think ultimately an unsuccessful one, right? He was asked, I think, in the most telling moment yesterday, is there anything that the president could have asked you to do that would have been beyond the scope of your duties as White House chief of staff? And the only thing he could come up with was Trump asking him to speak at a rally. It's simply not the case as a matter of federal law that the chief of staff speaking at a campaign rally is the only thing that he could do that would go beyond his federal duties. If it were,

the Hatch Act would be a nullity. The issue here is not whether he should be prosecuted for violating the Hatch Act. The issue is whether Mark Meadows was in fact acting within the scope of his federal duties. And I think ultimately, as Brad Raffensperger and even an attorney affiliated with the Trump campaign, Kurt Hilbert, testified yesterday, everybody understood the work that he was doing here was electoral and political in nature, not to fulfill a federal function of ensuring free and fair elections, as Meadows tried to insinuate yesterday. And certainly members of the Trump White House violated the Hatch Act like it was their part of their job description more days than not from various White House podiums. Ken, talk to us a little bit, though, but just how surprising it was that Meadows took the stand yesterday, that that was something that really took a lot of people off guard. Shocking, because he as he said himself during his testimony, I'm in enough trouble as it is. And he talked about his faulty memory.

But look, his lawyers must have felt like, look, he has a pretty folksy, relaxed demeanor. We've all seen it on television. And his lawyers must have felt like he would be a good witness and that he was, you know, sort of conversant enough with the facts not to trip himself up. But this whole question of whether he was acting politically, it's not just significant for the purposes of whether this case gets removed to federal court, which, by the way, wouldn't derail the case. It would still be the state charges, the same prosecutors. The only thing that would change is maybe the jury pool. But this also goes to the question of whether

Donald Trump can assert that he was acting as president and is therefore immune from the federal charges. Because, you know, everybody knows in Washington that the chief of staff among all jobs in the White House is the one that crosses the line between politics and policy. You know, one day the chief of staff is getting a high level intelligence briefing. The next day he's calling political operatives in Minnesota to talk about a local issue. But because that call was so blatantly political, Donald Trump wasn't asking about, you know, potential fraud and raising his concerns about the integrity of the election. He was asking about the votes that he needed to win the election. That puts this whole call and the other activities that Meadows was engaging in

squarely in the political realm. Any any reasonable person can see that. And it not so it not only undercuts Meadows claim to remove the trial to federal court, it's going to be an issue when Donald Trump comes to federal court and says, I'm immune from these charges under the presidential immunity doctrine because I was acting as president. I was concerned that there was fraud in the election. So a deeply significant hearing yesterday. Lisa, can I ask you a question? I'm sure a lot of people are wondering, which is if you're participating in a conspiracy, an alleged conspiracy to overturn an election, why does it matter in what role you're acting? In other words, whether you were acting as chief of staff or in a campaign role, you're still participating in an alleged conspiracy. What's the distinction there? Well, I think the import of the question has to do with Meadows' effort to remove it to federal court. It's a threshold question. If you're trying to, as a state criminal defendant, move a case to federal court on the

grounds that you're a federal officer, which is what the statute requires, you first have to show that you were fulfilling a federal function, right? And so it's not so much, is it relevant to the conspiracy? It's, is it relevant or can you prove it to get your case to federal court? But of course, the reason Meadows wants to be in federal court in the first place is so he can advance the argument that Ken was just referring to, which is this presidential immunity question. He is arguing that because he was a federal officer acting at the direction of the president or in cahoots with the president, that it would be improper and unconstitutional for Fannie Willis to prosecute him in state court, that the federal constitution has supremacy and therefore he belongs in a federal court. But that's really

just a vehicle to get rid of the case entirely. Let's go to the state of Georgia as we bring in political reporter for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Greg Blustein. Greg, good morning. Kind of an extraordinary day down there in Fulton County yesterday with Mark Meadows. Really the first time we've had a witness effectively sit and testify and that we could hear so much of the evidence and really to see where he is and what kind of arguments he's going to make in this case. What did you take away from that long day? Yeah, it was the first big test to finding out what was his case here in Georgia. It also underscored the surprise testimony from Mark Meadows, underscored just how badly he wanted to win this motion. You know, legal experts did not expect Mark Meadows to take the stand.

But it's important, just as Lisa mentioned. I mean, first of all, he can advance that argument that he was immune from prosecution because he was acting under the color as a federal official. But beyond that, you know, it changes the jury pool. It means that the jury pool is not just driven from Fulton County, which Joe Biden won with 72 percent of the vote, but also from a broader pool of 10 counties in the metro Atlanta area. And for us viewers at home, it means that likely we will not be able to see the proceedings on TV like we would in Fulton County Court. Greg, what did we learn from Brad Raffensperg yesterday? He sat for about an hour, the Georgia Secretary of State. He's been strong since day one on all

of this. And we heard him on January 2nd, 2021, on that call saying that the election was fair, that we counted, we recounted, and we counted again, and Joe Biden won this state. What did we learn from his testimony yesterday, if anything? Yeah, the Secretary of State has said this over and over. He wrote a book about it, right? He actually wrote a book that annotated that entire phone call. So the public didn't necessarily learn anything new, but now it's admitted in the court of law,

and it can be used, his testimony can be used in every single hearing going forward, every legal proceeding, every motion, every document that is filed in this case. Him saying that he followed the law and that he was not going to be coerced or intimidated or bullied by the former president and his and his top aides to find enough votes to reverse the election results. Yeah, he's a powerful witness in all this. So, Greg, with all this in mind, everything we've seen in the state of Georgia, particularly just in the last week, you at the AJC have some new polling out this morning showing how it may or may not be impacting Donald Trump. Check this out. Donald Trump, among Republican voters in the primary,

at 57%, his next challenger, Ron DeSantis, 42 points back at 15 percent. Everybody else registering in the low double digits. So this is sort of a reflection of what we've seen nationally, Greg, which is that among primary voters anyway, not among the country necessarily, but among primary voters, among Republicans. These this martyrdom that Donald Trump has professed seems to be working. Yeah, it's surprising and it's not surprising. It reflects other polls throughout the nation. But this is also in Georgia. This is the scene of some of Donald Trump's most humiliating setbacks, not just in 2020 when he lost to Joe Biden here by fewer than 12,000 votes, became the first

Republican to lose the state of Georgia in a presidential election since way back in 1992. But also in 2021, when Senate candidates running on the MAGA brand lost to Democrats, flipping control of the chamber. And of course, in 2022, when his hand-picked selection for the U.S. Senate, Hershel Walker, went down in defeat to Democrat Raphael Warnock. You know, this is a, Trump also has a 33-point lead in a hypothetical head-to-head matchup against Ron DeSantis. So it shows that Ron DeSantis is nowhere close to striking distance to Donald Trump in Georgia. But at the same time, what it also shows, well, it doesn't show, is that we're

middle-of-the-road Georgia voters sit, because this is likely Republican voters. And we've seen a defection of a lot of those middle of the road swing independent voters that used to vote traditionally for Republicans in Georgia, but in the Trump era, they no longer are. And so that's the block of voters that still could decide this election. Sear, White House officials and those as part of the President Biden's re-election campaign have long said that Georgia would probably be the hardest state to keep in terms of a state that he won in 2020 to win again this time around. They think it would be even harder if it were not to be Donald Trump atop the ticket, Greg. But certainly right now, all indications are that it will be Trump again as the Republican nominee.

So in that hypothetical, let's say those poll numbers hold and Trump sweeps through Georgia and that he's the GOP standard bearer again. What do you think that happens for like Governor Kemp and Secretary of State Raffensperger, who have opposed Trump every step of the way in the last two odd years? Would they fall in line and basically become good Republican soldiers again? Or do you think that they would continue to try to keep him as best they can at arm's distance? That's such an important question, because not only have they opposed Donald Trump and rejected his efforts to overturn the election, they also could be star witnesses in the trial that could happen as early as next year here in Georgia. Look, Brian Kemp in particular has said he will support whoever the nominee is.

He's not said any kind words about Donald Trump, though. He even called him the loser of the debate last week because he refused to show up on stage. But at the same time, I think he'll take the same stance he took with Hershel Walker. He was not a huge fan of either last year in the Senate race. He ended up stumping for him, just saying how important it is that Republicans have a Republican in the chamber, whether it be Hershel Walker or anyone else. He just wanted a Republican in the chamber. And I think he'll do the same thing next year, just railing about how bad he thinks Joe Biden's agenda is for Georgians rather than talking about Donald Trump's agenda himself. It's an amazing stance, isn't it, to rail against Donald Trump and to say we stood in the door as Donald Trump tried to flip an election on us, and yet we still in the end will support him. One more number from your poll that I think is fascinating to put up as as we let you

go here, Greg, which is the charges against Trump in Georgia. If you put those top two lines together, 50 percent of people in the state of Georgia, this is primary voters, Republican primary voters. So half of primary voters believe the charges are serious or somewhat serious, not too serious, not serious at all. Forty four percent. So you've got half of them saying, yeah, what he did is pretty serious or very serious. But likely, Greg, I'm going to vote for him anyway. Exactly. We spent a chunk of our day at the AJC yesterday calling poll respondents who said exactly that. They are worried about these charges. They think that he did wrong when he called Brad Raffensperger and urged him to find exactly enough votes to overturn his defeat. But at the same time, they're indicating to us that many of them are still willing to support Donald Trump in the primary.

And that's going to be the difference here in Georgia. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Greg Blustein, so plugged in. Always great to talk to you about all things Georgia. Thanks so much, Greg. We appreciate it. Ken, I want to put that calendar that we showed a minute ago back up and just put yourself in the shoes of a defense attorney for Donald Trump trying to navigate all of this. I mean, we talk about the headline trials, but mix in there the E. Jean Carroll civil defamation suit January of next year, the pyramid scheme class action suit also January of next year.

We're waiting to see where Georgia falls on that in terms of starting the trial there. How did they first of all, how did the prosecutors put the puzzle pieces together? And then on the other side of it, how do you navigate this as a defense? It's unimaginable, Willie. Actually, I don't know if the prosecutors are going to coordinate, but yesterday we got a hint that maybe the judges might coordinate because Judge Tanya Chutkin had said she'd been in touch with the judge in New York, you know, who had scheduled a trial there for March and they were going to de-conflict those potential dates. But in terms of Donald Trump's legal team and Trump himself and the mental resources they're going to have to devote to these various defenses,

it's I mean, we've never been here before. Four complex criminal trials potentially all unfolding over the next year. You know, yes, there's a lot of bombast and hyperbole when Trump's lawyers go into court and talk about how long this case is going to take. But in this case, in this respect, they are correct that they have their work cut out for them here. I mean, it's just the amount of work they have to do to get ready for all four of these separate trials. And plus the civil case that you mentioned, even though, you know, there's not there's some overlap between the legal teams. Some people are different. It's just mind boggling. And then you have Donald Trump, who is going to be trying to run for president, even as he is devoting some resources,

because the defendant has to be involved in his own defense. You know, there's certain things that only the defendant knows. And so we are in for a real show next year to see how this all plays out. And, you know, frankly, Donald Trump, from where I sit, doesn't appear to have enough lawyers and enough legal resources to really successfully defend all these cases in this compressed period. That's really part of the argument his lawyers were making. They've made in both Florida and in Washington before these federal judges that, look, we need more time because we just need to get more legal resources onto this. So he's at a real disadvantage here, and that's not something to be taken lightly. And Lisa, if you look at what Judge Chuck can put down yesterday, which is March the 4th for a start date and what Fannie Willis wants to do next year, they're all making very clear these are happening next year, despite the requests from Donald Trump's team to push them to after the election. Yeah. And to Ken's point,

Donald Trump doesn't have enough legal resources right now, but partially that's because he keeps playing legal musical chairs. And Judge Chutkan made it really clear yesterday, the fact, Mr. Loro, that you're just coming on to this case doesn't mean that Donald Trump hasn't been sitting with these allegations for a long time. And so I'm not going to allow this rotating cast of lawyers to be the occasion for delay here. I think you'll see that from the other judges as well. The fact that he can't assemble a legal team is not the judge's problem. It's going to be quite a year or 18 months ahead. Lisa Rubin, Ken Delaney, and we'll be talking to you both quite a bit. Thanks so much. Our other top story of the

morning, the tropical system headed toward Florida. Now a category one hurricane just upgraded this morning. A dahlia expected to intensify rapidly through the Gulf of Mexico today and will make landfall on Florida's Gulf Coast as early as tomorrow. 21 million people currently under tropical storm and hurricane watches along Florida's Gulf Coast as early as tomorrow. 21 million people currently under tropical storm and hurricane watches along Florida's west coast, while high-risk areas are under mandatory evacuations this morning. The National Weather Service warning Adalia could bring life-threatening storm surge and hurricane force winds, as well as major flood risks in some areas. In response to the hurricane, President Biden, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis did speak yesterday. Biden already has approved an emergency declaration for the state while FEMA

has pre-deployed personnel and assets. DeSantis announced the state has prepared 200,000 gallons of pre-staged fuel to be made available once the storm makes its way through. Let's go to meteorologist Angie Lassman tracking the storm. Angie, good morning. What does this path look like? Good morning, Willie. This path takes it straight into Florida. This is a dangerous and life-threatening situation that's going to evolve over the next 24 hours, basically. Right now, Hurricane Adalia coming in at Category 1, 75 miles per hour. That barely puts it into a hurricane status, but it's going to rapidly intensify here as we get through the

next 20-ish hours before it makes landfall. We're talking it needs 35 mile per hour increase in its winds in order to be considered rapid intensification. It's going to definitely get that. Right now, moving north at 14 miles per hour, that pace is going to pick up as well. It's right now leaving us with some rain across parts of Cuba and moving into parts of Florida later today with those outer rain bands. But check out all of these watches and warnings that we already have up. The tropical alerts include much of the state of Florida, including a hurricane warning that goes around parts of the Big Bend, stretching down past Tampa Bay. That area looks like it's going to be the most impacted. So let's talk about some of those impacts. We've got the track taking it

into parts of the Gulf of Mexico, which, by the way, are ridiculously warm. We're talking upper 80s for water temperatures there. And not just at the surface level, this is deep into the water. So even as we see the mixing from the hurricane, it still has plenty of fuel, likely becoming a category three. If it makes landfall as a category three in this area, that will be the first time since 1950. People there may have never seen a system like this working on shore. It's going to bring life-threatening storm surge. And on top of that, some heavy rainfall, some strong winds, of course. The storm surge, though, Willie, this is going to be something that I really want people to take seriously, especially if you're on the right side

of that storm, where it comes on shore 8 to 12 feet. And that is ground level up to 12 feet. We're talking a stop sign is 9 feet at most. So it's really life-threatening situation that will unfold there. Yeah, this is sizing up to be a major storm. Aqua fence going up around Tampa General Hospital to protect that hospital so they can continue to operate. So everybody should take this very seriously. Angie Lassman, we'll be back to you throughout the morning. Thanks so much. Still ahead on Morning Joe, President Biden denounces the racially motivated shooting at a Florida dollar store. We'll show you those new remarks and what we're learning about the gunman. Plus, Russian state media releases rare video of jailed U.S. citizen Paul Whelan.

We'll talk to Senator and Foreign Relations Committee member Chris Coons about that and the effort to get Whelan released. Also ahead this morning, former New Jersey governor and 2024 presidential candidate Chris Christie will be our guest with reaction to the date set for Donald Trump's federal election interference trial. You're watching Morning Joe. Be right back. I'm so sorry. Beautiful live picture. Beautiful to me anyway. It's a great city. New York City, 633 in the morning on a Tuesday. Joining us now, former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department's

Elise Jordan and Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and associate editor of the Washington Post, Eugene Robinson. Now, you guys have a score to settle, you and Lemire, for softball? No, I was cheering on the team. My husband also played in the softball game. I think Mike Lupica might have been pretty disappointed. So this is the game last year that defines Lupica's season more. His year, he's the manager of the softball.

It's a game. It's a charity game. He's quite a coaching presence out there. Third base. He's into it. Last year, the writer's squad, we had a remarkable historic comeback victory. Led by you. I may have played a significant role in that.

This year, we fought gamely, but our comeback bid fell just short. Okay. Fair enough. Just short. But, yeah. But I expect – Lupica is already working on next year's game, so you should expect a phone call. Yes.

We could use your back. I suggested that you would be a good player. Listen, Noah, my phone is right here. Give me a call. I can take one deep if you need one for Lupica. All right, let's talk about some new polling that we're just getting in about President Biden showing his age is a significant concern

for voters ahead of the 2024 election, including among Democrats, by the way. A new AP NORC poll finds three quarters, more than three quarters of Americans think Biden, who was 80, is too old to serve another term. 77% of them. Donald Trump is just three years younger than Biden, but only 51% of Americans say he is too old

to be effective in a second term. Broken down by party, 89% of Republicans say Biden is too old to be effective in a second term. Broken down by party, 89 percent of Republicans say Biden is too old. Sixty nine percent of Democrats say he's too old and 74 percent of independents say the same. In contrast, only 28 percent of Republicans say Trump is too old versus 71 percent of Democrats and about half of all independents. So, Eugene Robinson, this is something that the White House, the Biden campaign cannot avoid. It is a reality. It might be uncomfortable for some people to talk about. But when you have private dinner parties, when you go out and at the ice cream place in the summer, people do even Democrats who like Joe Biden and plan to

support him. They do have concerns about his age. Yes, they do. And it's just it's just a fact that they have to deal with. I mean, the fact also is that those Democrats, I think, are highly unlikely to say, OK, he's too old. I'll vote for Donald Trump. They're not going to do that. And and indeed, if it is a Trump Biden rematch, I think it's very likely that the main question will be Donald Trump. It's a stark, you know, binary choice. Do you want four more years of Biden or you want four more years of Trump? And and so I think the the the Biden camp is, you know, fairly, fairly confident on that score that that that's how it's going to come down.

But it is it is a down. But it is a problem, and it is ironic. He's only three years older than Donald Trump. He is visibly in better physical shape than Donald Trump, you know, despite those figures from the Georgia booking that have Trump at 6'3", 215, I'm sorry. That is a total fantasy. And, you know, you see Biden riding on his bicycle and doing all this stuff and Trump doing none of that. But none of that seems to stick. And so this is just something that Biden has to deal with. John, Gene is absolutely right.

If you ask Democrats the question, yes, seven out of 10, that's a lot. Believe he's too old. And they said, we're going to vote for him. Of course, I'm going to vote for him. I can't I'm not going to go support Donald Trump. I guess the question is, is it enough of an issue for those independents, the people in the middle who may be still on the fence of it? Yeah, I was just had this conversation with a few senior Democrats in the last couple of days. And they acknowledge that as much as they don't like talking publicly,

they know the president's age is an issue and a real one. They understand that's a legitimate concern for voters. That said, they believe that if it's a head to head, especially with Donald Trump, that the questions about the president's age will be outweighed by other matters, that it simply won't be as important. Now, they do think that the calculation would change somewhat, at least if somehow a Republican not named Donald Trump ended up being atop the ticket and the age gap wouldn't be three years, but perhaps 30 years. But right now, of course, Trump is far and away the favorite to be the Republican standing bear again next year. It really would just be almost a black swan event for someone other than Donald Trump to get the nomination at this time. However, if it were, say, Nikki Haley, who right now has enjoyed such a bump

and is getting a real second look from a lot of big Republican donors, if she got the nomination, I do think it would potentially be another story. The Donald Trump head to head, it's going to go back to back more. Where is the economy right now? Where's the economy going to be next October? Is your life better under Biden than it was under Trump and voting from there? But another if the Republicans could get their act together and viably support someone else, it could be a different game. You mentioned Nikki Haley. She's just been saying explicitly that a vote for Joe Biden actually is a vote for Kamala Harris, given the age of President Biden. Haley, by the way, continues to criticize fellow candidate Vivek Ramaswamy on the issue of foreign policy, as she did at the debate last week. The former U.N.

ambassador did not mention Ramaswamy by name yesterday at a town hall in her home state of South Carolina, but did refer to his comments during that debate. So when you have somebody on stage that's going to say, I'm just going to let Russia have this part of Ukraine and I'm going to tell them you can't do anything with China going forward. That's just naive. It's completely naive. And the other thing that bothers me is it is completely narcissistic to think that America doesn't need friends. We do need friends. We do need allies. We should never stop doing that. We have a front line of defense with Ukraine because they are keeping Putin from doing what he said, which is the next stop is Poland and the Baltics. And that's a world war. That is what we're trying to prevent. Meanwhile, Ramaswamy released an outline of his

foreign policy agenda in an op ed for the American conservative. The biotech entrepreneur said his administration would end aid to Ukraine and would not defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion after the United States, quote, achieves semiconductor independence. Someone, at least, who has worked in the foreign policy space. What's your reaction to both of those ideas? Wow. Just a lot of leaps and bounds there. Semiconductor independence. How quickly is that going to be achieved, first of all? And the idea that we can completely separate ourselves from Ukraine and Europe and overall security.

It does sound fantastical and a bit immature, but this is, you know, Ramaswati is speaking in the same mode of so many GOP candidates, I'll just say Donald Trump, and oversimplifying, giving an easy soundbite for a hugely complex issue. And he thinks he's going to reap benefits in the post-Iraq war years, which the other candidates I do, I look at their foreign policies and they need to wise up a bit, too, and adjust to the realities that Americans overall want to have a more restrained foreign policy. There are actually so few policy differences between the Republicans running for president. It's interesting that Ukraine is one that has emerged where it's a divide, where we have from Vice President Pence or Governor Christie and a few others saying that, look, we need to keep this going. We need to keep, you know, arming Kiev against Russia, while others, including Trump, including Ramaswamy, including DeSantis, have said otherwise, that we should start scaling back.

So, Eugene Robinson, as that plays out as the backdrop, I'm curious as to what you think that debate on the presidential level may inform the debate coming up in Congress, because it's just a few weeks now where the White House, you know, they've already submitted their proposal to the Hill for Ukraine funding. This is the first time they'll do so with the Republicans in control of the House. We know there's some fringy Republicans there who are very loud and very lockstep in opposition to any funding. But with so many of these prominent national ones also coming out in favor of at least curtailing it, how do you think that plays out on the Hill? What do you think the White House will end up getting? You know, I think it complicates the administration's attempt to get this

package through Congress. I think it really does. It doesn't necessarily doom it. And Kevin McCarthy has kind of walked this tightrope, sort of paying lip service to his right while making clear that he is in favor of continued aid to Ukraine and basically is a foreign policy traditionalist. But you know, what is his caucus going to do? Is his caucus going to go along with him? I think he'll have more problems than he would have had if this were not the tenor of the debate the other night. So it's fascinating. The other thing that will be fascinating to see in terms

of the Republican Party is whether Nikki Haley actually does get a polling bump from that debate, because she came off as informed and reasonable and experienced. And of course, the question is whether today's Republican Party wants informed, reasonable and experienced. And right now, it looks like probably the party doesn't. But who knows? Maybe she will emerge as sort of the the anti-Trump alternative in the fullness of time. We'll see. And what does a polling bump even look like in this GOP primary? Does it mean you're down 38 points instead of 43 points? You know, the margins are so wide. So it's interesting to note, as Nikki Haley called Vivek Ramaswamy naive in that clip and inexperienced, he's making a virtue

of that. The fact that he is a Washington outsider. Well, there was a clip circulating on social media of a 2003 presidential town hall on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews with one Reverend Al Sharpton, who was running for president in 2004 campaign, questioned by a young student about his experience. That student, Vivek Ramaswamy. Let's get to my question here. Reverend Sharpton, hello. I'm Vivek. And I want to ask you, last week on the show, we had Senator Kerry and this week and the week before we had Senator Edwards and my question for you is, of all the Democratic candidates out there, why should

I vote for the one with the least political experience? Well, you shouldn't because I have the most political experience. I got involved in the political movement when I was 12 years old, and I've been involved in social policy for the last 30 years. So don't confuse people that have a job with political experience. Whoever the head of some local bureaucracy has a job in Cambridge, that doesn't mean that they have political experience and it doesn't mean they have the experience to run the United States government. So I think that we confuse title holders with political experience, as we have seen with the present occupant in the White House. George Bush was a governor and clearly has shown he doesn't have political experience.

That was 20 years ago, October of 2003. John, yes, fascinating that it was Vivek Ramaswamy, but also Rev on his feet. That answer was amazing. So good. I heard from Reverend Sharpton this morning. He's aware of the clip. He says, as you would expect, he has no memory of that exchange. He talked to voters every day on that trail.

But it does, it reminds, reminder of what impressive run he had in 2004 and how fast he has always been with the answers, whether here on set or on the political stage or of course in the pulpit. And now he's only 68. He's young. Get him back in there.

Yeah, he's young yet. He's fit and ready. We'll have to call him an athlete. All right. Coming up next, we will read from Gene's new column, the one he wrote in response to Saturday's racially motivated attack in Jacksonville, Florida, as we get new details about that story. We're coming right back. Class held at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill this morning after a shooting on campus yesterday left a faculty member dead. NBC News correspondent Ali Vitale has details. An alarming if too familiar scene. A college campus on lockdown after a deadly shooting.

Also had to shoot on campus. This time at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. I'm grieved to report that one of our faculty members was killed in this shooting. This loss is devastating and the shooting damages the trust and safety that we so often take for granted in our campus community. It began with a school alert for an armed, dangerous person on or near campus. Go inside now. Avoid windows. Just one week after classes started. Has a 9mm awful Asian male.

Heavily armed officers swarming the campus. Students walking down the street with hands up. Many posting pictures sheltering inside school buildings. So immediately we all just stayed hiding in the stalls, squatting on the toilets, just scared. We didn't know what was happening. It was terrifying because, you know, you see that on your phone and you think it's just one of those things. Police putting out this photo of what they called a person of interest. Then what appeared to be an arrest shown on NBC station WRAL.

And now they're leading the person around the vehicle in handcuffs. That's the person we saw sitting down on the street with his hands behind his back, getting into the back of that police car. And just after four o'clock, the campus giving the all clear. Ali Vitaly reporting there from Chapel Hill. As of yesterday, investigators have not publicly identified the suspect or the faculty member who was killed. Police have not said if they knew each other, but according to local news reports, the suspect is a doctoral student at the university. We'll have more on that as we get it. Now to an update on the racially motivated attack in Jacksonville, Florida. On Saturday, a gunman shot and killed three black people at a Dollar General store. Police say he left behind

a manifesto detailing his explicit hatred for black people. Yesterday, a planned event in the city to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the March on Washington turned into a protest and a call to end white supremacy. Some demonstrators condemned Governor Ron DeSantis' so-called anti-woke agenda, suggesting it is provoking fear and hate. President Biden spoke during a White House event to mark the March on Washington anniversary, calling on Americans to do more to stop hate and criticizing lawmakers who push extremist policies. We can't let hate prevail, and it's on the rise. It's not diminishing. Silence, I believe we've all said many times, silence is complicity. We're not going to remain silent. And so we have to act against this hate fuel violence.

There's a whole group of extreme people trying to erase history, trying to walk away from it. I mean, the idea that we're sitting here, I never thought that I'd be president, let alone be president, and having a discussion on why books are being banned in American schools. President at the White House yesterday, Gene, your latest op-ed in The Washington Post is titled Black People Are Killed for Being Black Again. In it, Gene writes, quote, While thousands gathered Saturday on the National Mall to mark the 60th anniversary of the March on Washington, a racist white man in Jacksonville, Florida, killed three African-Americans for the unforgivable crime of being African-American. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said the right things, albeit awkwardly, at a vigil for the dead on Sunday night. But the crowd was also right to boo him. DeSantis has weakened gun laws in

Florida, crusaded incessantly against wokeness and has instituted a new curriculum in Florida schools that downplays the long history of African-Americans being targeted precisely because of their race. Martin Luther King's dream will never be realized until the nation fully confronts and acknowledges its history. And mass shootings will never end until the nation enacts sensible laws to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of those who would use them to kill. As you write, Gene, this is that lethal combination that we've seen way too often in the last several years of explicit hatred and high powered weapons. Yeah, the explicit hatred is not new in this country. It's the same thing that happened last year in Buffalo at the Top Supermarket, where 10 black people were killed for being black.

It's the same thing that happened in 2015 at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where nine black people were killed for being black. It's the same thing that happened in 1955 in Mississippi with Emmett Till. We're right around that anniversary. I mean, you know, and what really got to me was the way that in Florida, in Jacksonville, Florida, in Florida, we're talking about essentially whitewashing history, which Governor DeSantis has been doing. And until we acknowledge and know this history, the history of the long Jim Crow period, the history of the violence that was committed during those decades against black people in this country, across this country, we're just not going

to move forward. And so it is shameful that their efforts to, in effect, hide that history. And then, of course, there is a separate issue of guns, which we talk about every time we have one of these shootings. And, you know, you get you get hoarse from making this point, but you have to keep making it over and over again. We're the only country that has more guns than people. We're the only advanced country that has these mass shootings. And police in Jacksonville say in this case, the shooter bought two guns legally, passed the background checks and everything went through quickly and easily. But again, here we are.

And in this case, three innocent souls, one sitting in a car, one walking into a Dollar General store, and a 19-year-old working a job at a Dollar Central store, killed for it. The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, your column is up at thewashingtonpost.com. We appreciate it. Good to see you.