again. thank you for getting up "way too early" on this thursday morning. we have "morning joe" starts right about now. donald trump still thinks windmills cause cancer. that's what he said. by the way, remember when he was trying to deal with covid? he said, just inject a little bleach into your veins. he missed. it all went to his hair. [ laughter ] look, i shouldn't have said that. >> oh, yes, you should have. that was pretty good. whoa, psych. president biden poking fun at donald trump's hair at an event where biden picked up another major union endorsement. it was all in fun. meanwhile, today is a big legal day for the ex-president,

not so fun. hours from now, former president trump will be sitting in a manhattan courtroom as his hush money trial is set to resume. this as the judge overseeing the case has yet to rule if trump violated his gag order. in washington, d.c., the supreme court will hear oral arguments over trump's claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution in the d.c. election interference case. plus, arizona's attorney general has charged mark meadows, rudy giuliani, and other key trump allies, as well as 11 so-called fake electors with state crimes after they attempted to keep trump in power following the 2020 election. i don't know. did you see that coming? >> i did not. >> i didn't see that coming. >> i really didn't. good morning. welcome to "morning joe." willie, did you see that coming? >> not this one. i mean, we suspected it was coming sometime, but didn't see it coming yesterday. and some bold-faced names

apparently among the group of aides to donald trump. giuliani, meadows, eastman. >> yeah. >> apparently all in trouble here in arizona. >> wow. it is thursday, april 25th. great to have you with us. along with joe, willie, and me, we have u.s. special correspondent for bbc news, katty kay. and deputy managing editor for politics at "politico," sam stein is with us this morning. where do we begin? >> baseball? >> oh, no. >> willie, yankees -- >> i think we start in arizona. >> baseball. >> judge and soto both went deep. you and sam will be excited to hear that, joe. >> well, we're very excited. i mean, the red sox now have, like, 17 or 18 people hurt on the roster. there was a pitcher who picked up, sam, a rosin bag, and his -- >> arm got chopped off. >> -- dislocated. >> come on. >> no, we have so many injuries. these kids they keep calling up

are -- i mean, these pitchers have the lowest e.r.a. combined of any starting staff in baseball. >> crazy. >> it is kind of a crazy season. >> oh, yeah, no, it's nuts. we're, like, trotting out a aaa, maybe a aa lineup at this juncture. so many injury, yet we keep chugging along. alex cora, i don't know what magic he works, and it'll be a real shame when the ownership doesn't bring him back because they're so cheap. >> just -- yeah, give him manager of the year. katty, your household can breathe a collective sigh of relief. our liverpool squad, my liverpool squad, and, i don't know, i guess i'm alone on this one, lost yesterday to everton. they're out of it. i'm sure you had some happy arsenal and man city mans in your household yesterday. >> yeah, they are feeling -- i don't really understand. what is the antipathy between city mans and liverpool fans? i'm sorry about this, joe, but

my husband just, every time tom loses is as good as when city wins. i think that seems mean. >> it's the same at our house. >> i mean, they're the two best teams. >> maybe that's why i'm not a sports person. >> the past three, four years, it's crazy. >> all right. >> well, liverpool is very happy. they can make your husband gleeful yesterday. >> all right. >> genuinely. willie, let's start with the top story in arizona. >> yeah, arizona grand jury has indicted 11 of the so-called fake electors along with several other allies of donald trump to overturn the 2020 election. a 58-page indictment includes conspiracy, fraud, and forgery charges related to attempts by the defendants to change the election results in donald trump's favor. this was the scene on december 14th, 2020, when 11 people met at the republican party headquarters in phoenix to sign a certificate claiming to be

arizona's 11 electors. >> come on. >> despite joe biden winning arizona. >> what are these guys doing? >> by nearly 11,000 votes. proudly broadcasting it, by the way. >> what are they thinking, willie? >> i can't. it's such a cult. >> okay. we're fraudulent electors. there is a fraud scheme going on here. let's put the cameras on. >> maybe they're providing evidence. they were thinking ahead, 3 1/2 years down the road, they're really going to need this as evidence. here is us breaking the law. so the document, the indictment, describes seven others in trump's orbit who were indicted -- >> they're so dumb. >> -- and had the names redacted. former white house chief of staff mark meadows. rudy giuliani, jenna ellis, john eastman, christina bobb, trump campaign official boris epstein, and former white house official micro man. trump was not charged but described as unindicted

co-conspirator one. it's an investigation that's spanned more than a year. here is arizona's attorney general, kris mayes. >> i know today didn't come fast enough, and i'll be criticized by others for conducting this investigation at all. as i've stated before and will say again today, i will not allow american democracy to be undermined. it's too important. >> arizona becomes the fourth state to file criminal charges against the so-called fake electors that sought to undermine president biden's victory over trump. joe, we saw the video there. they also signed a fake certificate that they posted to social media. i mean, they were breaking the law, pretending they were the state's electors when they weren't. joe biden had narrowly won, broadcasting exactly what they were doing, and now the bill has come due. >> you know, i'm -- i'm not a prosecutor.

we have plenty of former prosecutors on, and we're going to bring them on in a minute. but, willie, it's like, thank you so much for waiting until the day before the election. all of these cases that were brought in 2020 -- late 2023, '24. december 14th, 2020. i really am -- and i'm certainly not just pointing out this attorney general in arizona. i could bring it of all of them. of the justice department, why did they take so long? georgia, we kept asking why georgia was taking so long. alvin bragg said, no, i don't want to bring that case, then brings a similar case like a year later. goes on and on. but, again, the timing, first of all, it frustrates people who don't like donald trump because he's not -- if there were laws

broken, it's not going to get resolved before the election. for people who support donald trump, they're like, look, they're all doing this in an election year. again, i just -- takes a long t case, but when you look at what happened on january 6th, it's kind of like, i don't -- i just don't understand a four-year delay or a three-and-a-half-year delay on these cases. it is stupid. i will say, there were progressives warning about this, legal people warning about this for the past couple years. here we are. >> yeah. i mean, it's been a long time coming, and it seems pretty clear-cut, given the fact we're just showing video of the crime being committed right here. donald trump -- >> here's us breaking into the bank, and a prosecutor is going, okay, let's -- >> people are in jail for january 6th. >> -- talk about this for four years and then maybe bring

charges. i'm sorry. go ahead. >> instead of being the fake electors, they call themselves the alternate electors. we are an alternate slate. we believe it should be used to count the votes. remember, it was president trump at the time called the governor of arizona, doug ducey, a arizona, to try to get him to flip the state's results as he was certifying them, and he famously ignored the call for trump and certified biden. let's bring in danny cevallos and lisa rubin. let's talk about the substance of this. you have the 11 so-called fake electors. seven aids to donald trump, including rudy giuliani, jenna ellis, john eastman, mark meadows, the names we mentioned. for the benefit of our viewers, what exactly are these people accused of doing around the 2020 election? >> well, the 11 fake electors are accused of forging

documents, right, by signing an elector certificate and sending it on to the arizona secretary of state, to the united states senate, to the national archives, which is what real electors do. they're facing three counts of forgery. but they're also facing count that is have to do with fraud. fraud in trying to sort of hold themselves out to be the legitimate electors. of course, that's a scheme that they engineered with the help of the seven redacted individuals who, as you noted, include several trump attorneys, but also mark meadows and micro man, mike roman, the director of election day actions. >> you have it here. >> i have a document and a video. they come in and put their hands up and said, "we did it." i mean, that was in december of 2020. you have them signing fraudulent -- >> what are we missing? >> -- documents. why does it take -- and, well, this sounds like i'm going after the arizona attorney general.

i'm not. i'm merely saying what a lot of people have been saying for a couple years. what's taking merrick garland so long? what is taking the georgia case so long? why would it take them almost four years to turn around a case where you've got the video and the fraudulent document in december of 2020? >> joe, one possible explanation is that a number of states stood down on their own investigations because they expected the department of justice to charge some of these people. when we ultimately saw that indictment against a single individual in the federal election interference case, it may have been that, at that point, a fire was lit under several states attorneys general who said, wait a second, if they're not going to handle this, i guess there is nothing else to do but for us to handle it. that's one possibility. >> yeah. >> another possibility is that -- >> makes sense. >> -- they needed things to come into public domain and needed cooperation. one of the things that is striking about this indictment, vis-a-vis some of the others, is

that it wreaks of ken chesebro, unindicted co-conspirator four's involvement. there are emails involving mr. chesebro and others. it is clear to me that this group of people in arizona certainly benefitted from all the investigations that went before it. whether it is the january 6th investigation running congress or even a civil litigation in wisconsin through which public records now include emails from the wisconsin attorney who worked with the campaign or ken chesebro himself. a lot of the emails are quoted in this indictment, and that's what makes some of the other documents so damning. you know, fake electors could say, "well, we were just doing this as a contingency plan. "here in this indictment, you see a quotation to an email december 14th saying, "well, we have to hurry and rush and get this lawsuit on file," because that is intended to be cover for the fake electors. that's as transparent an

admission as any, that the tail was wagging the dog here, right? >> yeah. willie, so they were doing actually good legal work. they were rolling up their other witnesses and could use chesebro and others to help make this case more airtight. this, of course, proves that i probably shouldn't have read hunter thompson throughout lawsuit, and maybe i'd be as smart as lisa. no, i still wouldn't. maybe i'd figure it out. that is an argument. for people who say, why sit taking so long? maybe they're building off of other cases. >> yeah, i mean, clearly, they swept up a ton of people in this indictment, including christina bobb, who, let's remember, she, a few weeks ago, was named by the rnc to run the election integrity committee. pause to think about that. >> oh, my.

>> just a moment. >> oh, my gosh. >> now, she's indicted in this alleged scheme. danny, i want to ask about donald trump's role in all this and what trouble he potentially could be in. listed as unindicted co-conspirator number one. he's not been indicted here. what does that mean? what are they saying about donald trump here? >> what's amazing, he has been an unindicted co-conspirator. he was individual one was michael cohen came into court and pleaded guilty. donald trump is no stranger to being an unindicted something who is named in a criminal document, whether it be an indictment, a complaint. so is this bad for donald trump? yeah. i mean, what we're seeing is that it's up to -- when you talk about the several states, any county prosecutor could decide, you know what? this affected our state, our county. the attorneys general can do the same thing. you know, going back to why so long, what was the delay all about, i totally agree with what

lisa said. i'd like to add to it. i mean, it is no surprise that prosecutors were probably wait ing around to see who was going to be the first to do it because it is scary. it is scary to indict a former president of the united states because he has and will fight like heck at every level. and losing a case, maybe one of the first cases against a former president, would be a crushing defeat. so, in my view, from a social perspective, it was no surprise that in just the last year, once the first indictment came down, everyone else felt much more emboldened to start indicting the president. listen, i don't blame them. it is a scary prospect with just flaming disaster possibilities. >> maybe we'll see more of it here. meanwhile, the supreme court, the united states supreme court, will hear arguments this morning in a historic case involving donald trump and his claim of absolute presidential immunity. trump's legal team argues presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in

office. special counsel jack smith's office contends presidents are not above the law. even if they're eligible for immunity for some official acts, trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election was not an official presidential act. trump's immuity claim already has been rejected by two lower courts, and the special counsel argues justices should send the case back to u.s. district judge chutkan to begin that trial. lisa, what do you expect to hear in court today, and what we've heard so far is perhaps the justices, even conserative justices, are skeptical that a president is immune from anything. >> what i'm looking for in terms of the argument is to hear how much allowance certain of the justices might give to the idea that presidential immunity is appropriate in certain cases, and to listen to hear whether they're trying to make a decision solely in this case that sort of reserves for themselves the right to make a broader ruling on presidential

immunity at a later point in time. for example, they could say, trump is absolutely not immune based on the l ga allegations os indictment. whether a former president can be criminally immune is something we would decide at a later date when the facts present itself. that's the best-case scenario. the worst-case scenario is jack smith's folks spend a lot of time on their heels in the back end of their reply brief, which is where they cover all the contingencies. i'll call it the even if section of their brief. if they end up in that territory for a lot of the argument, even if, for example, certain of these things are official acts, others are not. even if he as immunity for official acts, we can still consider evidence of those official acts as part of the largely private conspiracy, those arguments, if the justices drag it to that territory, you know this is not going to trial any time soon. >> sam stein, let me read you the lead editorial in the "wall street journal" today talking

about the supreme court must consider the presidency, not merely the fate of one former president. they write this, "the burden on the justices will be finding a balance that recognizes unique duties of the presidency while also holding presidents accountable for genuine lawbreaking. a president needs to be free to make controversial decisions without having to worry that he'll be prosecuted for them after he leaves office, but he shouldn't be free to commit crimes that are unrelated to the office." then they go back to nixon v fitzgerald 1982, where the supreme court ruled that the president has absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for acts within the outside perimeter of his presidential duty. that is the question here. did donald trump do -- when looking at nixon -- can you define what he did as being in the outer perimeter of the

presidency? of course, for you or me, and i think most people watching, would say, of course not. but that certainly is the question the supreme court has to be careful with. again, whatever holding they come down with will be applied to future presidents, as well. we don't want every president leaving office being indicted by the hostile justice department. >> yeah. i mean, this is obviously an extremely weighty case. even if it's the designs to get to the supreme court were not weighty at all. by that, it is evident trump's legal team wanted to do this to throw sand in the gears and delay until after the election. for the specifics, jack smith's operation has been clear. the stuff that happened on january 6th is inherently not about the acts of the presidency because trump had lost. he'd lost the election. therefore, it is not a presidential act, and, therefore, he should not get

immunity for it. whether the justices see it that way is a whole other matter. look, i think this is pretty evident that what is happening here is trump's team wants to just muck things up. i don't think that there is anything more to it. they want to delay it. way that i want to get this out from the election. ideally, they want to see trump win and dispense with the matter. i think the "journal's" editorial, there is nothing debatable or objectionable about it. of course, presidents should have some level of immunity for acts they take in office. the question is whether it should be blanket immunity. i think on that front, the vast majority of the legal profession is on one side, saying, no, there should not be blanket immu immunity. >> muck things sup a technical, legal term that sam just -- >> i studied law for many years to come up with that term, yeah. >> and your money paid back, sam. well done. good investment on your parents' part. danny, look, we see -- we've got in real time, of course, a case

where a former president of the united states is going through the american legal system and is being proof that no man is above the law. we have david pecker back on the stand today in new york. we haven't got to the stormy daniels stuff yet. what are you looking for out of what we have, two more days this week? what are you looking for? >> i said david pecker may have emerged as the people's star witness. we had a lot of focus on someone like michael cohen, but david pecker is better for the people for a number of reasons. number one, he has some credibility issues, but not the credibility issues of a michael cohen. number two, he starts at the beginning. prosecutors love to take you through a chronological, in the beginning, this was this relationship. by showing this relationship, where david pecker had communication with michael cohen, and i think this is critical, and they've already shown the communication with michael cohen went from once a month to once a quarter and

escalated. what did it escalate corresponding to? the upcoming election. that is going to be key to demonstraing that this was not a bunch of hush money payments to protect my family or reputation with my wife. this was to influence the campaign. that is a key element that the people need to prove in order to aggravate this crime from misdemeanor to felony land. but as good as david pecker ish may still hear interesting things about his relationship with trump, which is longstanding, but david pecker, why he may be one of the star witnesses for the people, they called him first. tells me they wanted to start with a bang and they wanted a witness that would be their best witness, if not close to their best. also, lastly, who hasn't been riveted by the testimony of david pecker so far? i have been fascinating getting

a glimpse into the world of checkbook journalism. i call him the scoundrel character. he is unabashed, unapologetic. this is what i do. it may seem sleazy to you, but it's who i am. i think juries tend to laugh at this witness and find him entertaining. >> like you and drudge headlines. >> well, i'll have to check the latest one. they've been so good, the pecker headlines. it's been amusing. but pecker back today. lisa rubin, the interesting point i think danny was building on, and your thoughts on what you expect today, you saw in the pecker testimony him really laying out plans for certain stories. even saying about a story that turned out not to be that -- not to really have legs was about the doorman and some baby, illegitimate child, and how he'd wait until after the election to

put that story out if he could get more on it. showing really that they were framing everything they were doing around the election. >> he said it had to do with the election. it wasn't to protect trump personally, like they were saying. everything was timed for the election. >> exactly. lisa, with that in mind, what are you looking for today? >> i'm looking for more evidence, mika, of direct conversations between pecker and trump. he started in august 2015 at trump tower. he ended the other day starting to talk about a phone call they had in june 2016 when trump called him up to say michael cohen had informed him of the allegations karen mcdougal was thinking. trump asked, what do you think? i want to hear more about that phone call. pecker talked with cohen with more regularity after trump's candidacy but also to trump with more regularity. i'm looking to see what other conversations did david pecker

have with trump that bear on his knowledge and intent? that is critical to shore up the flawed witness michael cohen is and also giving him for credibility in the end. >> all right. former litigator and msnbc correspondent lisa rubin, we will be hearing from now. msnbc legal analyst danny cevallos, as well. thank you, both, for coming on this morning. still ahead on "morning joe," billions of dollars in u.s. aid now is finally on its way to war-torn ukraine. we'll talk to "the washington post"'s david ignatius about how he says ukraine can make the best of it. plus, the disastrous impact on the war on russia. plus, the mother of an israeli hostage, hersh goldberg-polin, will react to a propaganda video involving her son. >> i heard you gasp yesterday as you were reading through the news, and i ran in to see what

was wrong. you saw the video. >> it was a video of hersh. we'll be talking to his mother. >> unbelievable. >> you're watching "morning joe." we're back in 60 seconds. ck in s at bombas, we're obsessed with comfort. softness. quality. because your basic things should be your best things. one purchased equals one donated. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first order.

mika, willie and i had a rough day yesterday. little known fact, when we escaped from just our hellish situation in turkey. >> okay. >> we don't like to talk about this. but we escaped, got some turkish-arabian horses. rode them to the border. we hung out in london for a while. it wasn't safe to come back to the united states at that time, right? so, somehow, we got in with the stables of the queen. this is a long buildup for this "wall street journal" headline. >> yeah. >> but we're in charge -- >> is sam ignoring you? >> -- of caring for the king's

horses, and we fell asleep on duty yesterday. some of the horses broke free. these are the king's horses. >> that's a problem. >> running through the streets of london. it was for his birthday. what can i say? willie and i went to the dogs. we were betting the dog track. willie, you know, i guess all you can say is i'm sorry, right? >> calls for our resignation. saying we're getting long in the tooth for the job anymore. >> come on. >> this morning, i think we have live pictures. there are protests in the streets of london. it's not pretty. they want us out, joe. this might be the last straw. >> okay. these are beautiful horses. >> it's over. >> okay. i hope they got them. >> they got them. i'm going to move on with something actually that happened. president biden yesterday signed the foreign aid package passed by both the house and the senate. it delivered billions of dollars in aid for ukraine, israel, and

u.s. allies in the indo-pacific. >> the next few hours, literally in a few hours, we're going to begin sending equipment to ukraine for air defense munitions, for artillery, for rocket systems, and armored vehicles. you know, this package is literally an investment, not only in ukraine's security but in europe's security. and our own security. we're sending ukraine equipment from our own stockpiles. then we'll replenish those stockpiles with new products made by american companies here in america. for months, while maga republicans were blocking aid, ukraine has been running out of artillery shells and ammunition. meanwhile, putin's friends keep giving him -- keeping him well supplied. iran sent his drones. north korea sent him ballistic missiles and artillery shells. china is providing components and know-how to boost russia's

defense production. russia ramped up air strikes against ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure. rained down munitions on brave ukrainians defending their homeland. now, america is going to send ukraine the supplies they need to keep them in the fight. there's one thing this bill does not do, border security. you know, just this year, i proposed and negotiated and agreed to the strongest border security bill this country has ever, ever, ever seen. it was bipartisan. it should have been included in this bill. i'm determined to get it done for the american people. >> you know, it is fascinating. lindsey graham on the senate floor a couple days ago said that they had a great border security bill and, unfortunately, donald trump killed it. surprised he even dared to say that. we agree with that. but i just want to say again, you know, president biden, of course, has been a champion of this from the very beginning, helping ukraine.

he's done an extraordinary job. again, we just -- i'm thankful that speaker johnson, that chairman mccaul, that chairman turner, chairman rogers, in the house, republican caucus, were such strong advocates of this. it's still shocking to me as a former republican, still shocking, the majority of republicans in the house voted against aid for ukraine. not so in the republican senate, thank goodness. but there is a real split in the house. unfortunately, the majority of republicans in the house voted against, well, i'll put it this way, they took vladimir putin's side in this battle. let's bring in columnist and associate editor for "the washington post," david ignatius. staff writer at the "atlantic,"

anne applebaum. and former reporter for "the wall street journal," david pazinski. david, your title, "ukraine can make the best use of the u.s. aid package." how can they do it? >> yesterday was a bad day for vladimir putin, no matter how you cut it. good day for biden and bipartisanship. ukraine is now putin's forever war. we've said, the united states, with our european allies, that we are going to provide significant military assistance well through this year, into next year. i think the key piece of the equipment going to ukraine, we're already seeing the effects of it, are the long-range, atacms missiles. it puts every russian depot, supply and command center, staging area, inside occupied

ukraine, inside all of crimea, inside the donbas areas in the east, the strip along the coast, those are all at risk. i hear people in the white house beginning to speculate that the russians will not be able to maintain the positions that they have there easily. they're going to have to pull their logistics deeper, and that'll mean a different strategy in this war. one much more difficult for the russians. we were at a moment a few weeks ago when momentum clearly seemed to be on the russian side. i think most analysts, including russians whose commentary i quoted in my piece yesterday, are now convinced that the momentum shifted. there is a psychological boost for ukraine. >> matthew, you were talking about the massive losses that russia was taking despite the problems on the battlefield last time you were on. you've also written that it had

been a disaster, this war has been a disaster, economically, demographically, politically, diplomatically, and strategically. you lay out some really strong arguments why that's the case and why, as david ignatius just said, it is now because of congressional support, it's turning into vladimir putin's forever war, his worst nightmare. >> well, you know, as david said, it is turning into his forever war. putin cannot afford a forever war. you know, economically, russia may have ambitions to be a global superpower, but it is basically a pip-squeak. russia's economy is roughly half the size of california's. they cannot sustain this sort of military spending without dire consequences. we're starting to see that in many areas. you know, for instance, we think

that we have very high interest rates over here. to cobat inflation, because their economy is so small and can't absorb this military spending, they've had to jack up interest rates to 16%. which means, if you are looking to buy an apartment, you're looking at 22% mortgage rates. this stuff goes right across the board. the russian economy is not big enough and strong enough to sustain this indefinitely. you know, moreover, putin very much miscalculated. you know, before the war, nato was effectively dying. outside of the united states, only two members were meeting the 2% gdp threshold for military spending. well, you know, that number is now up to 20 of the 32 members. not just that, but finland and

sweden have now joined nato. putin was railing that, you know, nato had expanded to his borders. well, now nato has gotten even bigger. they're outspending the russians. demographically, it is catastrophic for russia. you know, russia has lost its -- basically almost its entire tech sector. all the 20-something-year-olds. it's the equivalent of, let's say, 2 million 20-something-year-olds left palo alto, silicon valley, new york, boston, what would that do to this country long term? you know, he is depriving russia of its future, you know, generations of elon musks and mark zuckerbergs. speaking of zuckerberg, i don't know if you saw, you know, the spokesman of meta, was just

sentenced to six years in prison for terrorism. i guess they don't like what is being written on facebook and instagram. that is another thing. you know, putin has set russia back probably 50 years as a civil society with the level of repression that he's needed -- that his apparatus has needed to inflict on people. you know, this is catastrophic. >> it is catastrophic. willie, we heard about it at the beginning of the war. we heard about, demographically, how all the young, smart i.t. people were getting out of there as quickly as possible. that's just continued over two years. as matthew said, the economy is wrecked. i mean, you say these numbers. i mean, it is really extraordinary. i always talk about the gdp the same size as texas. as matthew put it, russia is fighting a war.

it upsets some people when i say it, but with the strongest, most powerful, richest nation on earth helping ukraine. they've got an economy that is half the size of california. it's amaing. >> it is. those great minds who want a progressive future did flee a long time ago. anne, you wrote a couple days ago when this finally passed through, when joe biden signed the foreign aid bill, $95 billion, that russia, over the last couple of months, while this money had been in limbo in the congress, had started to win this campaign of demoralization, which is to say, ukraine, no one is coming to help you. america is not coming for you anymore. we are now winning this war. there is the tactical side of it which we talked about, what this money means for that, but what about the psychological element of this money finally clearing the congress and getting to ukraine? >> yeah, this is in some ways the most important effect of

this bill. obviously, the ammunition and the missiles will make real difference on the ground. but for many months now, it's been clear that putin was hoping to win this war without fighting, without having to destroy his economy, without having to devote so much of his gdp to weapons production. he was hoping that he would use propaganda and intimidation to frighten the united states, to inspire a part of the republican party inside the house of representatives to block the aid, and, that way, he'd convince the ukrainians they were alone, that they couldn't win, that there was no point in fighting any longer. that's how he was going to win the war. he came very close to succeeding. i know that this is the week in which we're cheering the fact that the bill was finally signed and people are now impressed with the way in which mike johnson finally, in the end, allowed this to become a bipartisan bill and, therefore, to pass. but the blockage of this bill

for months and months and monts by a very loud, very pro-russian part of the republican party, has also caused a lot of damage. people around the world saw that it is possible to manipulate congress. they saw that russian propaganda that appears, you know -- lies that appear first on the internet eventually make their way to the floor of the house and the senate. putin saw that. ukrainians saw that. that was something an effect on the willingness of people to fight on the ground in ukraine. hopefully now, that era has ended. >> anne, can i ask you, because you know so much about this, and, usually, you talk about how disinformation impacts countries in central and eastern europe. but what is so shocking is, mitch mcconnell a couple days ago said this vote for ukraine aid was much harder -- he put i at the feet of tucker carlson --

because of the russian disinformation he said that tucker carlson was pushing out. other republicans in the house repeating russian disinformation just as if they were spokespeople for russian television. and you had intel chairman turner saying, "we've got republican house members on the house floor spreading russian propaganda on the house floor." chairman mccaul, again, god bless him and the other republican chairmen that stood up for the right thing. but more republicans voted against aid for ukraine than voted for. if you're vladimir putin, yeah, you lost the bigger battle, but you've got to be looking at the fact that he was able to get russian disinformation on the floor of congress and on the airwaves of trump, right-wing propagandists, and that russian

disinformation impacted a vote in the house of representatives. >> you're right, it is extraordinary. i think it goes deeper than just tucker carlson. one senator, thom tillis, talked about a very specific lie. so there is a famous fake. it's a fake that president zelenskyy owns two yachts. there were pictures of the yachts circulating on the internet. of course, those were really orr people's yachts. tillis pointed out that there were republican senators in the conversations about the bill saying, "we don't want this money to go on yachts," but there are no yachts. the yachts are fictitious. it's an illustration of how lies that emerged on the internet, some of them were russian, some may have been american, made it to the floor of the house without being checked, without anybody questioning them. we saw another version of that. we saw marjorie taylor greene talking about ukrainians as

nazis, which is actually an extraordinary slur given that ukraine is, you know -- it has a jewish president and muslim defense minister and is a government that seeks to bring democracy to the region. yet, she uses this slur that was invented in moscow and talks about it on the floor of the house. so we see that, you know, the effectiveness of this propaganda can't be downplayed. i mean, it was -- it played a role in defending aid and changing u.s. foreign policy for a year. >> david -- >> it really did. sorry. go ahead, katty. >> yeah, i was just wondering, i mean, i know this is the week that we're rightly celebrating the speaker who managed to listen to the facts and do something that's almost unheard of in u.s. politics at the moment. listen to the facts and then changed his mind, publicly changed his mind and approved this bill. put the bill to the floor. but i think what anne is getting to is a broader sense that there

is a growing isolationism in the republican party. it's not just this little group. there was a poll from the economist showing 20% of republicans see ukraine as an al lie. for the first time in 50 years of polling, the chicago council on foreign affairs says a majority of republicans believe that america shouldn't get involved in world affairs. we've got over this week, and we've given this tranche of aid to ukraine now, but i wonder if, actually, we're looking in the longer run at something that is a real sea change, and not just in the maga hard core in the house, but in republican voters and republican sentiment perhaps in america more broadly. >> david. >> sorry. i share the concern about an america that is in retreat from its responsibilities, but just to speak to the point that anne

made so powerfully. what's happened, i think, in this debate, is that despite this enormous machine of russian lies, the truth won out. when mike johnson was confronted again and again by national security adviser jake sullivan, by cia director burns, with the facts of what was happening, according to "the washington post" article this morning, the date on which ukraine would run out of ammo, it got to him. when i saw president zelenskyy at the end of march and he said, "if we don't get more ammunition, we have to retreat," and he drew a map of the retreat. i think that truth began to penetrate for people. it was powerful. i think we sometimes feel we're prisoners of disinformation. in this instance, we weren't. republicans weren't. republicans problem through. republicans broke through. i want to make one point. with all the positive news this

week, we shouldn't forget that the russian army is powerful. its become a learning army. it sees mistakes and are getting better at the arts of modern warfare. that's one thing that worries me for all the jubilation about this aid package. >> it's really something. matthew, we have to go to break, but really quickly, can you talk about, because we always talk about the military side of this. can you talk diplomatically about how much this has isolated vladimir putin? >> vladimir putin, you know, as we recall, i mean, russia was part of the g-8. russia had been welcomed, basically, into the west. you know, today, putin's friends, it's like a rogue's gallery. your irans, north koreas. the friendship with china, the chinese are cynically exploiting

russia's isolation to get cut-rate energy and natural resources. you know, this has been absolutely disastrous for russia. i think the longer this goes, the weaker russia becomes. at the end of the day, you know, this may cost putin his head. >> "the washington post"'s david ignatius, anne applebaum, and former reporter for "the wall street journal", matthew brzezinski, who brings pip-squeak to "morning joe." >> your mom would use it against your dad. >> if he talked too much, yeah, wanted to bring him down a notch. thanks for coming on, guys. coming up, china's economy is taking major hits, largely because of its housing sector. steve rattner is standing by with charts to give us a look at how the country got to this point and what it means for the u.s. economy. "morning joe" will be right back.

[shaking] (♪♪) (♪♪) oh no. [scratching] with chewy, get flea meds delivered before the itching begins. (♪♪) or after, but before is definitely better. good job. save 20% on your first pharmacy order and get it delivered right on time.

♪ before planning the wedding your bad hip was really acting up. then, you heard about mako robotic-assisted hip replacement. it starts with a ct scan to pinpoint the problem. that becomes a personalized, 3d plan to guide your doctor during surgery. mako can help lead to better outcomes, like less pain and shorter recovery times. the lifetime of a hip implant is limited, and revision surgery may be required. individual results and recovery times vary. risks of surgery include pain, infection, heart attack, stroke, death, and other serious risks. ask your doctor for important safety information. to find a doctor who uses mako visit makocan.com

my name is oluseyi to find a doctor who uses mako and some of my favorite moments throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology, which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game. giving millions of fans, like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport. a new report in the "wall street journal" entitled "the folly of china's real estate boom was easy to see but no one

wanted to stop it." no one wanted the music to stop. "the journal" continues, china is paying the price for failing to reel it in. 50 chinese developers have defaulted on their international debt. around 500,000 people have lost their jobs. some 20 million housing units across china have been left unfinished. an estimated $440 billion is needed to complete them. joining us now to explain the significance of this is former treasury official and "morning joe" economic analyst steve rattner. >> steve, let's talk about why this matters so much. >> wow. >> to the world, to america. you know, the butterfly effect, which is said if a butterfly flaps his wings in china, it could cause a hurricane in new mexico.

economically, this could have a big impact, could it not, on the world economy? >> yeah, joe, look, we can talk of the national security considerations, but from an economic point of view, it is in our interest to have a strong china. a weak china, especially with these kinds of financial repercussions, is something the world should worry about. but we can take a look at how severe the housing bubble and the housing bust in china has been. you can see back here, in 2003, the chinese built only a tiny amount of housing, relatively small amount of housing, then the boom took off. it was all part of the chinese success story. people had more money. jobs and credit were plentiful, so the builders build. small hiccup. they took off up here and finally built 20 billion square feet of space in china in the peak year of 2018. then it rolled over because there was too much housing. now, you can see the bust part of the cycle, where they're headed almost all the way back

to where they were back then. meanwhile, by the way, chinese population only grew by less than 10%. when you add this much housing and not a lot of population, you get overbuilding. what did that do to prices? prices went up for a while. chinese economy was doing very well. people were feeling flush. then, of course, all that excess supply, why pay retail when you can, in effect, pay wholesale? prices fall, fall, fall, now down 6% year-over-year, not showing a sign of abating. now, they have a housing crisis. >> talk about china's real estate situation versus america's. >> can i come to that in one second? >> sure. >> we can come to it here, actually. the important thing to recognize is that china households have a lot more of their money in real estate than they do in other things. so when you look at real estate in china as a share of gdp, it is almost 30%.

in the u.s., it is 18%. much heavier dependence on real estate there. for households, as you eluded, it is even more significant. the average chinese household has 78% of its wealth in its house. in the u.s., the comparable figure is 30%. so they are much more susceptible to the downturns in pricing that i showed you a minute ago. as a result of the overbuilding, 20% of all the chinese housing units are currently vacant. something like 20 million. imagine if you had two people per unit, 40 million people could be housed. a city of 40 million people, basically empty houses in china. our vacancy rate at the cheap of the great financial crisis only reached 11%, to give you a point of comparison. we got nowhere near there. then if you look at the impact on the stock market and things like that, our stock market is up 87% since 2019. the stock market is only up 19%.

why is that? in part, chinese property companies are down 33%. the second biggest developer in china, evergrande, their stock effectively is at zero. it's inflicted more pain on chinese shareholders as well as the economy. >> wow. that, of course, will have a big impact on the u.s. i'm hearing we have to go to break. but why don't you give us your final chart. go through it quickly for us. >> i'll give it to you in two seconds and show the eerie parallels between what is happening in china now and our financial crisis. housing starts for both countries. china in red. u.s. in blue. see how they track at we hit a peak and a collapse. china is still collapsing. we had our collapse. we've rebounded partly but not nearly enough, which is why we have a shortage at the moment. home sales follow the same

trajectory, up, down. china is still not hitting bottom. the parallels are eerie, shall we say. >> boy, they really are. >> "morning joe" economic analyst steve rattner, thank you very much. >> thank you, steve. >> thank you. ahead on "morning joe," a historic split screen will play out this morning. just hours from now, donald trump's lawyers will be fighting two different legal cases simultaneously. one in new york city where his hush money criminal trial is set to resume. the other in washington, d.c., where the supreme court will hear oral arguments over trump's claims he is immune from criminal prosecution in the 2020 election interference case. we're back in two minutes. ahhh! with flonase, allergies don't have to be scary. spray flonase sensimist daily for non-drowsy long lasting relief in a scent free, gentle mist. flonase all good. also, try our allergy headache and nighttime pills. how did i ever miss this? before you were preventing migraine with qulipta?

you'll never truly forget migraine, but zero-migraine days are possible. don't take if allergic to qulipta. most common side effects are nausea, constipation and sleepiness. qulipta. the forget-you-get-migraine medicine.

michael cohen is a convicted liar and has no credibility whatsoever. he was a lawyer, and you rely on your lawyers, but michael cohen was a convicted liar. he was a lawyer for many people,

not just me. he got in trouble because of things outside of what he did for me. >> this interview, to me, seems to be a direct violation of the order as it is written. and so i think it is problematic for him, especially this airs while the judge is currently sitting and trying to decide the issue. >> that was donald trump's former lawyer, reacting to trump going after his former fixer, michael cohen, just as the judge overseeing the ex-president's hush money trial weighs whether trump violated his gag order. welcome back to "morning joe." it is thursday, april 25th. so much going on today. katty kay is still with us. joining the conversation, we have msnbc contributor mike barnicle. the president of the national action network and host of msnbc's "politics nation," reverend al sharpton is with us. let's start in arizona where an arizona grand jury has indicted 11 so-called fake

electors along with several other allies of donald trump for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. the 58-page indictment includes conspiracy, fraud, and forgery charges related to attempts by the defendants to change the election results in trump's favor. this was the scene back on december 14th, 2020. it's all right there on tape. >> i mean, they taped it. >> they taped it, just to make sure, you know, you could see it. when 11 people met at the republican party headquarters in phoenix to sign a certificate claiming to be arizona's 11 electors. despite joe biden winning arizona by nearly 11,000 votes. >> willie, do you have any theory of why these people taped -- >> i still can't believe what i'm watching. >> i have a theory. you don't want to hear mine, do

you? >> well, it depends. >> kind of scared to ask. >> we kind of are. >> yeah. >> willie, do you want to hear mika's theory? >> yes, yes. >> go ahead. >> it's a cult. they'll do anything for him. they will commit a crime on camera for donald trump. here you go. exhibit a. >> all right. that's her theory, willie. whatever it is, it's not -- i've got to say, their lawyers have to look at them, "what were you thinking?" >> what lawyer is taking the case? oh, you recorded yourself committing the crime? then you signed the document committing a crime and posted it to social media? i'm not sure i'm going to be able to help you here. >> yeah, the lawyer says, "listen, listen, these are wild charges. i'm sure none of this ever happened. we'll get some corroborating witnesses." >> we'll help you out. >> reasonable doubt. nobody will even know this happened. >> this is what we do. >> because it never happened. >> yeah. >> there's a video?

you have a video of the conspiracy? i mean, come on! what's wrong with these people? >> you signed it? >> you signed it. >> made it official, i see. >> i don't know, willie. not the sharpest tools in the shed here. >> either that or it's a cult. >> well -- >> they just wanted to shortstop things, eliminate the middleman in the court case. forget that. forget the pretrial hearings. go straight to the video tape, just like warner wolf of would say. >> let's go to the video tape. >> which goes back and raises the question, why did it take three and a half years to bring this case? >> well -- >> i don't know. the document also describes seven others in trump's orbit who were indicted but names have been redacted. such as, mark meadows, lawyers rudy giuliani, still coming at him, jenna ellis. >> come on, man. >> who already said i'm a christian, i'm sorry. we'll see if she does that in arizona, as well. john eastman. >> lordy. >> christina bobb, who runs

election --i'm not making this up. >> you can't. >> -- integrity for the rnc. boris epstein and mike roman. donald trump is the unindicted co-conspirator one. they sought to overturn joe biden's victory over donald trump. let's bring in barbara mcquade. we can ask you so many questions. why did they tape this? i could ask why it took so long to bring this case since they had the fraudulent documents for years and video tape for years. but i will start by asking you how strong of a case you think this is against the fraudulent electors. >> well, as detailed in this indictment, this is what prosecutors would refer to as a speaking indictment. they don't just throw out the

charges. they detail the evidence they have against them. it appears to me a very strong case. it also, because you've got so many defendants here, it seems very likely that some of them will cooperate and testify, especially because, as you point out, there is video evidence of the crime occurring. i think one of the things that is really interesting here is the inclusion in this case of people like john eastman and rudy giuliani, christina bobb, jenna ellis. some of these people have already been charged in other jurisdictions. that creates leverage for both jurisdictions. at some point, these cases are stacking up so much, they have an incentive to work out some sort of global plea deal. they say, all right, i can be the -- i didn't defend myself in all these forums. i can't face prison time. where do i sign up? i'll cooperate in all the cases. >> it's so sad. >> the current attorney general,

kris mayes, got the job just over a year and a half ago. there was a republican attorney general before that. maybe that plays into it, as well. just to remind our viewers, and we were talking in the last hour with lisa rubin about this, what exactly we're watching in the video, who those people are. they call themselves the alternate electors. they're the fake electors. what are we seeing in this video right here? >> well, the group is gathering to sign these documents. one of the key charges here is forgery. they signed documents claiming to be the dually-appointed electors of the state of arizona following the election of the donald trump when they knew there was no such thing whatsoever. i think the key evidence here, you know, prosecutors have to prove not only what someone did but what they were thinking at the time. what were you thinking will likely be a question a lawyer asks. they have to prove they had fraudulent intent. that someone didn't tell them, this is a provisional thing you'll sign in case, for some

reason, the election turns out to be different from what we thought it would be. please sign here in good faith. so it'd be the burden of the prosecutor to prove that's not what was happening at all. that they knew very well that this was all part of this other scheme. you know, that's the charge. i think there's lots of evidence described here, especially with giuliani's efforts and some of the things they were trying to do to create this impression that there was some sort of rigging of this election or fraud in this election. of course, we know that that was absolutely not true and there was no evidence of it. >> i want to bring in nbc news correspondent vaughn hillyard who is live in manhattan. he is covering donald trump's criminal trial this morning. but we'll hold for that. >> he knows all things arizona. >> he covers all things arizona. >> exactly. >> we're curious your take on this latest story out of arizona, vaughn. >> reporter: guys, we lived that story in real time.

you said it. it was documented for all the world to see. they were not running from what they were doing. they were holding press conferences. kelly ward, which i think, you know, when we have to look at the totality of the last decade as a whole, right? kelly ward rose to prominent when she challenged john mccain for his senate seat in 2016. she lost in the republican primary. two years later, kelly ward ran against jeff flake in the republican primary for u.s. senate seat, and she was beating him in polling. that led jeff flake to drop out of the senate race. ultimately, he left congress. kelly ward then came on to end up becoming the republican party chairwoman. she was the one that led this effort, along with her husband, along with a guy named tyler boyar, who is the current rnc committee man from arizona and the chief operating officer of the charlie kirk group, turning point usa. he was acting as her number two, as a part of the scheme. if you look in the months that follow, it was the cyber ninjas, right? kelly ward was on the front

lines of that at the arizona state fairgrounds, leading what they were calling a forensic audit of the ballots. of course, that was not a part of this indictment here. yet, kris mayes, upon winning her election in november 2022, committed to ensure that those individuals who sought these efforts in 2020 wouldn't be able to do so in future elections. each of these individuals is still very much involved in the ball game here, just six months out from the 2024 election, guys. >> yeah. >> vaughn, you're at an event with construction workers before donald trump goes to trial. tell me about it. >> reporter: yeah, he just left here a few moments ago. this was a last-minute stop he made before heading down to court. we are outside of what is going to be the jpmorgan headquarters at park avenue and 48th street, not far from 30 rock. trump addressed the construction workers, shook their hands. he then came and talked to cameras. i should note that i tried to ask him about whether he knew about the payment to stormy daniels before the 2016 election

and he kept not making eye contact and taking other questions. he did ask a question about david pecker. >> oh. >> whether he had previously talked to him. i'll let you listen for themselves, a bit of what he said. take a listen. >> we have a big case today. the supreme court on presidential immunity. a president has to have immunity. if you don't have immunity, you'll just have a ceremonial president. >> what have you thought of david pecker's testimony so far? >> he's been -- david has been very nice. a nice guy. >> reporter: guys, this was donald trump's second such stop in the last week here in new york. of course, he's still not provided great detail about the trial he is currently going through here in new york. again, he suggested that he would testify. maybe prosecutors will get the opportunity to ask the questions that he is not wholly taking from reporters. >> all right. thank you so much, vaughn.

greatly appreciate it. >> finally talked about pecker. >> reverend al, a day or two ado, i was talking to a friend after david pecker's testimony, as somebody who knows david pecker and donald trump. i said, it's interesting. david pecker just blew this case wide open against donald trump. yet, nothing on truth social. my friend started laughing and said, "you will never hear donald trump say anything bad about david pecker." then suggested that, you know, he knows a lot more about donald trump than donald trump would want people to know. listen to this. again, after this guy just blew open the case against him -- >> became the key witness. >> -- they asked him about david pecker. trump, "david has been very

nice, very nice. he's a nice guy." rev, any theories? >> well, the theory is -- >> don't wander too far out there. >> -- whoever your friend is i think is correct. when donald trump says david has been nice, when david got on the stand and just about nailed his legal coffin in terms of this trial, it is because he knows he's been nice not to tell all the other things he may know about donald trump. >> yeah. >> if you have a guy that knows 100 things and he only testifies to ten, you say he is a very nice guy because you don't want the other 90 to drop out. >> i mean, mike, as joe says, this is the kind of witness donald trump would eviscerate and try to undermine and bring up stuff about his past and he's a bad guy, this and that. >> yes. >> i mean, he's exposed in two days, and will start again in a couple hours, this scheme where donald trump would pay him to bury stories, where he would pay him to put in the national

enquirer thinks about cruz' father participating in the assassination of jfk, about a sponge being left in someone's brain after surgery because they were running against donald trump. >> we don't know exactly what it is, but, certainly, the evidence that's on the table is clearly supporting that supposition, that something is going on here. because he has known for weeks, maybe months, that david pecker was going to be on the witness stand as one of the prosecution's star witnesses. as you pointed out, there hasn't been a peep out of donald trump about david pecker. not only truth social, not to anything, to no microphone in the world. he's said nothing other than, he is a nice day, this morning to vaughn hillyard. he knows david pecker has a lot in his back pocket, and he doesn't want to trigger it being put out there on the stand. >> rev, we should pause for a

moment here. we've just become so used to all this stuff that swirls around donald trump. what we have been talking about this morning, there's been all this talk of, well, maybe all the legal trouble helps donald trump. it fires up his base. he raises money. the biden justice department is out to get me, talking about all the things. first, the scheme in arizona where donald trump is an unindicted co-conspirator. they're on video trying to overturn an election. talking about whether he has presidential immunity in the supreme court here in a couple hours. then he is downtown himself fighting a allegedly paid off a porn star that he had an alleged affair with while his wife was home with their newborn baby, to try to help him win the 2016 election. not clear how it helps a man beyond his hard core base. >> i'd agree with you in questioning that. what arizona's indicts does, it undermines them saying in georgia, where we thought there was an undercount or we thought

there was fraud, well, what'd you think was in arizona? the more you start seeing these cases pop you been up, the less credible they are in the defenses. you couldn't have thought it was this way everywhere when you said it was this particular circumstance in georgia or this particular circumstance somewhere else. then for donald trump, who has been, you know, running around the country saying they're after me, i'm a martyr, it's the justice department, even saying it was biden, and now the first witness, the lead witness in the hush money trial is a guy that says systematically, we had a deal. i would catch and kill anything that was against you and even do more to go after your enemies. now, he is the lead witness, and you definitely have to use him. he is the guy with the hammer nailing you to the cross, and you say he is a nice guy.

david is a nice guy. somewhere, it deflates those that want to rally around the martyr. >> what's interesting from a human nature aspect is that donald trump is the gift that keeps on giving. if you're attached to donald trump in any way, manner, shape, or form, you're going to end up in trouble with the law just by being with trump. to see his face, the still picture we showed, this is the first time in that man's life that he has been captured, and he is captured today. he will be captured every day that he has to sit in court. it's got to have an enormous emotional impact on him. >> and that's not all. let's talk again, barbara mcquade, about what will happen in a couple hours. oral arguments at the supreme court on the question of immunity. we heard donald trump say to the group of reporters at the construction site, a president has to have total immunity, otherwise, he is a ceremonial president. suggesting when asked a couple months ago that, yes, he should

have immunity if he sent s.e.a.l. team six in to kill a political opponent, for example. what to you expect from the supreme court today? >> i don't expect any of the justices is going to believe that a president has absolute immunity. as you just pointed out, it would lead to absurd results. but i do think that there is room for some sort of qualified immunity when a president is doing his job as commander in chief. you know, for example, ordering the bombing of hiroshima. i think the job of the court today is to figure out where that line gets drawn. i imagine it is something about official acts. in fact, the question presented to the parties was all about official acts. in fact, what jack smith is chargeing in the indictment is unofficial acts. i think we'll hear the prosecution argue, i don't care what you say about official acts, this is unofficial acts. whatever you decide with regard to immunity, it doesn't cover

this case. but i think the court, of course, is deciding cases for the ages, not just for this case. i think they want to make it clear where the line is drawn so future presidents know that they do have immunity when they're acting in the best interest of the country but taking on risky decisions that might expose them to criminal prosecution down the road. >> former u.s. attorney barbara mcquade, thank you very much. we'll be talking about this again very soon. all right. house speaker mike johnson is calling for the resignation of columbia university's president over her handling of the gaza war protests. he made the comments after visiting the campus yesterday in support of the jewish students who have reported threats of violence. johnson also suggested the national guard should be called in to control the chaos. his appearance, however, was met by boos and heckling. >> i am here today joining my colleagues and calling on

president shafik to resign if she cannot immediately bring order to this chaos. [ crowd booing ] as speaker of the house, i am committing today that the congress will not be silent as jewish students are expected to run for their lives and stay home from their classes hiding in fear. if this is not contained quickly, and if these threats and intimidation are not stopped, there is an appropriate time for the national guard. we have to bring order to these campuses. we cannot allow this to happen across the country. we are better than this. i'll ask the president to do that and tell him the same thing. a growing number of students have chanted in support of terrorists. they've chased down jewish students. they've mocked them and reviled them. they have shouted racial epithets. they have screamed at those who pear the star of david. [ chanting "we can't hear you" ]. >> enjoy your free speech.

we are doing what is right by america. we respect free speech and diversity of ideas, but there is a way to do that in a lawful manner, and that's not what this is. >> let me tell you something. let me tell you something. i'll bet you 75% of americans and close to 100% of parents with kids on college campuses agree with the speaker. not necessarily about the president of columbia leaving columbia but everything else he said. jewish students shouldn't have to run in fear for their safety. they shouldn't have to skip classes because they fear for their safety. they shouldn't have to go online to learn. because of this rhetoric. by the way, all those chanting, everybody chanting and screaming there, only helped mike johnson. most americans are like, yeah, this is a college campus. it's a place for students to learn. i'm looking at "the new york

times" opinion page here. we over here? "new york times" opinion page here. >> other side. >> i want to read for you from the associate professor of linguistics at columbia university. he says this, "students' actions may not be driven by anti-semitism but they've gone on way too far. the relentless assault of the current protest, daily, loud, louder, into the night, and using even angrier rhetoric is beyond what any people should be expected to bear up under, regardless of their whiteness, privilege, or power. people will differ on how peaceful that sound can ever be, just as they will differ on the nature of anti-semitism. what i do know is even the most peaceful of protests would be treated as outrageous if they were interpreted as, say, anti-black. even if the message were coded.

as in a bunch of people quietly holding maga signs or wearing t-shirts saying, all lives matter." willie, the professor, of course, as usual, is right here. also, though, the line that speaker johnson said, that should have cut through that crowd, was, "enjoy your free speech." here we have people, many of them holding pro-hamas signs, talking about the genocide of jews, talking about from the river to the sea, this has become an incessant chant there, of course, talking about wiping israel off the map and pushing jews into the sea. enjoy your freedom. enjoy your freedom of speech. you know, because you don't get that with hamas. you never got that with hamas. if you disagreed with hamas, they'd take you to the top of

the building and push you off or just put a bullet in the back of your head. that's the thing. i mean, these people, as bill maher would say, you know, people who call themselves progressives are shutting down college campuses in the name of a terrorist group that kills people who are lgbtq, that kills people who support free speech, that kills people who talk about peace. willie. >> yeah. what you hear from them is that administrators, the nypd are squashing free speech. they're squashing dissent. that's not what this is about, rev. i mean, there is a long tradition of protests on college campuses, of honoring free speech. there are schools across the country that are having these forums where they bring in people to have a discussion about what's happening in israel, what's happening in gaza, where people can participate and listen and protest if they wish. what they're talking about here

is harassment. what speaker johnson is talking about is harassment. a student that does not want to participate in this or sees the world differently should not fear or be harassed on a place he or she just went and paid a lot of money, by the way, to learn. so, yes, have the protest. keep it peaceful. just don't harass the other kids at the school. >> and i think, also, those that are legitimate started protesting because they want to deal with humanitarian needs in gaza or want to even question whether the columbia could use its -- the fact that they have certain investments to pressure netanyahu, they've now been drowned out by people with other agendas, that have made this about anti-semitism and the like. they need to, i repeat, stand up and say, "this is not what we are here for." otherwise, you become identified with that. i went through this 30 years ago. you can't just say, "that's not me." you've got to loudly say,

"that's not me," and you denounce it or you lose the moral high ground. for johnson to come in and be able to say this, who said nothing when trump said there were fine people on both sides when they were marching in virginia, in charlottesville, you are talking about a guy that's inconsistent. i mean, he is the poster boy for being inconsistent. he never denounced what trump allowed. but you give him that license when you act in an ugly way that takes away from those that really were taking the moral ground. you become the flip side of the coin of hatred yourself. >> all right. we're going to speak more about what's happening on college campuses when the chancellor of vanderbilt university will be our guest right here on "morning joe." >> that'll be exciting. >> looking forward to that. >> willie can talk vandy, and i can talk alabama football. >> absolutely. >> maybe even talk about something much bigger. so it's been more than 200 days since 23-year-old israeli-american hersh

goldberg-polin was taken captive by hamas. hersh was one of hundreds captured by the terrorist group during the attack at the supernova music festival on october 7th. now, months later, hamas has released a new video of hersh. the video made public this week shows hersh addressing lawmakers and his family. >> joiniing us now is hersh's mother, rachel goldberg-polin. i don't know how to ask you this. can you tell us whatever it is you're willing to share? how you're holding up, what you saw in that video of your son, what he said, your reaction?

>> well, i'm sure that anyone who is a mother or anyone who has ever had a mother in their life can imagine, you know, this could be your son. this was extremely emotional for us, obviously, to see that hersh is alive after 201 days of, you know, in these horrible conditions. you see that his arm, which was, you know, amputated spontaneously from a grenade attack when he was just with his friends, his best friend from childhood. they went to a concert for peace, love, and unity. he ended up with this life-altering injury. stolen from us. it's been nothing but trauma. obviously, we were very

emotional and overwhelmed to see he is alive. >> yeah. >> on the other hand, all of us, like, we can see he is clearly medically compromised. he is clearly medically fragile. and he is reading -- i mean, the interesting thing is, it's in hebrew. our language is english. we only communicate with him in english. so, you know, i was thrilled to hear his voice and to see him, and we are overcome with emotion, as you were just now choking up, just even imagining what we're going through. >> yeah. >> you know, mika yesterday, gasped and said, "oh, my god," and i came running in. it was because we saw your son. you just said, any mother that went through this -- or any

mother would understand what you are going through. i just can't imagine those feelings. >> i saw the video, obviously, the first time before we interviewed you. i watched the unedited version much longer. that's why i gasped, because i wasn't sure if he'd make it. at the same time, rachel, is there any way of knowing, are they able to get from this video, and from what they see of his injuries, when this video was taken, what information were you able to glean about the timing of this video and his status? >> well, it seems according to intelligence, which is this

massive group of americans and israelis who are working on this, they believe that this was made in the last couple of days. they believe that it -- also, they conceive, they have a medical team that specializing in analyzing things through a screen, that they believe from the stump that used to be his left forearm, that it does look like it was about six months ago. so this, they feel, is extremely recent. >> wow. >> willie, i'll pass it to willie geist. willie, just reminder for all those people who are glorifying hamas and holding up pro-hamas signs, and while jewish students try to walk to class, that's just a reminder. not sure what hamas was trying to do. i'm glad the video is out.

obviously, i know rachel and the family are so relieved, but that's just a reminder, once again, of october 7th. a son goes to a concert for peace, and he is attacked by terrorists and jewish kids slaughtered. there are still jews that are still being held hostage, which hamas could end this tomorrow. hamas could end this tomorrow if they chose to. they just don't want to. >> yeah, you don't have to be a mother or father, you just have to be a human being to have a little gasp when you see that video. i guess a little gasp of hope, i think, for all of us, rachel. i can't imagine what you first felt when you saw the video. there he is, there is hersh, the extraordinary young man we have talked to you about so many times on this show. it was wonderful to see his face. there's reporting that this came

about, the white house putting some pressure on qatar to get hamas to do something, some kind of a gesture. now, this is just a gesture at this point, but what more would you ask of president biden, prime minister netanyahu, and nations like qatar, not just to see a video of hersh, but to bring him and the rest of the hostages home? >> first, i just want to make one clarification. i think one of the hugest errors that is made in the media is that these 133 remaining hostages are all jewish. they're not. they're christian, jewish, muslim, hindu, and buddhist. they hail from 25 different nations. i want to make that clear. i think one of the worst injustices that we do is when we erase the actual identity of who is being held. so i just want to clarify that. and when you ask about, you know, what i would say to president biden, first of all, you know, i know from the first conversation that we, the families, had with president biden on october 13th that he is

someone who so cherishes family. i know he lost his dear son, beau, a number of years ago to a horrible disease. i know that beau was his oldest son who changed him from being a person into being a father. hersh is my eldest child. i often talk about how hersh changed me from being a person and a woman into being a mother, which is really my identity and how i go through life. and i know that president biden met abigail yesterday for the first time, who was the 4-year-old little girl who was held hostage and released in the first release. i would pray and hope that i get to introduce my hersh to president biden soon, as well, being someone who is clearly medically fragile and compromised. i'm extremely worried about him. and i am appreciative that people are pulling levers and

using leverage, but clearly not enough. because if it was enough, these people would be home. and so i would besiege everyone in power to push harder. while, yes, obviously, i am very happy to see that hersh alive, i want my only son home. it has been more than six months. it's 202 days. every single other hostage family feels the same out of the 133, including you know we have eight u.s. citizens being held and only five of them are left alive now. every they longer that they're there, that number can dwindle. so while i'm so appreciative and so grateful and i feel blessed that we've gotten so much support, we need more. >> yeah, yes. yes, you do.

and anyone watching, walking by their tv and saying, i can't imagine, how can she do this? how is she doing this given what he is going through? rachel is doing this for her son. she has no choice. it's for hersh. and we want that moment for you, as well, rachel. we want you to introduce your son to president biden. we want to see that happen. rachel goldberg-polin, thank you for coming on. thank you for fighting. >> we really appreciate it. thank you. >> we're with you. all right. we'll be right back. hello, ghostbusters. it's doug. we help people customize and save hundreds on car insurance with liberty mutual. we got a bit of a situation. [ metal groans] sure, i can hold. ♪ liberty liberty liberty liberty ♪

in theaters now. when dry eye symptoms keep... coming... back... inflammation might be to blame. over-the-counter eye drops can provide temporary relief. xiidra can provide lasting relief. it targets inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. xiidra? no-o-o! xiidra treats the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. don't use if allergic to xiidra. common side effects include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied, and unusual taste sensation. why wait? ask your doctor about a 90-day prescription and pay as little as $0.

xiidra. (grunt)

norman, bad news... and pay as little as $0. i never graduated from med school. what? but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... that's like $20 a month per unlimited line... i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?

earlier, we told you about house speaker mike johnson's call for the resignation of the columbia university's president over her handling of the gaza war protest. he made the comments after visiting the campus yesterday in support of the jewish students who have reported threats of violence. meanwhile, we're continuing to see more protests at other college campuses across the country. at the university of southern california, a pro-palestinian protest went on for hours yesterday. the los angeles police department says it arrested 93 people. police say they made the arrests after protesters refused a dispersal order. now, the university is allowing classes to be held online for the rest of the week.

dozens were also arrested at the university of texas at austin. police say 34 people were taken into custody yesterday. republican governor greg abbott posted a social media quote. the protesters belong in jail. adding, anti-semitism will not be tolerated. the university's faculty, however, is condemning what it calls the school's militarized response to yesterday's planned demonstration. in a letter, the staff wrote that professors will not be teaching classes today, and it is not clear how many will participate. another college working to balance free speech and student safety is vanderbilt university. school leaders expelled three students and suspended more than 20 others for breaking into an administrative building during a pro-palestinian protest last month. during that break-in, the students injured a security officer while calling for the

school to divest from israel. there you see the video. my god. joining us now, the chancellor of vanderbilt university, daniel deermeier. he defended the school's response. "free speech is alive and well at vanderbilt university." thank you so much for coming on the show. this is such a difficult issue, and yours is not only university, obviously, grappling with this. i want to talk more about what you wrote and how you've conducted a reaction to the situation at your university. how do you balance free speech versus unacceptable behavior or unlawful behavior at certain times? and as this continues, how do you plan to balance it? >> good morning. thank you for having me. >> morning. >> we have had for the last, you know, half year, since these events happened, literally dozens of protests, discussions. we had vigils at the beginning.

we had this place for the hostages, this place for others. we had students celebrating passover together. but we've had a small group of students that, as you just mentioned, broke into the administrative building, which was closed for construction, and we took the appropriate action. while our students have the freedom to express themselves and to protest, that doesn't mean that you can run into a closed building and injure a security officer. as a consequence of that, we took the appropriate action. students went through student discipline, as you mentioned. this has nothing to do with free speech. this was a violation, blatant violation of university rules. when you violate the rules, there are consequences. >> chancellor diermeier, good morning. i'm a proud alumni of

vanderbilt. proud of the work the chancellor has done at the school the last few years. i want to ask, we hear at vanderbilt and other places, too, that free speech is being squashed by the administration, that police are being called in. can you speak to some of the other outlets that you're allowing protest, of course, on campus, but there are also other outlets you've provided for civil, open debate on a very complicated and emotional issue. >> well, thank you very much, willie. good morning. we have had lots of discussions. to give one example, in the week when this event happened, we had both the israeli ambassador and the former prime minister of the palestinian authority on campus. we had 100 students having discussions with them. it was an incredible opportunity for them to have real civil discourse on what is a challenging topic. that's the way we should handle these type of issues on universities. there will be students that want to protest, but they have to do it in a way that is in line with university rules.

for example, they can't do it in classrooms, disrupting them with a megaphone. as you heard, they can't go into closed buildings either. >> chancellor, can you explain the concept of principled neutrality, institutional neutrality, which you've talked about and wrote about again in the "wall street journal"? what does that mean exactly? some students say, well, there are certain issues on which we should not be neutral. they're too important. how do you explain that stance by vanderbilt? >> absolutely. so our point of view is that universities are the place where there should be transformative education and pathbreaking research. for that, you have to have the freedom to explore ideas broadly. that means a commitment to free speech. that means a commitment to civil discourse. we treat each other with respect, use arguments and listen to each other. the third component is principled neutrality. it means that the university will not take policy positions

unless it directly affects the university. the reason we do that is to provide a broad platform for faculty and our students to make up their own mind, have discussions on that. when you have calls for boycotts or divesting of israel, that is a direct violation of institutional principled neutrality and, hence, we will not -- per our policy, calling for these is inconsistent with the neutrality. >> full disclosure, i know some of your facultyfaculty, michael dyson and others. i read your article. you are careful to protect free speech. as i said earlier on this show today, i think some of the principles, students are right to raise the moral issues going on in gaza. but to go and become anti-semitic, kill the jews, is not what this started to represent. even though people have the

right to say whatever they want to say, you cannot become ugly and violent. when i was younger, you know, we marched against the war in vietnam. i'm marching now against dei. even today we're having a rally. we didn't give ho chi minh the man of the year award. there is a difference. tell me how you can instruct other heads of schools to deal with the balance of letting people have free speech on both sides but not tolerating the vie violence and over the top hatred being brought in by outsiders and some who infiltrated these movements. >> yeah, i think the first, important aspect is to be very, very clear about your principles. everyone on campus knows what our commitment is, what our principles are. on the principle neutrality piece, it really helps because it avoids a campus from becoming politicized. we're one of very few universities who made an

explicit commitment to that. vanderbilt, north carolina, and a handful of others. that's number one. it's to be clear about the principles. the second aspect is that we have to be an environment where everybody can learn and where everybody can participate in their -- in education and in these types of discussions without feeling harassed. we've been very clear from the beginning, that harassment, whether of jewish students or muslim students, will not be tolerated. whenever we had complaints they're investigated by the appropriate parts of the university. there is a very important difference between exercising your free speech and veering into anti-semitism or islamophobia. >> chancellor of vanderbilt university, daniel diermeier, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. we really appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> thank you. coming up, the supreme court is considering idaho's near total abortion ban.

we'll dig into concerns being raised and the argument that shocked one conservative justice. "morning joe" will be right back.

♪♪ imagine a future where plastic is not wasted... but instead remade over and over... into the things that keep our food fresher, our families safer, and our planet cleaner. to help us get there, america's plastic makers are investing billions of dollars to create innovative products and new recycling technologies for sustainable change. because when you push for smarter solutions, big things can happen. okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete, balanced nutrition for strength and energy. yay - woo hoo! ensure, with 27 vitamins and minerals, nutrients for immune health. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. (♪♪)

51 past the hour, the u.s. supreme court sounded divided yesterday during oral arguments in a case concerning access to emergency abortions. the justices were hearing arguments in two consolidated cases about whether a near total abortion ban in the state of idaho conflicts with a federal law. that federal law passed in 1986 requires emergency rooms to provide care to any patients with urgent medical issues, but

idaho's new abortion law only permits hospitals to perform abortions when a mother's life is in danger. for the most part, the supreme court justices seem to fall along ideological lines yesterday, but at one point, even conservative justice amy coney barrett discussed shock with what she was hearing from a lawyer representing the state of idaho. >> when idaho law changed to make the issue whether she's going to die or not or whether she's going to have a serious medical condition -- there's a big daylight by your standards, correct? >> it is very case by case. >> that's the problem. >> i'm kind of shocked actually because i thought your own expert had said below that these kinds of cases were covered and you're now saying they're not? >> those doctors said if they were exercising their medical judgment, they could in good faith, determine that life-saving care was necessary, and that's my point as it's -- >> but some doctors couldn't?

some doctors could reach a contrary conclusion is what justice sotomayor is asking you? >> i don't know of a condition that is so certain to result in the loss of an organ, but also so certain not to transpire with death. if that condition exists, yes. idaho law does say that abortions in that case aren't allowed. >> well, there you go. katty kay -- and arizona finally got rid of the ancient ban on abortion, but still. this is the problem with state after state making their own decisions, and women's lives are hanging in the balance, and it's a matter of life and death, care or not care, can getting kicked out of an er, and not getting kicked out of an er. this goes beyond, and i'll say it again, women standing in line nine months pregnant asking for abortion which doesn't happen, but of course, far-right republicans want to paint that picture. what they're seeing in reality,

in florida, and in states like this is going to be very different, and it's going to impact all women. >> and by the way, if a late-term abortion does happen, it's because there is a very serious medical reason for it to happen. >> exactly. >> the law in idaho has left doctors in the impossible position of having to ask themselves, is she bleeding enough? are her organs close to failing? is she infected enough because of sepsis, before they can give her the medical treatment that she needs. there is one hospital in idaho that has reported that this year, they have had to fly six pregnant women out of state in order to give them the medical need that they needed. that's in the space of -- what are we? four months? >> six months. >> a same hospital last year, flew one pregnant woman out of state to get the medical care she needed. so this is having -- the overturning of roe v. wade in state after state for hospital

after hospital, for doctor after doctor for woman after woman is having a dramatic effect, and obviously politically, it's the issue that keeps providing problems for republicans because they can't answer this. >> well, and once again, donald trump will even say it. you can thank him for this. women who will be suffering can thank donald trump for that. that is what he has brought to them. coming up, the supreme court is set to hear arguments this morning in a case surrounding donald trump's claim of presidential immunity. we'll go over what to expect ahead on "morning joe." morning .

(♪♪) (♪♪) try dietary supplements from voltaren, for healthy joints. how did i ever miss this? before you were preventing migraine with qulipta? you'll never truly forget migraine, but zero-migraine days are possible. don't take if allergic to qulipta. most common side effects are nausea, constipation and sleepiness. qulipta. the forget-you-get-migraine medicine.

trump has his two daughters, and his daughter-in-law lara, as co-chair of the rnc. she's planning to train 100,000 poll-watchers to be inside watching people vote and physically handling ballots, which shouldn't be a problem at all. >> we all know 2020 was not all

on the up and up. people had a lot of unanswered questions. we can never repeat that. so in addition to these poll workers, we're going to have lawyers in all the major polling locations. we have lawsuits across 81 states right now. >> 81 states. [ laughter ] i mean, that's not, you know, that's a lot of -- not just tennessee, eleven-essee, twelve-essee, south dakota, indiana, out-diana, they're suing. >> arizona announced grand jury charges against 11 fake electors including seven of donald trump's key allies for their attempt to keep trump in power after the 2020 election. we'll go over what the sweeping indictment reveals next. we're back in two minutes. next. we're back in two minutes.

nexium 24hr prevents heartburn acid for twice as long as pepcid. get all-day and all-night heartburn acid prevention with just one pill a day. choose acid prevention. choose nexium. with so many choices on booking.com there are so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles. 30,000 followers tina in a boutique hotel. or 30,000 steps tina in a mountain cabin. ooh! booking.com booking.yeah

i don't want you to move. i'm gonna miss you so much. you realize we'll have internet waiting for us at the new place, right? oh, we know. we just like making a scene. transferring your services has never been easier. get connected on the day of your move with the xfinity app. can i sleep over at your new place? can katie sleep over tonight? sure, honey! this generation is so dramatic! move with xfinity.

. donald trump still thinks windmills cause cancer. [ laughter ] that's what he said. by the way, trying to deal with covid, he suggested injecting a little bleach into your veins. he missed. it all went to his hair. look. [ applause ] i shouldn't have said that. >> oh. oh, yes you should have. that was pretty good. whoa. psych. president biden poking fun at donald trump's hair at an event where biden picked up another major union endorsement. it was all in fun. meanwhile today is a big legal day for the ex-president, not so fun. hours from now, trump will be

sitting in a manhattan courtroom as his hush money trial is set to resume. this as the judge overseeing the case has yet to rule if trump violated his gag order. in washington, d.c., the supreme court will hear oral arguments over trump's claim that he is immune from criminal prosecution in the d.c. election interference case. plus arizona's attorney general has charged mark meadows, rudy giuliani, and other key trump allies as well as 11 so-called fake electors with state crimes after they attempted to keep trump in power following the 2020 election. i don't know. did you see that coming? >> i did not. >> i didn't see that coming. >> i didn't. good morning and welcome to "morning joe." willie, did you see that coming? >> not this one. we suspected it was coming sometime, but didn't see it coming yesterday, and boldboldf

names. all in trouble here in arizona. >> it is thursday, april 25th. it's great to have you with us. we also have katty kay and deputy managing editor for politics at "politico," sam stein is with us this morning. so where do we begin? >> baseball? >> oh, no. >> will the yankees win again after last night? >> we start in arizona. >> judge and soto both went deep. you will be excited to hear that, joe? >> we are very excited. the red sox have now had, like, 17 or 18 people hurt on the roster. there was a pitcher who picked up, sam, a bag, and his arm got dislocated. >> oh, come on. >> we have so many injuries, but these kids they keep calling up are -- i mean, these pitchers that wouldn't start on any other team, have the lowest e.r.a.

combined. >> it's crazy. >> of any starting staff in baseball. it's kind of a crazy season. >> yeah, no. it's nuts. we were trotting out a aaa, maybe a aa lineup at this juncture, and we keep going. alex cora, honestly, it'll be a shame when the ownership doesn't bring them back because they're so cheap. >> give him manager of the year right now, and katty, your household can breathe a collective sigh of relief. your liverpool squad, my liverpool squad, and i don't know. i guess i'm alone on this one. they lost yesterday. they're out of it. so -- i'm sure you had some happy arsenal and man city fans in the household yesterday afternoon. >> yeah. i don't really understand what the the antipathy of this. every time liverpool loses, it's as good as when city wins. i just think that seems mean.

>> they're the two best teams in the premier league for the past three or four years. it's crazy. >> all right. >> liverpool is very happy they could make your husband gleeful yesterday. >> all right. >> they are genuinely bad now. willie, let's start with our top story in arizona. >> yeah. arizona grand jury has indicted 11 of the so-called fake electors along with several other allies of donald trump for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. a 50-page indictment includes conspiracy, fraud, and forgery charges related to attempts by the defendants to change the election results in donald trump's favor. this was the scene on december 14, 2020 when 11 people met at the republican party headquarters in phoenix to sign a certificate claiming to be arizona's 11 electors despite joe biden winning arizona by

nearly 11,000 votes, proudly broadcasting it by the way. the document also described -- >> what are they thinking, willie? what are they thinking? >> i can't handle it. >> we are fraudulent electors. there's a fraud scheme going on here. let's put the cameras on. >> maybe they're providing evidence. they were thinking ahead, 3 1/2 years down the road, they're going to really need this as evidence. here is us breaking the law. the document, did indictment describes seven others in trump's orbit who were indicted, had their names redacted. those aides include former white house chief of staff mark meadows, rudy giuliani, jenna ellis, john eastman, christina bobb, trump campaign official boris epshteyn, and mike roman. it marks a significant step forward in an investigation that has spanned more than a year. here is arizona's attorney

general, chris mayes. >> i understand for some of you, this didn't come fast enough, and i'll be criticized from others for conducting this at all, but as i say here again today, i will not allow american democracy to be undermined. it's too important. >> arizona now becomes the fourth state to file criminal charges against the so-called fake electors that sought to undermine president biden's victory over trump. so, joe, we saw the video there. they also signed a fake certificate that they posted to social media. >> right. >> i mean, they were breaking the law, pretending they were the state's electors when they weren't because joe biden had won -- narrowly won, broadcasting exactly what they were doing, and now the bill has come due. >> yeah. well, i'm not a prosecutor. we have plenty of former prosecutors on and we're going to bring them on in a minute, but willie, it's a thank you so

much for waiting until the day before an election. all these cases that were brought in late 2023, 2024, you know, look at the date there. december 14, 2020. i really am, and i'm certainly not just pointing out this attorney general in arizona. i could -- i could bring all of them, of the justice department. why did they take so long? georgia, we kept asking why georgia was taking so long. alvin bragg said, no. i don't want to bring that case, and then bring a similar case, like, a year later. it goes on and on, but again, the timing -- first of all, it frustrates people who don't like donald trump because he's not -- if there were laws broken, it's not going to get resolved before the election, and for people who support donald trump, they're,

like, look. they're all doing this in election year. so again, i just -- again, i know it takes a long time to build the case, but when you look at what happened on january the 6th, it's kind of, like, i don't -- i just -- i don't understand a four-year delay or a 3 1/2-year delay on all of these cases. it's stupid, and i will say there were people -- there were progressives warning about this, legal people warning about this for the past couple of years, and here we are. >> yeah. i mean, it's been a long time coming, and it seems pretty clear cut given the fact we're just showing video of the crime being committed right here, and donald trump -- >> here's us breaking into the bank and a prosecutor's going, okay. let's -- >> people are in jail for january 6th. >> let's talk about this for four years, and then maybe bring charges i'm sorry. go ahead. >> instead of being the fake electors, they call themselves the alternate electors. we are an alternate slate that

we believe should be used to count the votes. remember, it was president trump at the time called the governor of arizona doug ducey, a republican, to try to get him to flip the state's results as he was certifying them, and he famously ignored the call from donald trump and certified it for joe biden. let's bring in msnbc legal analyst, danny cevallos and lisa rubin. good morning to you both. we can get to the timing of this in a minute, lisa, but let's talk about the substance of it. so you have these 11 so-called fake electors. seven aides to donald trump including rudy giuliani, jenna ellis, john eastman and those names we mentioned. what exactly are these people accused of doing around the 2020 election? >> well, the 11 fake electors are accused of forging documents, right? by signing an electors certificate and then sending it onto the arizona secretary of

state, to the united states senate, to the national archives which is what real electors do. they're facing three counts of forgery, but they're also facing counts that have to do with fraud. fraud and trying to sort of hold themselves out to be the legitimate electors, and of course, that's a scheme that they engineered with the help of the seven redacted individuals who as you noted, include several trump attorneys, but also mark meadows and mike roman who was the director of election day operations. >> so help me out here. >> it's all right there. >> if i got a document right here -- >> and you video. >> and a video. >> and, like -- >> they come in and they put their hands up and say, we did it. i mean, that was in december of 2020 -- you've got them signing fraudulent documents. >> what are we missing? >> why isn't it -- and again, this sounds like i'm going after the arizona attorney general. i'm not. i'm merely saying what a lot of people have been saying for a couple of years. what's taking merrick garland so

long? what's taking the georgia case so long? why would it take them almost four years to turn around a case where you've got the video and the fraudulent document in december of 2020? >> joe, one possible explanation is that a number of states stood down on their own investigations because they expected the department of justice to charge some of these people, and when we ultimately saw that indictment against a single individual in the federal election interference case, it may have been that at that point, a fire was lit under several states' attorneys general who said, wait a second. they're not going to handle this? then, i guess there's nothing else to do, but for us to handle it. so that's one possibility. >> yeah. >> another possibility is that they need things to come into the public domain and they needed cooperation. >> that makes sense. >> one of the things that's striking about this indictment, vis-a-vis some of the others, is that it reeks of ken chesebro,

and it's clear to me that this group of people in arizona certainly benefitted from the investigations that went before it. whether it's the january 6th investigation before it, or the civil investigation in front of it, where public records include ken chesebro himself. a lot of those emails are quoted in this indictment, and that's what makes some of the other documents so damning. you know, fake electors could say, we were just doing this as a contingency plan, but here in this indictment, you see a quotation to an email that was sent on december 14th saying, well, we've got to hurry and rush and get this lawsuit on file because that is intended to be cover for the fake electors. that is a transparent, an admission as any that the tail was wagging the dog here, right? >> yeah.

well, willie, so they were doing actually good legal work. they were rolling up their witnesses and you can use chesebro and others to help make this case more your time. this, of course, proves that i probably shouldn't have read hunter thompson throughout law school, and maybe i would be as smart as lisa. no, i still wouldn't, but maybe i figure that. so that is an argument. i mean, just for people who are saying, why is it taking so long? maybe they're building off of other cases. >> yeah. i mean, and clearly they swept up a ton of people in this indictment including christina bobb who let's remember, she just a few weeks ago, was named by the rnc to run the election integrity committee. >> oh my. oh my. >> think about that just a moment, and now she's indicted in this alleged scheme. so danny, i want to ask about

donald trump's role in all this, and what potential trouble he could be in, listed as potential co-conspirator number one. what does that mean? >> he's been an undieted co-conspirator number one. he was individual 1 years ago when michael cohen came in and pleaded guilty. donald trump is no stranger to being an unindicted something who's named in a criminal document, whether it be an indictment or a complaint. so is this bad for donald trump? yeah. i mean, what we're seeing is that it's up to -- when you talk about the several states, any county prosecutor could decide, hey. you know what? this could affect our state, our county. the attorneys general could do the same thing, and going back to why so long, what was the delay was all about, i agree with what lisa said. i would just like to add to it. it's no surprise prosecutors were probably waiting around to

see who was going to be the first to do it because it's scary. it's scary to indict a former president of the united states because he has and will fight like heck at every level, and losing a case, maybe one of the first cases against the former president would be a crushing defeat. in my view from a social perspective, it's a surprise that once the first indictment came down, everyone felt much more emboldened to start indicting the president. listen. i don't blame them. it's a scary prospect with just flaming disaster possibilities. still ahead, donald trump's immunity fight heads to the supreme court today. we'll talk about what to expect when the justices hear arguments. "morning joe" is back in a moment. arguments. "morning joe" is back in a moment

the united states state supreme court will hear

arguments this morning in a historic case of donald trump and his claim of absolute presidential immunity. trump's legal team argues presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office. special counsel jack smith's office contends presidents are not above the law, and that even if they're eligible for immunity for some official acts, trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election was not an official presidential act. trump's immunity claim has already been rejected by two lower courts and the special counsel argues justices should send the case back to tanya chutkan for that trial. lisa, what do you expect to hear in court today, and what we've heard so far is that perhaps these justices, even the conservative justices, are very skeptical of the idea that a president is immune from everything. >> i think what i'm looking for in terms of today's argument is to hear how much allowance

certain of the justices might give to the idea that presidential immunity is appropriate in certain cases and to listen to whether they're trying to make an exception in this case the right to make a broader ruling on presidential immunity at a later point in time. they could say, trump is absolutely not immune based on the allegations of this indictment. whether a former president can be criminally immune is something we present at a later date when the facts present itself. the worst case scenario is jack smith's folks spend a lot of time on their heels in the back of the reply brief which is where they cover the con tin -- contingencies, or the even if part. even if these things are official acts or there are others that are not official acts. even if he has immunity for official acts, we consider some of these as part of the largely private conspiracy.

these kinds of arguments, if the justices drag them into that territory, you know this is got going to trial any time soon. >> so sam stein, let me read you the lead editorial of the "wall street journal" today talking about the supreme court must consider the presidency, not merely the fate of one former president. they write this. the burden on the justices will be finding a balance that recognizes the unique duties of the presidency, while also holding presidents accountable for genuine law-breaking. a president needs to be free to make controversial decisions without having to worry that he'll be prosecuted for them after he leaves office, but he shouldn't be free to commit crimes that are unrelated to the office, and then they go back to nixon v. fitzgerald 1982 where the supreme court ruled that the president has absolute immunity from civil lawsuits for acts within the outer perimeter of his presidential duties. so that is the question here.

did what donald trump do, if you are looking at nixon, could you define what he did in and around january 6th as being in the outer perimeter of the presidency? of course, for you or me, and i think most people watching would say, of course, not, but that certainly is the question the supreme court has to be careful with because again, whatever holding they come down with will be applied to future presidents as well, and we don't want every president leaving office being indicted by a hostile justice department. >> yeah. i mean, this is obviously an extremely weighty case. even if it's -- the design to get to the supreme court were not weighty at all. i mean, that it's very evident that the trump's legal team wanted to do this to throw sand in the gears and delay the trial and delay the election, and jack smith's operation has been very clear. the stuff that happened on january 6th is inherently not

about the acts of the presidency because trump had lost. i mean, he had lost the election, and so therefore it is not a presidential act, and therefore he should not get immunity for it. whether the justices see it that way is a whole other matter, but look. i think this is pretty evident that what's happening here is that trump's team wants to just muck things up. i don't think that there's anything more to it. they want to delay it. they want to get this out from the election, and ideally they want to see trump win and then just dispense with the matter, but i think "the journal's" editorial, there's nothing inherently debatable or objectionable about it, but of course, presidents should have levels of immuniies for acts they commit in office, but the question is whether it should be blanket immunity. still ahead, we'll get to one more legal issue for donald trump, the hush money trial that resumes this morning. what to expect when

former "national enquirer" publisher david pecker, takes the stand again. "morning joe" is coming right back. e stand again. "morning joe" is coming right back

danny, we see -- we've got a realtime, of course, case where a former president of the united states is going through the american legal system and is being proved that, you know, the law is applicable to nobody. no man is above it. so let's go back up to new york. we've got david pecker back on the stand today. we haven't seen got to the stormy daniels stuff yet. what are you looking for out of -- what have we got? two more days out of this? what are you looking for? >> i've said this. david pecker may have emerged as really the people's star witness. we have focused a lot on michael cohen, but david pecker is much better for the people for a number of reasons. number one, he has some credibility issues, but not the credibility issues of a michael cohen. number two, he starts at the

beginning, and prosecutors love to take you through a chronological, in the beginning, this was this relationship, and by showing this relationship where david pecker had communication with michael cohen and, and i think this is critical, they've already shown that communication went from once a month to once a quarter, and it escalated. what had escalated corresponding to? the upcoming election, and that is going to be key to demonstrating that this was not a bunch of hush money payments to protect my family or my reputation with my wife. this was to influence the campaign. that's a key element that the people need to prove in order to aggravate this crime from misdemeanor to felony land. as good as david pecker was, and he's not finished yet. we may still hear some things about his relationship with donald trump which was longstanding, but david pecker, why i think he may emerge as one of the most powerful witnesses

is another great reason is he called them first. that tells me that they wanted to start out with a bang and they wanted a witness that would be their best witness. if not, close to their best, and also lastly, who hasn't been riveted by the testimony of david pecker so far? i have been fascinated at a glimpse into the world of what he calls checkbook journalism. in the world of cooperating witnesses, i called david pecker the scoundrel character. he's unabashed, unapologetic. this is what i do. it may seem sleazy to you, but that's who i am, and juries, not only do they tend to like this kind of witness, but they laugh at him and find him entertaining. >> just like you and drudge headlines, according to david pecker -- >> i'll have to check the latest one. there have been good pecker headlines on dredge. pecker back today, and lisa rubin, the interesting point that i think danny was building on, and i'm wondering what your thoughts on in terms of what you

expect today, as you saw in the pecker testimony, him really laying out plans for certain stories, and even saying about a story that actually turned out not to be that -- not to really have legs was about the doorman and some baby, an illegitimate child and how he would wait until after the election to put that story out if he could get more on it. showing really that they were framing everything they were doing around the election. >> it had to do with the election. it wasn't protecting donald trump personally like they were saying. >> right. >> everything was timed for the election. >> exactly, and so lisa, with that in mind, what are you looking for today? >> i'm looking for more evidence, mika, of direct conversations between david pecker and donald trump. he started with the direct conversation on august 15th at trump tower, and he ended back in june of 2016 when trump called him up saying michael

cohen had informed was making and he said, what do you think? i want to hear more about that phone call. he also talked to trump with more regularity. i'm looking to see what other conversations did david pecker have with donald trump that bear on his knowledge and intent? that's critical to shoring up the flawed witness that michael cohen is, and also giving him for credibility in the end. coming up, billions of dollars and u.s. aid is now finally on its way to war torn ukraine. we'll talk to "the washington post's" david ignatius about how he says kyiv can make the best of that funding. "morning joe" is back in a moment. t funding. "morning joe" is bacink a moment switch to shopify so you can build it better, scale

it faster and sell more. much more. take your business to the next stage when you switch to shopify.

at bombas, we're obsessed with socks. tees. and underwear. because your basic things should be your best things. one purchased equals one donated. visit bombas.com and get 20% off your first order.

president biden yesterday signed the foreign aid package passed by both the house and the senate, and it delivered billions of dollars in aid for ukraine, israel, and u.s. allies

in the indo-pacific. >> in the next few hours, literally the few hours, we're going to begin sending in equipment to ukraine for air defense munitions, for artillery, for rocket systems and armored vehicles. you know, this package is literally an investment, not only in ukraine security, but in europe's security and our own security. we're sending ukraine equipment from our own stockpiles, and then we'll replenish those stockpiles with resources made here in america. ukraine has been running out of artillery shells and ammunition. meanwhile putin's friends keep him resupplied. iran sent them drones. china is providing components and know-how to boost russia's defense systems. with all this support, they have

ramped up their air strikes against ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure. rain down munitions on brave ukrainians defending their homeland, and now america is going to send ukraine the supplies they need to keep them in the fight. if there's one thing this bill does not do, border security. you know, just this year i proposed and negotiated the strongest border security bill this country has ever, ever seen. it was bipartisan. it should have been included in this bill, and i'm determined to get it done for the american people. >> you know, i was fascinated. lindsey graham on the air -- or on the senate floor a couple of days ago said they had a great border security bill and unfortunately donald trump killed it. so i'm surprised even there to say that, so we agree with that, but i just want to say, again, president biden of course, has been the champion of this from the very beginning helping ukraine. he's done an extraordinary job,

but again, we just -- i'm thankful that speaker johnson, that chairman mccaul, that chairman turner, chairman rogers in the house republican caucus were such strong advocates of this because it's still shocking to me as a former republican, still shocking. the majority of republicans in the house voted against aid for ukraine. not so in the senate -- republican senate, thank goodness, but there is a real split in the house, and unfortunately the majority of republicans in the house voted against -- i'll just put it this way. they took vladimir putin's side in this battle. let's bring in right now, columnist and associated editor, david ignatius, and david

brzezinski. your latest piece is how can ukraine make the best use of the u.s. aid package? how can they do it? >> so joe, yesterday was a bad day for vladimir putin no matter how cut it. it was a good day for biden, good day as you say, for bipartisanship, but ukraine is now in a sense, putin's forever war. we have said -- the united states with our european allies that we are going to provide significant military assistance well through this year into next year. i think the key piece of new equipment that's going into ukraine, we're already beginning to see the effects of it, are the long-range attack 300 missiles which essentially put every russian supply depot, staging area inside ukraine,

inside all of crimea, inside the donbas areas in the east, the strip along the coast. those are all at risk, and i hear people in the white house beginning to speculate that the russians will not be able to maintain the positions that they have there easily. they're going to have to pull their logistics deeper, and that's going to mean a different strategy in this world, one much more difficult for the russians. so we were at a moment a few weeks ago, when momentum clearly seemed to be on the russian side, and i think most analysts including russians whose commentary i quoted in my piece yesterday, are now convinced that the momentum has shifted, that there's a big psychological boost for ukraine. >> you know, matthew, last time you were on, you were talking about the massive losses that russia was taking despite the problems on the battlefield, but you've also written that has been a disaster. this war has been a disaster

economically, demographically, politically, diplomatically, and strategically, and you lay out some really strong arguments why that's the case, and why as david ignatius just said, it is now because of congressional support, it's turning into vladimir putin's forever war, his worst nightmare. >> well, you know, as david said, it is turning into her forever war, and putin cannot afford a forever war. you know, economically russia is, you know, may have ambitions to be a global superpower, but it's basically a pip-squeak. russia's economy is roughly half the size of california's. they cannot sustain in this sort of military spending without dire consequences, and we're starting to see that in many areas. you know, for instance, you know, we think that we have very

high interest rates over here. to combat inflation, because their economy is so small and can't absorb all this military spending, they have had to jack up interest rates to 16% which means if you want to buy an apartment, you're looking at 21%, 22% mortgage rates. this kind of stuff goes, you know, right across the board. the russian economy is not big enough and strong enough to sustain this indefinitely. you know, moreover, you know, putin very much miscalculated, you know, before the war, you know, nato was effectively dying in a noble death, and outside of the united states, only two members were meeting the 2% of gdp threshold for military spending. that number is now up to 20 of the 32 members, and not just that, but finland and sweden have now joined nato.

so, you know, one of the -- putin was railing that, you know, nato had expanded to his borders and now nato's gotten even bigger and they're outspending the russians. you know, demographically it's catastrophic for russia. you know, russia has lost its -- basically -- almost its entire tech sector. all the 20-something-year-olds. if they left palo alto, new york, boston, what would that do to this country long-term? you know, he is depriving russia of its future, you know, generations of, you know, of elon musks and mark zuckerbergs, you know. >> yeah. >> speaking of zuckerberg, i don't know if you saw the spokesman of meta was just sentenced two days ago in

absentia to six years in prison for terrorism because i guess they don't like what's being written on, you know, facebook and instagram, and that's another thing, you know, putin has set russia back probably 50 years as a civil society with the level of repression that he's needed, you know, that his apparatus has needed to inflict on people and, you know, this is absolutely catastrophic. >> it is catastrophic, and willie, we heard about it at the beginning of the war. we heard about demographically how all the young, smart i.t. people were getting out of there as quickly as possible. that's just continued over two years and as matthew said, the economy's wrecked. i mean, you say these numbers. i mean, it's really extraordinary that i always talk about it -- the gdp the same size, but as matthew put it, russia's fighting the war -- a war.

it upsets people -- some people, and i say that with the strongest, most powerful, richest nation on earth helping ukraine, and they've got an economy that's half the size of california. it's amazing. >> yeah, it is, and those great minds who actually want a future, a progressive future did flee a long time ago, and ann, you wrote a couple of days ago when this finally did pass through, when joe biden signed the foreign aid bill, $95 billion, that russia over the last couple of months, while this month had been in limbo in the congress, had started to win this campaign of demoralization which is to say, ukraine, no one's coming to help you. america's not coming for you anymore. we are now winning this war. so there's the tactical side of it that we've talked about, what this money means for that, but what about the psychological element of this money finally clearing the congress and getting to ukraine? >> yeah. this is in some ways the most important effect of this bill. i mean, obviously the ammunition

and the missiles will make real difference on the ground, but for many months now it's been clear that putin was hoping to win this war without fighting, without having to destroy his economy, without having to devote so much of his gdp to weapons production. he was hoping to use intimidation to dispel the united states, and use power to block the aid, and that way he would convince the ukrainians that they were alone, that they couldn't win, that there was no point in fighting any longer, and that's how he was going to win the war, and he came very close to succeeding. i know that this is the week in which we're cheering the fact that the bill was finally signed, and people are now impressed with the way that mike johnson allowed this to become a bipartisan bill and therefore to pass, but the blockage of this bill for months and months and

months by a very loud, very pro-russian part of the republican party has also caused a lot of damage. people around the world saw that it's possible to manipulate congress. they saw that russian propaganda that appears, you know, lies that appear first on the internet eventually make their way to the floor of the house in the senate, and they -- and putin saw that, and the ukrainians saw that, and that was having an effect on the willingness of people to fight on the ground in ukraine. so hopefully now that era's ended. >> can i ask you because you know so much about this, and usually you talk about how disinformation impacts countries in central and eastern europe, but what is so shocking is -- mitch mcconnell a couple of days said, this vote for ukrainian aid was much harder. he put it at the feet of tucker carlson because of the russian disinformation he said tucker

carlson was pushing out. other republicans in the house repeating russian disinformation, it just -- as if they were spokespeople for russian television, and you had intel chairman turner saying, we've got republican house members on the house floor spreading russian propaganda on the house floor. chairman mccaul, again, god bless him and the other republican chairmen that stood up for the right thing, but more republicans voted against aid for ukraine than voted for, and if you are vladimir putin, yeah. you lost the bigger battle, but you've got to be looking at the fact that he was able to get russian disinformation on the floor of congress, and on the air waves of trump right-wing

propagandaists, and that forced a vote in the house of representatives. >> you're right. it's extraordinary. i think it goes a lot deeper than just tucker carlson. one senator, thom tillis, talked about a very specific lie. so there's a famous fake. it's a fake that president zelenskyy owns two yachts and there were pictures of the yachts on the internet. of course, those are really other people's yachts, but tillis pointed out that the republican senators in the conversations about the bill saying, we don't want saying we want this money to go on yachts. but there are no yachts. it's an illustration of how lies that emerged on the internet, some russian, some maybe american, made it to the floor of the house without anybody questioning them. we saw marjorie taylor greene talking about ukrainians as nazis, which is an extraordinary

slur given that ukraine has a jewish president and a muslim defense minister and is a government that seeks to bring democracy to the region. yet she uses this slur that was invented in moscow and talks about it on the floor of the house. so we see the effectiveness of this propaganda can't be downplayed. coming up, more expert legal analysis as donald trump's hush money trial resumes in less than an hour. neal katyal will join us just ahead. l will join us just ahead.

the all new godaddy airo helps you get your business online in minutes with the power of ai... ...with a perfect name, a great logo, and a beautiful website. just start with a domain, a few clicks, and you're in business. make now the future at godaddy.com/airo

my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis held me back... now with skyrizi, i'm all in with clearer skin. ♪ things are getting clearer...♪ ( ♪♪ ) ♪ i feel free... ♪ ♪ to bear my skin, yeah that's all me. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ ( ♪♪) with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. and most people were clearer even at 5 years. skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions... ...and an increased risk of infections... ...or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms,... ...had a vaccine, or plan to. ♪ nothing and me go hand-in-hand, ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan. ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ now's the time,... ...ask your doctor about skyrizi,... ...the number one... ...dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis.

learn how abbvie could help you save.

coming up, one of our next guests spent 2 1/2 months profiling speaker mike johnson, chronicling his rise to house speaker and his approach to the job. now she's asking the question what if mike johnson is actually good at this? that's ahead on "morning joe." ts that's ahead on "morning joe."

life, diabetes, there's no slowing down. each day is a unique blend of people to see and things to do. that's why you choose glucerna to help manage blood sugar response. uniquely designed with carbsteady. glucerna. bring on the day.

we have a big case before the supreme court on presidential immunity. a president has to have immunity. if you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president. e a ceremonial president. >> david's been very nice. >> wow. >> david's been very nice. david has been very nice.

that was donald trump this morning saying that david pecker, who helped fabricate stories in the "national enquirer". >> made up stories, made up the story about ted cruz's father, made up the lies about hillary clinton having six months to live, ted cruz's father, ben carson. >> he had a story about some kind of love child connected to a doorman and said he would run it after the election. >> it was fake. how crazy. as a friend of david pecker and someone who knows donald trump well, a person told me that donald trump is never going to say anything bad about david pecker, because david pecker knows way too much about donald trump. >> the former president

campaigning in new york city before his criminal hush money trial set to take place moments from now. what will david pecker say when he returns to the witness stand? >> while that's happening, the u.s. supreme court is going to be hearing arguments over whether the former president can claim immunity. also some big breaking news. the economy slowed down a good bit in the last quarter, which will be good news on the inflation front and on interest rates. when the economy is good, economists tell us that's bad for inflation. so the economy is slowing down. jay powell may be able to hit one of those two interest rate

breaks. welcome to the fourth hour of "morning joe." in less than an hour, the supreme court will hear arguments in an historic case involving former president trump and his claim of absolute immunity as he tried to get the federal elections case against him dismissed. >> reporter: this morning, the high court forced to confront the key question that will determine if donald trump goes to trial for trying to overturn the last election before the election this november. this as the former president faces fresh legal jeopardy for his efforts to subvert the 2020 election results. this time in arizona, where a state grand jury indicted 11 republican officials for an unsuccessful ploy.

among those indicted, mark meadows and rudy giuliani. >> i will not allow american democracy to be undermined. >> reporter: mr. trump was an unindicted coconspirator but was not charged. today his legal team hopes to convince the supreme court he should be immune from any charges. >> you cannot allow a president to be out there without immunity. if they don't have immunity, you don't have a presidency. >> reporter: but a federal appeals court was unpersuaded, using stark hypotheticals on what a future president can do and still avoid charges. in the view of mr. trump's

lawyer, yes. special counsel jack smith has urged the high court to reject mr. trump's immunity theory and quickly, writing in court papers, a bedrock principle of our constitutional order is that no person is above the law, including the president. but the elephant in the courtroom, the impending election. >> joining us from outside the supreme court is former acting u.s. solicitor general neal katyal. >> editorial in the "wall street journal". much more is at stake for future presidents. let me read a little bit from

this and get your insight. the burden on the justices will be finding a balance that recognizes the presidency while also holding presidents accountable for law breaking. the president needs to be free to make controversial decisions without having to worry about being prosecuted but he shouldn't be free to commit crimes unrelated to the office. they talk about nixon versus fitzgerald and how the president should be protected. they talk about even the outer perimeter of presidential duties. help define that for us, the outer perimeters of presidential actions and how the january 6th actions are still outside that perimeter. >> so the supreme court has said in nixon versus fitzgerald that presidents have immunity in

civil lawsuits for actions taken that are official acts. that's done for good reason. anyone can file a civil lawsuit against anyone. but the u.s. supreme court has never ever said anything like what former president trump is saying here. when trump claims absolute immunity, here's what that means in plain english. i, donald trump, can do anything i want and the law can't touch me. so as was just shown a moment ago, president trump's lawyers said it's fine for him to go assassinate a political rival using seal team six. that has never been the law. trump says, oh, that means you don't have a presidency. no. you just need a president that doesn't commit crimes, which is isn't a hard thing to do.

we've had over 40 of them, none of them have had absolute immunity. oral argument is slated for an hour. at the end of the day, the answer to this question is really painfully easy. it's a little weird that we're all standing here waiting for the supreme court to decide a question that i think every serious constitutional scholar thinks the answer to is obvious. even a prominent lawyer in 2021 stood on the senate floor and said don't impeach president trump, the remedy is to indict him after he leaves office. that person was donald trump's own lawyer in the impeachment proceedings. >> this is not a nuanced argument being made by trump's team. they're saying absolute immunity. it's hard for an outside

observer to see how that would make any sense at all. >> i don't think they have a chance in winning this case. i think what they have a chance of is getting a justice or two to write a dissent that will slow down the writing of this opinion. if they can slow it down enough, the hope is then judge chutkan will be forced to schedule the trial after the election. and so the american people then will not get to hear all of the evidence against donald trump. liz cheney had an important piece in the "new york times" in which she said, supreme court, decide this thing fast, because jack smith has uncovered all sorts of information against

donald trump that i and the members of the january 6th committee did not have. the only way to get that in front of the american people is to have a trial before the election. the stakes aren't just about what the decision will say at the supreme court. the more important stakes are when is the court going to say it? >> i don't know if this is possible, but given that time is of the essence here and this is about delays, is it possible for the supreme court to say we need to deliberate this further, but in the meantime jack smith's trial can go ahead? could they lift the stay while they make the decision? >> it's such a smart question. the answer to that is yes. the court did it at least once in 1942 in the trial of the nazi

saboteurs. they said the trial can go forward. the decision took some months. that was controversial on the court and outside the court. i don't think they want to repeat that process. instead the better thing to do is for the court to issue a quick decision. they've been able to do that in any number of cases including bush versus gore. they can move fast when they want to. i really hope the supreme court does. this has already been a long delay for briefing. this show needs get on the road for the american people. >> some news yesterday coming out of arizona about the fraudulent electors, what are your thoughts on that case? >> i think the most important thing is who's not indicted in arizona, a guy named donald trump.

the question is why. he's named as an unindicted coconspirator. that's what richard nixon was named in the watergate case. the supreme court has some footnotes acknowledging that. my guess is they're giving trump the same status as nixon with the hope they can flip one of the people indicted to give testimony against donald trump. the reason why that flipping is more likely in a state prosecution is donald trump cannot pardon or dangle a pardon to anyone in the state prosecution. our constitution gives the pardon power to the president, but only for federal crimes, not state ones. if you're mark meadows, the only chance you have to avoid jail time is to try and strike a deal

with the prosecution. given the weight of evidence against him and some of the others who were indicted yesterday, you can think flipping against donald trump is now a real, live strategy. if trump wins the presidency, even if convicted, he won't have to go to jail. the constitution forbids a state jailing a federal president. but that doesn't apply to meadows and everyone else. so they know they've got to make a deal in order to avoid jail time. >> one of those christina bobb is indicted in this arizona case. she is now head of election integrity at the republican national committee. the hush money trial resumes today in new york with david

pecker on the stand. he has laid out chapter and verse how this all worked. today, as we just played a moment ago, donald trump coming out in public just a couple of hours ago saying david pecker is a nice guy. he's a good guy. this is the kind of witness donald trump would eviscerate publicly or on social media. yet in this case the kid gloves are on. what do you suspect is going on? >> i don't think we've heard the last from pecker. so far he's already described a really damming -- damning scheme in which the national enquirer made up stories and photographs. our campaign laws are written to forbid in-kind contributions to

presidential candidates without disclosure. the scheme that was laid out already is one that really demonstrates a flouting of those laws right before the 2016 election. these have become serious crimes. why trump is saying nice things about pecker, i suspect he's trying to get pecker to say some good stuff about him, avoid the bad stuff. i think that's going to be unlikely. i think pecker's already been damning and will be more damning in the next days. i think trump's strategy will ultimately fail. then we'll see trump attack pecker and say he's doing this under threat of indictment and this and that and who knows what else. at the end of the day, this prosecution case seems really strong. i think it's remarkable that this trial is going on in new york, and then behind me this

proceeding is going on in the supreme court and the american people can't see either of them. we have to rely on the handful of reporters in there to tell us what is going on. i think that's a grave affront to our democracy. new york has severe restriction on audio and visual release. this allows for these spin cycles with trump saying all these things. the prosecution can't do that. we're only seeing on camera one side of the story, which is really damning for the people. >> you're going to be asked about this throughout the day, breaking news, the new york appeals court overturns harvey weinstein's 2020 rape conviction from the landmark me too trial.

new york's highest court on thursday overturned harvey weinstein's 2020 rape conviction finding the judge prejudiced him with improper decisions including letting women testify about allegations that were not part of the case. harvey weinstein is in jail in los angeles after being convicted of rape in 2022. he will still be in jail there, but this case, which came four years ago, reversed. >> more on that to come. let's bring in john heilemann, a partner and chief political columnist at puck. it's great to have you back on in your new role. >> a lot to talk about today, but first of all i'm curious

your thoughts about this case brought up in arizona yesterday. we now have georgia and arizona. >> the evidence is kind of like the georgia case where you have donald trump on the phone. you think if there's ever been a prima facie case, it's where people are on camera or audio committing crimes. and yet here we are, neither one of these cases going to be heard or decided in time to affect the ultimate political accountability, which will be in this election.

any person, not lawyers, not reporters are looking at this and going something's screwed up here that you can do what those people are alleged to have done and there's so much evidence that they did do. there they are, committing fraud in broad daylight on video. i know the lawyers have reasons to explain why it took this long to bring this case. there are various mitigating circumstances. i just find it frustrating from a normal human citizen's above. it strikes me as kind of ludicrous. >> this group of people here,

self-appointed alternate electors, they're actually fake electors. they wrote these documents, signed them, forged them, posted them on social media. they threw them to the national archives too, which promptly threw them in the trash. we're pausing and taking in what we have in front of us right now. you add in arizona, the question of immunity. it looks like an open-and-shut case that donald trump does not have blanket immunity. then of course, the trail he's sitting in right now. this idea that dlup being in court is good for him because i

don't know what's good about any of these three cases for them. >> since the beginning of the year where the most striking feature of this election is that people don't want any part of it. there's this sense of people being like okay, i understand it's really important, i'll start to pay attention in the fall. it inspires disgust and apathy among people. the politics of that are interesting in the sense that what joe biden did in 2020 was convince millions of americans we want to get back to normal. normal is not thinking about politics all the time. what people see now on their television screens is a reminder of what it was like when donald trump was president. legal controversy everywhere, more talk about porn stars,

illegal electors, the supreme court hearing a ludicrous case about whether or not a president should have blanket immunity from any law that exists on the books. i think from the biden campaign's standpoint they go on twitter and remind people of what it was like four years ago. in a limited sense, does it help donald trump? sure. in other ways for voters on the margin, i do think this is adding up to a reminder of what they don't want any more of.

>> david pecker once again takes the stand in a matter of moments. and at the top of the hour, we will bring you the live audio from the supreme court over whether the former president can claim immunity in his federal election interference case. we are back in just a moment. tie we are back in just a moment

ok, ready? one more. 1, 2, and 3... cute! not so fast, the general is coming with you. mom! he gave us a break on our car insurance. and he'll look after you two. yep, with flexible payment options for new drivers. ok, but why is shaq coming too? to show you how it's done. ♪♪ for a great low rate, go with the general. harry & david makes mother's day easy. share a gift, made with love, with the mom in your life.

choose from hundreds of stunning baskets and towers. it's the perfect way to say thank you - for everything. harry & david. life is a gift. share more. why choose a sleep number smart bed? can it keep me warm when i'm cold? wait, no, i'm always hot. sleep number does that. save 40% on the sleep number limited edition smart bed or 0% interest for 36 months. shop now at sleepnumber.com

we all grew up and folks looked down on us because of what our dads did. they weren't executives. they weren't special. but they are special. people like donald trump learned a different lesson. he learned the best way to get rich is inherit it. he learned that paying taxes is something working people did, not him. he learned that telling people you're fired was something to

laugh about. not in my household. not in my neighborhood. i mean it. where we grew up, nobody handed you anything. being told you were fired wasn't entertainment. it was devastating. it was a nightmare. folks, we all know people like trump who look down on us. we all know somebody we grew up with like that. where i come from, it matters. when i look at the economy, i don't see it through the eyes of mar-a-lago. i see it through the eyes of scranton and working people like all of you and my family. >> president biden speaking yesterday at an event, where he picked up the endorsement of north america's building trade union. the gross domestic product increased at 1.6%.

let's bring in andrew ross sorkin. he's also a columnist for the "new york times." >> if the economy's too hot, obviously inflation goes up, interest rates keep going up. this is well below what was expected for the first quarter. does that give jay powell breathing room to possibly look at an interest rate cut sometime this year? >> maybe, but maybe not. i have to be honest. this is a very unusual report, because what you had was gdp down from the expectation, but at the same time the other number we got was that actually inflation, the price consumers are paying actually shot up to 3.4%. that's going to make jay powell's job that much harder. you can say things are slowing.

that would be in the bad news is good news category. then you have inflation hotter than expected on the other end. that's what's going to make this a tough one. markets opening down on the back of this news. also some anxiety around spending in the tech world related to meta spending a fortune in artificial intelligence. >> we talk about the economy and hot spots in the economy. we got to talk about the nfl. the draft is tonight, andrew. big, big business. it is incredible how much this has grown.

the money involved here is mind boggling. >> it's remarkable. the draft is turning into the next super bowl. some people might describe it as the olympics. cities are vying for the draft. they used to just vie for the super bowl. they'll effectively pay for the opportunity. tonight's going to be a big boon for detroit. this whole move towards the draft shifted many years ago. it used to be in radio city. for a bunch of reasons it ended up in chicago. then it was off to the races. it's turned into an event unto itself. it's an economic machine.

>> should the new york giants take malik neighbors? like you said, i remember it being at radio city and there could be some jets fans and giants fans and that was that. now a couple hundred thousand people show up. they're there for the whole week. it's like a music festival or something. obviously the nfl has created that. >> i defer to you on the picks. a whole other business has emerged, betting on the picks. that is a separate business that's emerged. people are betting who's going to get taken in what order. it's a fascinating thing to watch it all play out. the question is whether any

other sports or type of event can create this kind of interest. it's remarkable to see how one sport which has become america's sport, the nfl is clearly it. house speaker mike johnson has had a few chaotic weeks on capitol hill. the speaker managed to get the lower chamber's foreign aid package passed on a bipartisan basis despite threats to tank it from republican isolationists. take a listen to what he said right before the vote. >> i hope our republican colleagues will stick together on this. look, i'm a child of the '80s. i regard myself as a reagan republican. i understand the concept of maintaining peace through strength. that's one of our guiding principles and a big part of our party and our world view. this is an opportunity to make

that stand at a critical time in world history. >> with that bipartisan win, johnson was effectively able to silence those same far-right members who had been threatening to remove him from the speakership. speaker johnson yesterday also addressed a group of protesters at columbia university, who heckled him as he attempted to speak to the press. >> a growing number of students have chanted in support of terrorists. they have chased down jewish students. they have mocked them and reviled them. they have screamed at those who bear the star of david. enjoy your free speech. we're going to do what is right by america. we respect free speech. we respect the diversity of ideas, but there is a way to do that in a lawful manner and that's not what this is. >> so many people agreed with

that. that line "enjoy your free speech." some people are chanting for the terrorists hamas because people are worrying about the humanitarian situation in gaza. for some reason they weren't as worried when assad killed 500,000 arabs or when saddam hussein had wars that killed a million muslims. we can ask why they act this way when jews are attacked in the worst slaughter since the holocaust and then are trying to hunt down those terrorists. when he says enjoy your free speech, it contrasts so much with hamas. there was no free speech in gaza under hamas. there were no rights that we enjoy here in the united states. if they protested like that in

gaza since 2005, they would have probably been killed. >> i really like the question that our next guest asks. joining us now elena plot calabro. her latest piece is entitled "the accidental speaker." the piece is amazing. you go through sort of his world view as it developed through his life as the son of a firefighter who was severely injured, a son of divorce, a man who had to take on a lot of responsibility at a very young age. >> who was basically a father for his younger siblings. >> before he had his biological children, he adopted a child. there's so much to him that helps a lot of what we're seeing

now make sense. tell us more about your piece and why that question was in this there almost as a subtitle. >> it's really great to be back. i think what got my intrigued by the story of mike johnson is from the moment i started paying attention to his speakership, he really struck me as an an knack crowistic. crow crowistic. he really valued this idea that you could be on entirely different sides of the aisle on a piece of policy, but

ultimately respect one another and respect that the other is trying to get to yes in as good faith as you are. what i through my reporting discovered as being one of the major shell shocks of his speakership was the realization that not everyone in his own conference was willing to work with him with that baseline understanding of good faith. i think it's important for viewers to remember this is not some bipartisan squish. before he became speaker, he voted in line with the freedom caucus on everything. there are very few members in the house more conservative than mike johnson, but it's the tactics and disposition that differentiates him from donald trump's republican party. >> this is one of these profiles that are so eye opening.

i read a book about how republicans needed to be conservative idealogically, temperamentally moderate. you said johnson came into congress with this in mind. and a story about meeting john lewis and being excited about it. it was a thrill. >> that's an incredible part. >> he posted it and he found out very quickly that in donald trump's republican party doing what i did, what a lot of republicans used to do, john lewis was a great friend of mine. that's not so easy to do in the days of trump. >> no, it's not. i think what johnson also realized is that the ideas no longer counted. through the months that i followed him, spoke with him, spoke with others around him back home in shreveport, on the

house floor, i think he sort of assumed that of all the stories that his speakership could have assumed, the one where his closest friends and idealogical allies would be his worst opponents, i don't think he saw that coming. i think the upshot has become maybe the ideas were never the point in the republican party and it was always an attitudal thing. >> it's a great read. congratulations on your piece. i'm curious about one of the big concerns people have about speaker johnson, which is his role in attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election. you press him on that. he suggests that he was the one in that brief filed to the

supreme court that was trying to preserve the rule of law. i'm not sure that passes the smell test. what was your sense of that when you got to speak to him about it? >> i would absolutely say that, to me, was perhaps the most disturbing moment of our conversation, sort of the moment at which all of the things he will be telling me up to that point about his respect for institutions, the degree to which he values civility seemed to be tabled when it came to the 2020 election. the amicus brief he spearheaded along with the texas lawsuit attempting to overturn the results in many states was so narrowly focused that it was totally divorced from donald trump's more hysterical rhetoric about fraud and stolen votes and things like that.

the reality is he knew that nobody, not his constituents, not trump himself would be reading any of the fine print of the amicus brief. he stationed himself out there as someone on the front lines of challenging the results of the 2020 election. he said, you know, my goal as speaker is to restore trust in the institution. i said, how can americans expect to trust the results of this election and your claim that we would when, in fact, you fomented that distrust in the election not four years ago? i just didn't get a satisfying answer on that point. >> we're so glad you're here and hope you come back. of course, the story about his boys -- >> almost drowning after having dinner with the president at mar-a-lago almost a day later.

it's incredible. that question is confounding. thank you so much for coming on the show. we're going to turn back to the two major legal cases developing now. in new york city, donald trump's criminal hush money trial resumed moments ago in a manhattan courtroom with the president right there in attendance. in the nation's capital, another trump legal battle is playing out. we are just moments away from the supreme court taking up his claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution in the d.c. election interference case. we're following both cases at the same time. ken dilanian live outside the supreme court. also with us, ari melber, and

state attorney for palm beach county, florida, dave aronberg is with us. >> what are you expecting to hear at the court today? >> reporter: good morning. it's important to point out that the court has already made a decision that's affected the presidential election. by not agreeing to take it up when jack smith first asked them to do so on an emergency basis and by not taking it on an expedited basis, they've already created a significant delay here that means that this election case, however they rule, can't go to trial probably before the fall. now the question of whether a president has absolute immunity and then there's a second question that whether anything donald trump is accused of would constitute a presidential act. >> just making sure you're okay.

is everything okay. we hear someone yelling. >> reporter: it's fine. we have a heckler here. >> i've got to say they obviously have been following the david pecker testimony. they're yelling "fake news." they obviously want people to know donald trump lied about jfk's assassination, tried to blame ted cruz. he's yelling "fake news" also because donald trump lied along with david pecker. they worked together to lie about ben carson, to lie about hillary clinton. fake news all around. i want to thank him for actually framing it for us. we want to make sure you're okay. but also we want everybody watching to know that that person screaming "fake news" is obviously talking about all of the lies donald trump told about hillary clinton in 2016. >> reporter: in terms of where the supreme court could come out on this, few legal experts

believe they are going to adopt donald trump's argument that the president has absolute immunity. there are some decisions presidents make, for example in the national security realm, that perhaps shouldn't be subject to the scrutiny of a prosecutor. they may ask the judge which of these acts would constitute official acts? almost none of them would because we're talking about trump's effort to over turn a presidential election as a candidate, not as a president. asking the judge to do that could significantly delay this case and mean it may not get to trial before the november election. >> let's stay with the immunity case before the supreme court. we were talking to neal katyal at the top of the hour. he said there's not a legal scholar on either side of the

political spectrum who believe there's a case here for absolute immunity, which is to say a president of the united states could do anything he or she wants at any time and face no consequences. how do you see this playing out ultimately before the supreme court? >> there has never been a legal concept or precedence for absolute immunity for a president who returns to life as a citizen without being held legally accountable. the doj has held that during the presidency it's a much more complicated thing to try to hold them accountable for the obvious reason that the attorney general reports to them and those constitutional law questions. i would put it like this. the last time we talked about a big trump case in the supreme court it was whether he could be kicked off the ballot. i came on this program and others and told people there wasn't a lot of precedent to do

that, and that was good for trump. here we have the opposite situation. there is not a lot or actually zero precedent for the trump side, the idea that we would never prosecute someone just because they happened to serve as president. you can look to richard nixon who took a pardon because he needed it. if he was immune, he wouldn't have taken the pardon. and bill clinton negotiaing as he left office. then as now, everyone understood that being an ex-president doesn't give you absolute immunity. what ken said is important. on the practical part of this, the supreme court has already done trump a huge favor by delaying and punting something that could have otherwise gotten him in trouble on election day.

if they ultimately reject the donald trump argument and say there's no case here but they gave him the delay he wanted, was that political? i think it's a fair question for this increasingly right wing court. we're going to watch for how they talk about what has been a losing and empty claim on the trump side. >> former u.s. attorney joyce vance has joined us. we know that the supreme court has been losing the trust of the american public. polls are showing that across the board. we also know that justice roberts is concerned about the legacy of his court. this week're hearing this case. yesterday we also heard the idaho case. i'm wondering if you could take us inside of all the cases the supreme court has to rule on at

the moment, what might have an impact on the american public's faith in the court. >> if the chief justice may be concerned about the public's confidence in them, it's unlikely to impact their ruling in individual cases. the concern in the immunity case while we're all focused on donald trump and how this case will impact his prosecution in the district of columbia, the supreme court or at least some of the justices may be more focused on future cases and establishing rules and parameters for immunity. so, as ari is saying, the delay in effect rewards donald trump, it's unlikely that this court will find absolute immunity for the president. the consequences would really make the president a king and end a functional democracy. the issue is whether they will heed the request of the special counsel, decide the case, say trump is not immune and permit preparations for trial to begin or whether they'll create this

additional layer of rules for deciding immunity issues and force judge chutkan into complicated factual findings that will delay the case further. >> let me -- speaking of delay, dave aronberg, let me bring you in here, obviously we found out yesterday afternoon about this arizona case that has been brought. the charges have been brought, donald trump a co-conspirator there. we've been asking all morning why it took so long. why did it take almost four years when they had all the evidence in december of 2020. >> joe, this is an easy answer. it's because the attorney general of arizona who brought this case, chris mayes was elected in november of 2022. she didn't take office until january of 2023. her predecessor, mark bernovich, a republican, refused to investigate this matter. in fact, he was asked by the then secretary of state katie hobbs, who's now the governor of

arizona to investigate, and apparently he threw that letter in the trash, and that's why it took this long. when the new attorney general took over, she started the investigation. it took about a year, she impanelled a grand jury, so it's pretty normal, and this indictment is a remainder that elections matter and every vote counts because the attorney general, chris mayes was only elected by 280 votes in a state where he had 2.5 million people participating in the election. so just a small number of votes the other way, and this indictment would never have seen the light of day. >> wow. >> so ari, as we look on the panel of our screen there, you can get kind of a live sense of what's happening insides courtroom right now down in new york with david pecker being questioned now about karen mcdougal. boy, he really has laid this out how this works, this catch and kill form of journalism that he calls checkbook journalism, paying for these stories to protect donald trump over the years including in the weeks before the 2016 election. how damning from what you're seen just so far with another several days to go from david

pecker and some cross examination, how damning has this been to donald trump? >> on a scale of 1 to 10, i would say an 8. pretty damning. strong start for the d.a. they didn't start with an accountant or a records witness, they came out with a big star witness. it's going to rivet a jury. in theory, you want the jury to pay attention the whole time. that would be nice. in practice, juries are made of people, and people slow over time no matter what the project. i think we all know that, and so to get david pecker on the stand day one talking about sex, lies, and videotape, talking about secret back room deals in 2015, talking about how this already somewhat sundry questionable institution of the "national enquirer" was actually worse than jurors might have thought because they allegedly, according to the evidence, struck a back room deal to become an arm of the trump campaign, and elections aren't going to work very well if the people have -- or billionaires

have secret adjunct arms doing secret paid dirty work that's off the books that's not regulated. that's the campaign crime. so i say all that, that's my observation. i want to add a caveat, this is the only the prosecution's side. we have not heard the defense side yet. they have a lower bar. they just have to find one new york juror who has reasonable doubt. a strong start in new york there, but when he hear the other side, the attacks on michael cohen, the questions about why are we here this late, is this really a felony trial, should it just be a misdemeanor and let's all go home, it may feel like a different part of the trial. the last point i make as america starts this weird day, you've got donald trump on a criminal trial in new york for credible strong evidence from his own allies and aides about interfering or distorting potentially criminally in the '16 election, and then you have the supreme court looking at something we all know happened which is how he allegedly

criminally tried to overthrow the 2020 results of the election he lost. these are very different cases, but they relate on one key point, and it's one that joe, mika, willie, you all have covered with great passion and import. we are looking at someone who clearly doesn't follow the results of election. he would be an autocrat if he could get away with it. >> that is correct. >> that is. john heilemann, we're looking at trump on trial, and you see the live questioning that's going on. this would of course destroy any other politician in the history of american politics most likely, but maybe not -- maybe not donald trump. i do wonder, we've talked about the sheer exhaustion factor, and it seems to me you look at all of the legal proceedings that are before him right now, and i know a lot of people, the media like to say, well, swing voters all think that these are politically motivated.

i'm just not so sure that this isn't exactly what the biden campaign saw coming when they knew that donald trump would be speaking every day. he'd be going on truth social every day, whether he was in a courtroom or not, and that exhaustion actually will be joe biden's actual secret weapon because as he always loves to say, don't compare me to the almighty. compare me to the alternative, and that right there is the alternative in 2024. >> and joe, we said it a couple of times today, and we'll say it again, you know, the thing about these cases and any legal case, and we try to judge the political impact of it. you just never can really know until you get into the case. it's like, you know, i think it was -- i can't believe i'm quoting adolf hitler, i think it was hitler who said war is always -- >> let's not do that. >> this is a different kind of quote. hitler said when you start a war, it's like walking into a darkroom. you don't really know what's

going to happen until you turn on the lights. i think that's also true in these cases where politics and law intersect. this is a case that a million people had a million opinions about, including me. we just didn't know what it was going to actually look and feel like until we got there, and here we are. it doesn't look great for donald trump. >> on that note, we're going to wrap things up here because we are moments away from the historic oral arguments before the supreme court on donald trump's claim that he should be immune from prosecution in the federal election interference case. msnbc will bring you live audio of those arguments underway set to begin in just a few minutes. >> it's going to be fascinating, really is. >> ana cabrera and josé diaz-balart pick up the coverage right now. the power of the presidency. >> before the u.s. supreme court. >> a case about the boundaries of presidential immunity. >> at stake whether donald trump could be shielded from criminal prosecution. >> if you have a president that

doesn't have immunity, he's never going to be free to do anything. >> arguments that could upend the indictments before the president. >> the special counsel warning the charged crimes strike at the heart of our democracy. >> this hour, the constitutional clash in our nation's capitol. >> with the course of our country. >> and a consequential election. >> hanging in the balance. good morning, and thank you for joining us. i'm ana cabrera alongside my colleague, josé diaz-balart. coming on air to bring you special coverage. the supreme court is about to hear an unprecedented and politically fraught case on donald trump's claims that he has absolute immunity from prosecution for efforts to undermine the 2020 election while he was president. >> as the supreme court hears this case, trump is in a new york city courtroom for his hush money trial, and an arizona

grand jury just indicted key trump allies for 2020 election interference describing trump as unindicted co-conspirator 1. to put it plainly there, is a lot going on this morning. >> yes there, is. let's go to the supreme court house, ken dilanian, catherine christian is also with us, former assistant manhattan district attorney along with charles coleman, former prosecutor. chuck rosenberg is a former u.s. attorney and kenji yoshino is also with us, new york university constitutional law professor. ken, i want to start with you. just how high are the stakes today? >> good morning, ana and jose. the stakes are enormous in terms of the constitutional question at issue here and in terms of the implications for a presidential election, probably not since the bush v gore decision in 2000 has the supreme court had an opportunity to play such a significant role in a presidential election. what they decide here could make the difference between whether

this election suppression case against donald trump goes to trial ever or before the election. and it's important to point out, they've already made some decisions here that have had implications for that, with the way they've handled this case, with the way they rejected jack smith's request to take this case on an expedited basis, allowed the appeals process to play out. that's already caused a delay. they're asked to consider this question of whether a president has absolute immunity. i think we have new sound from former president trump. let's take a listen to that. >> we have a big case today. this judge isn't allowing me to go. we have a big case in the supreme court, our presidential immunity. a president has to have immunity. if you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president. >> reporter: nobody thinks the supreme court -- very few legal experts think the supreme court is going to adopt mr. trump's view that a president has absolute immunity.