0:00

Time for a quick break to talk about

0:02

McDonald's. Mornings are for mixing and matching at

0:04

McDonald's. For just $3, mix and match two

0:07

of your favorite breakfast items, including a

0:09

sausage McMuffin. The

0:26

Trump legal team doesn't really believe the

0:28

total immunity argument. They're just bringing it

0:30

up to delay his trials. It's kind

0:32

of like when your kid asks for

0:34

water at bedtime, and you know they're

0:36

just trying to delay bedtime because kids

0:38

don't need water. The

0:41

conservative justices think Trump should have

0:43

immunity. The liberal justices don't. How

0:47

about we meet halfway? Instead of complete

0:49

immunity, presidents get a hall pass of

0:51

five crimes that are totally okay if

0:53

you have the chance. Two

0:57

of the criminal cases against Donald Trump

0:59

playing out in two courtrooms yesterday across

1:02

a couple of different jurisdictions. At the

1:04

US Supreme Court, justices seem divided as

1:06

they debated Trump's immunity claim for his

1:08

role in attempting to overturn the 2020

1:11

election. You'll hear

1:13

their remarks with one justice raising

1:15

concerns that shielding presidents from prosecution

1:18

could turn the Oval Office into a

1:20

seat of criminality. Plus, this

1:22

morning, former National Enquirer publisher David Pekker

1:24

was set to return to the witness stand

1:27

in the hush money case with defense

1:29

attorneys continuing their cross-examination. Good morning

1:31

and welcome to Morning Joe. It

1:33

is Friday, April 26th with us

1:35

this morning, former White House Director

1:37

of Communications for President Obama, Jennifer

1:40

Paul Mary. She's co-host of the MSNBC

1:42

podcast, How to Win 2024, Roger's

1:46

Chair in the American Presidency

1:48

at Vanderbilt University, historian John

1:51

Meacham, and our legal analyst,

1:53

former litigator and MSNBC legal

1:55

correspondent, Lisa Rubin, and former

1:57

US Attorney and MSNBC contributor,

1:59

Barbara. Laura McQuaid, good morning to

2:01

you all. Let's dive right in

2:03

with yesterday's historic day at the

2:06

Supreme Court, where the justices heard

2:08

oral arguments regarding Donald Trump's claim

2:10

he is immune from prosecution for

2:12

his official acts as president. NBC

2:14

News senior legal correspondent Laura Jarrett

2:17

has details. The

2:19

U.S. Supreme Court weighing a monumental

2:21

question that will decide whether the

2:23

former president goes to trial for

2:25

plotting to overturn the last election

2:28

and win. I think that the

2:30

Supreme Court has very

2:32

informed arguments before today.

2:34

Mr. Trump hoping to persuade

2:37

the justices to find him immune

2:39

from federal charges, his lawyers arguing

2:41

the office of the presidency would

2:43

be completely hobbled without that protection.

2:46

Without presidential immunity from criminal

2:48

prosecution, there can be no presidency

2:50

as we know it. The special

2:53

counsel's office indicted Mr. Trump on

2:55

conspiracy and obstruction charges last year

2:57

for his efforts to cling to

2:59

power, accusing the likely GOP nominee

3:02

of pressuring state officials to reverse

3:04

the election results. Actions

3:06

DOJ argues it were for

3:08

purely personal gain and cannot be

3:11

shielded from prosecution. There is

3:13

no immunity that is in

3:15

the Constitution unless this court creates

3:17

it today. The conservatives

3:20

expressing concern if future presidents have

3:22

no immunity for actions taken while

3:24

in the White House, that could

3:26

open the door to recriminations between

3:28

political rivals. Will that not

3:31

lead us into a

3:33

cycle that destabilizes the

3:36

functioning of our country as a

3:38

democracy? The liberal justices troubled

3:40

by the prospect of insulating

3:42

presidents from accountability, raising a

3:44

series of dark hypotheticals to

3:46

underscore the consequences of adopting

3:48

Mr. Trump's position. If a

3:51

president sells nuclear secrets to

3:53

a foreign adversary, is that

3:56

immune? How about if a president

3:59

orders the military? to stage a

4:01

coup. That sure sounds bad, doesn't

4:03

it? I'm trying to understand what

4:05

the disincentive is from turning the Oval

4:07

Office into, you know,

4:10

the seat of criminal activity

4:12

in this country. The fallout over efforts

4:14

to subvert the election results in 2020,

4:17

stretching beyond Washington. In Arizona, a

4:19

grand jury indicted several members of

4:21

Mr. Trump's inner circle Wednesday, accusing

4:24

them of falsely awarding the state's

4:26

electoral votes to Mr. Trump, despite

4:28

his loss to President Biden. The

4:31

sending of phony slates of pro-Trump

4:33

electors to Congress to disrupt the

4:35

election certification on January 6, looming

4:38

large at the high court as well,

4:40

as the justices look to determine

4:43

the line between a political candidate's

4:45

actions taken for personal gain from

4:47

a president's official conduct that could

4:50

be immune from prosecution. Laura

4:53

Jarrett reporting for us there. So

4:55

Lisa Rubin, listening was

4:57

fascinating, first of all, to listen to get

4:59

an ear into the Supreme Court for those

5:02

oral arguments over nearly three hours yesterday. Listening

5:05

to the untrained ear, it sounded like

5:07

the justices are skeptical, to say the

5:09

least, of a claim that a president,

5:12

any president, has blanket immunity, absolute immunity

5:14

for anything he or she does in

5:16

office. But some of the

5:18

conservative justices did seem open to kicking it

5:20

back down to the trial court. What was

5:22

your read of what we heard yesterday? That

5:26

we're not going to see a trial

5:28

in Tanya Chutkin's court anytime soon for

5:30

the reasons, Willie, that you just stated.

5:32

The conservative justices seem to be moving

5:35

away from the claim of blanket immunity.

5:37

That's a good thing writ large, but

5:40

the idea that we would then have

5:42

to have further proceedings to determine which

5:44

of the allegations in the indictment pertain

5:46

to official acts versus private acts. By

5:49

the way, I should note that Trump's

5:51

lawyer did concede that certain of the

5:53

conduct alleged here does amount to private

5:55

conduct. The idea that Judge Chutkin,

5:58

though, would on remand have to have

6:00

a series of hearings or mini

6:02

trials, as our colleague Andrew Weissman

6:04

said, in order to determine that

6:06

before taking this case to trial,

6:09

that puts this case on a

6:11

calendar where it almost certainly cannot

6:13

be tried before the election and

6:15

potentially, depending on what happens at

6:17

the election, not happen at all.

6:21

And Barbara McQuaid, we heard the hypothetical

6:23

again yesterday of what about if a

6:25

president decided that the Navy

6:27

SEAL Team Six should assassinate one of

6:29

his political opponents, would

6:32

that fall under the presidential immunity that

6:34

you're talking about, Mr. Sauer there representing

6:36

Donald Trump? So have that discussion again,

6:38

which is kind of stunning that we're

6:40

even suggesting that. What

6:42

was your read of the way things played out

6:45

yesterday and what we may hear next? Well,

6:48

as Mr. Sauer said

6:50

to that question, that hypothetical, it

6:53

would depend on the situation. Wow,

6:55

he gets, that's terrifying. My

6:58

read is that there

7:00

are several justices, the women justices,

7:03

who are ready to go, that

7:05

they think that the idea that

7:07

perhaps there is some presidential

7:10

immunity for some official

7:13

acts, but that the acts alleged

7:15

in this indictment are not those

7:17

acts and let's go already. In fact,

7:20

Justices Barrett and Kagan were really

7:22

pinning down John Sauer on

7:24

trying to say, you'd agree this is a private act,

7:26

right? And you'd agree this is a private act using

7:29

allegations in the indictment. I think hoping

7:31

to pin him down to avoid further

7:33

delay, certainly there are some justices who

7:36

think further delay is necessary. I think

7:38

the real linchpin here is going to

7:40

be Chief Justice Roberts, who on the

7:43

one hand did suggest this idea that

7:45

it would be a one-legged stool to

7:47

allow only the private acts

7:49

and not have any reference to the

7:51

official acts. So there's a little room,

7:53

I think, for arguing that

7:56

the crimes here are

7:58

not official acts. But you

8:00

need some evidence of official acts to

8:02

understand the context. And the example Chief

8:05

Justice Roberts used was bribery. It might

8:07

be an official act to appoint an

8:09

ambassador, but if you do that in

8:11

exchange for money, a bribe,

8:14

that could still be a crime. But

8:16

I think, as Lisa said, I agree that at

8:18

the end of the day, it seems necessary to

8:20

probably sort out what is and is not an

8:23

official act here, and most

8:25

notably the conduct relating to the

8:27

Department of Justice and

8:29

using them or abusing them could be

8:31

deemed an official act. But

8:34

Jack Smith still has one trick up his

8:36

sleeve, I think, which is to pare down

8:38

the indictment and use only the things that

8:40

are clearly private acts here. John

8:43

Meacham, it was really extraordinary to

8:45

listen yesterday to the urgency Donald

8:47

Trump's attorney had talking about the

8:49

need for absolute presidential immunity when

8:51

we've had what, 235 years worth

8:54

of presidents who didn't really need

8:56

to lean on this. They had

8:58

no occasion to call for absolute

9:00

immunity, 45 other presidents.

9:04

What do you make of what we're hearing play

9:07

out in the Supreme Court on the larger scale

9:09

in terms of the presidency itself? It's

9:13

a masterclass in the

9:15

complexities of a presidential

9:18

office that is in this

9:21

inherently powerful and an office

9:23

that is inherently powerful that's

9:25

become more so over time,

9:28

particularly since World War

9:30

II and the New Deal. When

9:34

the Manhattan Project produced atomic

9:37

weapons, the president of

9:39

the United States became arguably the

9:41

most important person in the

9:43

history of humanity because the

9:46

power to destroy is vested

9:50

in one person. So immense

9:53

questions here. I thought the arguments

9:55

were fascinating. I would, of

9:57

course. But I think...

10:00

It was a fairly,

10:02

you know, you would expect this. It

10:05

was a mature, interesting,

10:07

largely evidence-based, interesting

10:10

hypotheticals, conversation

10:14

about the practical

10:16

application of a kind of

10:18

character, if I put it this way,

10:23

the ongoing, the unfolding implications

10:26

of having a character in the

10:28

Oval Office who is

10:31

more at risk of committing these

10:33

kinds of crimes than not, if

10:36

that makes sense. The key thing

10:38

here was, I think

10:41

it's just as Gorsuch said, is we're

10:43

deciding this for the ages. Now

10:45

that's interesting because they didn't decide Roe for

10:47

the ages, but we'll leave that aside for

10:49

a moment. There

10:51

is this incredibly important question about

10:55

would this cycle of

10:57

political prosecutions result from

10:59

no immunity

11:02

claim? I

11:05

thought the answer on behalf

11:07

of the government was pretty compelling, which

11:09

is this is an extraordinary case. And

11:13

for anybody following this just

11:16

in a peripheral way, to

11:18

me the most important thing that was asked was

11:22

from Justice Sotomayor, who asked,

11:24

rhetorically I think it's safe to say, isn't

11:27

it true that our democratic

11:29

institutions depend on the character

11:32

of the people within those

11:34

democratic institutions? That is, we

11:37

heard the justices for a long time

11:39

yesterday talking about, as they should, lawyers,

11:42

about every conceivable iteration

11:45

of something, trying to create doctrines

11:48

that would stand up to most

11:50

of those. In

11:52

the very end, what it comes down

11:54

to is the

11:56

character of the person we send to the

11:58

pinnacle of power. and

12:00

their willingness to bend

12:02

and break norms

12:05

and laws. And what we had in

12:07

2020 and into 2021 with the failure

12:09

to peacefully transfer power was

12:14

we had someone whose character was not commensurate

12:16

to that standard. And that's something that no

12:19

court can legislate. We have to pick the

12:21

right person. Lisa,

12:24

in some of the coverage, you know,

12:26

I watched from here yesterday, consternation,

12:29

you know, I'm not a lawyer. I certainly felt

12:31

it. It's some of the questions that you saw

12:33

from the conservative justices that

12:36

seemed to be making the

12:38

defense's argument for it, you know, seemed

12:40

to be making, perhaps making excuses for

12:43

President Trump. How

12:45

should we, you know, how should we look

12:47

at these, at how we

12:49

saw some of the conservatives justices

12:53

and the questions, the kind of questions that they

12:55

were asking yesterday? I think we should look at

12:57

it as a form of avoidance. There

13:00

were embedded in some of the questions

13:02

that the conservative justices were asking, a

13:04

desire to avoid the facts of this

13:06

case. And that goes back even

13:08

to the very question presented here. The

13:10

question presented in any Supreme Court case is,

13:12

what is the issue that the Supreme Court

13:15

is going to decide? And they could have defined

13:17

that fairly narrowly here in a way that would

13:19

have been circumscribed to the facts alleged in the

13:21

indictment. Instead, the

13:23

question was whether, and if so, to

13:26

what extent former presidents are entitled to

13:28

immunity for their official acts where there

13:30

are criminal charges against them. That's

13:33

a very broad question. And

13:35

you saw a number of the conservative

13:37

justices sort of reaching beyond the facts

13:40

of the indictment to

13:42

try and pose a series of ever escalating

13:44

hypotheticals. At one point, Justice

13:46

Alito even saying, I don't want to talk

13:48

about this particular case. The

13:51

question I would ask is, why not? This

13:53

is the case before you. And

13:55

one of the most simple and democracy

13:58

enhancing things this Court could have done.

14:00

on, would be to say there may

14:02

be circumstances in which presidents are entitled

14:05

to immunity, but this indictment, as

14:07

alleged here, doesn't constitute one of those

14:09

scenarios. And we as a court can

14:12

always revisit it if and when the

14:14

facts present themselves to us that would

14:16

cause us to have a different conclusion.

14:20

So Barbara, Lisa said right off the top,

14:22

based on what you heard yesterday, there's no

14:24

chance that this makes it to

14:26

trial before the election. You know, verdict before

14:28

the election, that seems to be the consensus

14:30

view. And if that is the case, if

14:32

you agree with that, how does

14:34

this play out now, just for our viewers

14:36

and a practical question, what happens now? Oral

14:39

arguments will get the ruling a

14:41

little bit down the road here. And then what

14:43

happens to this case? Well,

14:46

it depends on how they decide this case.

14:48

It seems like reading the tea leaves that

14:51

there'll be at least five justices who

14:53

say that there is limited

14:56

immunity for a president, not blanket

14:58

immunity, and that the court needs

15:00

to have some hearings to decide

15:02

what's next, to decide which of

15:04

the allegations in the indictment fall

15:06

on the private side of that

15:09

line and which fall on

15:11

the official act side and

15:14

then proceed from there. Now, it's also possible that

15:16

Donald Trump could take an appeal from

15:18

whatever judge Chetkin decides, which is why

15:20

I think people are worried that there

15:22

is lengthy delay ahead. But

15:24

as I mentioned earlier, that Jack Smith does

15:26

have one trick up his sleeve, which is

15:28

to say, I'm going to pare down this

15:31

indictment, and I'm going to include only those

15:33

crimes that are clearly private acts. Or as

15:35

the lawyer for the Solicitor

15:38

General for the special

15:40

counsel said yesterday, thinking of Donald

15:43

Trump in his role as office holder

15:45

versus office seeker. And there are a lot

15:48

of acts here as office seeker where I

15:50

think he could say, fine, even if we'll

15:53

litigate all these issues another day, but

15:55

I'm ready to go to trial on

15:57

just these issues relating to his private

15:59

acts. And if that's the case, I think

16:01

that this case could go to trial before the election. That's

16:04

interesting. We'll keep an eye on

16:06

that. Jen, as you know, the Trump team

16:09

has always felt a delay is a win

16:11

for them with the theory of the case

16:13

being if they can push all this stuff

16:15

back with delay, delay, delay past election day,

16:17

he gets himself reelected, makes it all go

16:19

away. On the other side

16:21

of that, though, as you also know very

16:23

well, talking to people around the Biden campaign,

16:26

they are not counting on these cases to

16:28

save them. They are running a campaign to

16:30

win. They do believe that his

16:32

sitting in court and the public being reminded of

16:34

all these alleged crimes is

16:37

helpful to them, but they don't believe that they're

16:39

going to be saved by a jury

16:41

or a judge. Yeah.

16:43

And the, you know, when, when it was,

16:46

when we found out a couple of months ago

16:48

that the Supreme Court wasn't going to take this case up

16:50

until April, we sort of came to terms with the fact

16:52

that it was, I mean, Barbara had laid

16:54

out an interesting case for how it may still happen,

16:56

but it was unlikely to happen before the election. And

16:59

I know that the Biden campaign felt sort of somewhat

17:01

of a relief in that, because at that point people

17:04

are still thinking maybe there's

17:06

some other exigent factor here that's

17:08

going to save us. And if no one is going

17:10

to save us, this is on the voters, there is

17:12

one way to stop Donald Trump and that is to

17:14

elect Joe Biden. So it's

17:16

sort of clarifying. And of course the

17:18

sad state of affairs, there's so many

17:20

cases that you can have your cake

17:23

and eat it too, because there's a criminal trial

17:25

going on right now. So the voters can get

17:27

a sense of that. And I have to say

17:29

it has felt in the last week, that trial

17:31

has felt a little more unhinged. Trump

17:34

has felt a little more unhinged than I

17:36

even expected. So I think that that does

17:38

have an impact on the, on the race.

17:42

But still there's the focus. No one else is coming

17:44

to save us. This is going to be on the

17:46

voters to defeat Trump. Not

17:49

the court. Well, Jen's right. Yesterday, David Pekker,

17:52

the former head of the National Enquirer was

17:54

in court detailing chapter and verse, how he

17:56

worked to help Donald Trump bury stories over

17:59

the years. We'll get to that trial when

18:01

we come back in just 60 seconds. You

18:06

are watching MSNBC. It

18:11

was a nine to nothing decision ruling

18:13

that Donald Trump can be on the

18:15

ballot in Colorado and other states. They

18:17

cannot decide on a trial date

18:19

until they decide on immunity. Every

18:22

other criminal case, this strategy here has

18:24

been to delay. How have the indictments

18:26

against him impacted your involvement in your

18:28

career? Have you made a

18:30

decision on who you would support? I have not. You're

18:33

on the front? Yep. What are

18:35

the issues that are on your heart and mind? What's going to happen

18:37

to our country as a whole? Get

18:40

the best of MSNBC all in

18:42

one place with the MSNBC Daily

18:45

Newsletter. Each morning in your inbox

18:47

you'll find expert analysis, video highlights

18:49

of your favorite shows, previews from

18:51

our podcast and documentary, and written

18:54

perspectives from the newsmakers themselves. Sign

18:56

up for MSNBC Daily at

18:58

msnbc.com. Alex Witt

19:01

reports. Saturdays at noon and Sundays

19:03

at one on MSNBC. Beautiful

19:12

live picture of the sun coming up

19:14

over lower Manhattan at 618 on

19:17

a Friday morning. This morning, attorneys

19:19

for Donald Trump are expected to

19:21

resume their questioning of former National

19:23

Enquirer publisher David Pecker in the

19:25

former president's criminal trial. NBC News

19:28

correspondent Vaughn Hilliard has a recap

19:30

of yesterday's testimony. On

19:32

his third day on the stand,

19:34

former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker

19:36

told the jury he refused to

19:38

catch and kill Stormy Daniels' story

19:41

about her relationship with then candidate Donald

19:43

Trump. Pecker said he told

19:45

his right-hand man at the Enquirer not to

19:47

pay Daniels the $120,000 she

19:50

was seeking because they'd already shelled out

19:52

tens of thousands of dollars to keep

19:54

other stories about Mr. Trump quiet. If

19:57

anyone should buy it, Pecker said, it should

19:59

be Donald Trump. Michael Cohen, Trump's

20:01

former fixer. Pekker says when he

20:03

told Cohen, quote, he was

20:05

upset and responded that the boss, referring

20:07

to Trump, would be furious with me.

20:10

Pekker said he believed Mr. Trump or

20:12

his company had paid Daniels until Cohen

20:15

told him in December of 2016 that

20:18

he was the one who paid her.

20:20

Prosecutors are seeking to prove Mr. Trump

20:22

doctored internal business records to cover up

20:24

that payment. Pekker also testified

20:26

Trump was aghast when he saw

20:28

Stormy Daniels on 60 Minutes. Was

20:30

it hush money to stay silent?

20:32

Yes. Pekker says Trump

20:34

called him. He said, we have an agreement

20:37

with Stormy Daniels that she cannot mention my

20:39

name. Trump later denied knowledge of

20:41

the arrangement. On cross-examination,

20:43

Mr. Trump's lawyers challenging Pekker's

20:45

credibility and business practices. At

20:48

a campaign event earlier in the day, Mr.

20:50

Trump addressed the testimony of his longtime friend.

20:53

David's been very nice. He's a nice guy. Did

20:55

you know about the payment to Stormy Daniels before

20:57

the 2020 election? Pekker also

20:59

testified about a payment his company did

21:02

make to former Playboy model Karen McDougal

21:04

to keep her alleged affair with Mr.

21:06

Trump quiet. Pekker said he

21:08

coordinated with Cohen because he was

21:11

concerned paying McDougal could violate campaign

21:13

finance law. So they worked up

21:15

an agreement to pay for her

21:17

contributions to magazines owned by American

21:19

media, adding he believed Trump

21:21

was aware of the payment. The

21:23

prosecution asking Pekker was your principal purpose

21:26

to suppress her story so as not

21:28

to influence the election. Pekker

21:30

responding, yes, it was. Von

21:33

Hilliard reporting for us there, Lisa Rubin, you were

21:36

inside the courtroom yesterday. So I want to get

21:38

to some of the substance of David Pekker's testimony.

21:40

But first, if you could just paint a picture,

21:42

what the energy was like in the room, what

21:44

Donald Trump, who appeared to be more agitated than

21:46

he's been over the last week and a half

21:49

yesterday, what was it like in the room? It

21:52

was tense. But also there

21:54

was an energy where just everyone was

21:57

so interested, including the jurors. Our colleague

21:59

Tom Winters. winter was sitting in the

22:01

courtroom with me. We were sitting on different

22:03

sides of the courtroom. I was sitting behind

22:05

the prosecution. Tom was sitting behind the defense.

22:07

And so from his vantage point, the jury

22:09

was sort of diagonal to him. And he

22:11

said that at one point watching the jurors

22:13

try to process the questioning was like watching

22:16

a tennis match because their eyes kept going

22:18

like this, right? Volleying back and

22:20

forth between Joshua Silas from the DA's

22:22

office asking the questions and David Pecker

22:24

to see how he would answer them.

22:26

And then you could also from where

22:28

I was sitting catch a glimpse

22:31

of Donald Trump who was far

22:33

more energetic than he has been

22:35

in recent days because David Pecker

22:37

was talking about him and not

22:39

just about him, but about conversations

22:41

and multiple conversations that David Pecker

22:43

and Donald Trump had going

22:45

well into 2018 that showed Willie, as you just noted,

22:50

that Trump had an awareness that

22:52

Karen McDougal had come forward, that

22:54

he consulted with David Pecker about

22:56

what to do, that he was

22:58

aware that David Pecker had paid

23:01

Karen McDougal and that he perpetually

23:03

checked in with David Pecker to

23:05

see how Karen McDougal was doing.

23:07

In other words, was she sufficiently

23:09

happy to keep herself quiet when

23:11

she wasn't at a point in

23:13

time after she had sued the

23:15

inquirer and wanted to be

23:18

released from her non-disclosure agreement. Trump

23:20

was furious to see Karen McDougal

23:22

do an interview with Anderson Cooper

23:24

and Pecker recounted that conversation as

23:26

well, Willie. So

23:29

it's interesting the shorthand for this trial

23:31

for some has been the Stormy Daniels

23:33

hush money case, but really, as you

23:35

know, Karen McDougal was kind of the

23:37

focus yesterday. $150,000

23:39

that Mr. Pecker

23:41

says he paid, hired her for a job.

23:43

It was kind of a no-show job as

23:45

a fitness writer or something like that. How

23:48

does Karen McDougal factor into this case?

23:50

How central is she? Well,

23:52

Karen McDougal is not central to the

23:55

crime itself. Remember again, the Manhattan D.A.

23:57

has charged Donald Trump with falsification of

23:59

business. business records. But what makes it

24:02

a felony, according to the DA, is

24:04

that those business records were falsified with

24:07

the intent to either commit or conceal

24:09

a crime. And they have now elaborated

24:11

on that theory. Based on

24:14

the questioning, it seems that their

24:16

theory is Donald Trump intended to

24:18

conceal violations of campaign

24:20

finance law and formed a

24:22

conspiracy with Michael Cohen and

24:24

David Pecker and potentially others

24:26

to do so. Karen McDougall

24:28

and burying her story was

24:30

part and parcel of that conspiracy.

24:33

So establishing the Karen McDougall story

24:35

is a necessary predicate. But of

24:37

course, it doesn't get us all

24:39

the way to the crime. Why?

24:42

Because the business records that were

24:45

falsified are in

24:47

relation to the Stormy Daniels payment.

24:49

So yes, David Pecker is a

24:51

very central witness in establishing Trump's

24:53

knowledge and intent in joining this

24:56

conspiracy and doing it for purposes

24:58

of subverting the election. But

25:00

we are going to have to get

25:02

to the Stormy Daniels story at some

25:05

point. It just is not David Pecker's

25:07

to tell. As he testified yesterday, he

25:09

did not really have any direct involvement

25:11

in the purchase or negotiation of the

25:13

Stormy Daniels settlement to the extent

25:15

that the inquirer did it all. It was

25:17

behind his back, he testified, that Dylan Howard,

25:20

who was the chief content officer, got involved

25:22

with that, even though Pecker had

25:24

instructed him, we're not a bank. An

25:26

affiliation with a porn star will offend our largest

25:29

distributor, Walmart stores, and I want you to stay

25:31

out of it. And yet Howard

25:33

couldn't help himself and continue to serve

25:35

sort of as a middleman between Stormy

25:37

Daniels' lawyer, Keith Davidson, and

25:39

Michael Cohen. And David

25:41

Pecker testified yesterday that after he took

25:44

office, so from the White House, Donald

25:46

Trump would call to check in on,

25:48

quote, our girl talking about Karen McDougall.

25:50

And Pecker replied, saying, she's quiet,

25:53

she's fine, end quote. So

25:55

Barbara McQuaid, we've now

25:57

entered cross-examination, began yesterday, will resume.

26:00

in a couple of hours now, is

26:02

David Pekker from Trump's legal team. What

26:04

kind of witness was David Pekker for

26:06

the prosecution? A good way to start?

26:10

Well, I think he was a terrific way to

26:12

start because he is somebody who has a story

26:14

to tell. He

26:16

could establish the timeline. He could begin at

26:18

the beginning in August of 2015 when

26:22

this conspiracy began. And I

26:24

think there's something very powerful when a person comes

26:26

in and admits that they engaged in a crime

26:28

itself. He's someone who's friends with

26:30

Donald Trump. And so I think

26:33

it makes it more difficult to cross-examine him

26:35

and suggest that he's lying because he

26:37

has an axe to grind in the way that

26:39

we will hear from others like Michael

26:41

Cohen. Of course, there

26:44

will be more cross-examination today. And

26:46

so that's really the more

26:48

crucial part of a witness's testimony to

26:50

see how they hold up on cross-examination.

26:52

But so far, I think all we've

26:54

seen are things like efforts to suggest

26:56

that the payment of hush money is

26:58

normal for celebrities. We heard about Tiger

27:00

Woods and Arnold Schwarzenegger and other people

27:02

like that. So I think

27:04

he's been a solid witness for the

27:07

government and a good way to start. And I think prosecutors

27:10

have this idea of the rules of primacy

27:12

and recency, that when a jury goes back

27:14

to deliberate, they're most likely to remember the

27:16

first witness they heard and the last witness they

27:18

heard. And so you always want to start

27:20

strong and end strong and put your more

27:22

challenging witnesses in the middle. So I imagine

27:24

Michael Cohen and if she testifies Stormy Daniels

27:26

will come somewhere in the middle because they're going

27:28

to get beat up a little bit. But you

27:31

want to start strong and end strong. And

27:33

I think they succeeded in starting strong. John

27:36

Meacham, I'm thinking about you sitting here as

27:38

a presidential historian listening to this conversation. We've

27:41

become so inured to everything that Donald Trump

27:43

does and his personal behavior over the last

27:45

10 years. And we're so familiar with some

27:47

of the details of these cases

27:49

that we just sort of talked through them.

27:51

But when you take a step back and

27:54

think about just this week, a president who

27:56

was sitting in a courtroom over a hush

27:58

money payment to a porn star. We're

28:00

talking about hypotheticals at the Supreme Court, his

28:02

attorneys, of whether or not he could use

28:05

SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent.

28:07

We think about the indictments that came down

28:10

two days ago in Arizona, where people on

28:12

his behalf appointed themselves as

28:14

fake electors and tried to overturn the

28:16

results of the election. His chief of

28:18

stack, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, all wrapped

28:20

up in this. You do

28:23

have to take a step back sometimes and just

28:25

digest how unprecedented, how

28:27

extraordinary it is to see

28:29

one man, one president having

28:31

allegedly done all of this.

28:35

Yeah, it's like the Walking Dead,

28:37

the C-SPAN version, right? I mean,

28:40

it's just this land of, this

28:42

crazy land of things. It

28:45

is hard. It is hard to keep it all

28:47

straight. It's hard to

28:50

prioritize, to go

28:52

to Barbara's point. What's

28:54

the primary one here? What's the most recent one

28:57

here? That's a really good

28:59

way to try to figure it out. Politically,

29:03

constitutionally, let me say, the

29:05

most important thing that unfolded

29:07

was the Supreme Court yesterday trying

29:09

to figure out what are the

29:11

powers, what's the limit of

29:15

the authority of the commander

29:17

in chief, the president of the United States.

29:21

That's a vastly important question. It

29:24

seemed as though the court had

29:27

a certain awareness of

29:29

that. They believe they

29:31

are deciding something forever. Interesting.

29:35

You can argue that perhaps the more

29:38

conservative approach would be doing something a

29:40

little more specific as we were

29:42

talking about. The New York

29:44

case is kind of

29:46

an only in New York thing,

29:50

all the characters you're talking about.

29:53

The question is, are people who are committed to

29:55

voting, because the real, for the rest of us,

29:57

the question is, what do they want to do?

29:59

The question is, are the people who are

30:01

committed to voting for Donald Trump again for

30:04

the third time, are they affected

30:07

by any of this? My

30:09

own bet is no, that

30:11

this is something that they have decided

30:14

they are willing to put up with.

30:17

And let's be clear, not just willing to

30:19

put up with, but the

30:22

hard truth about the American

30:24

character at the moment is

30:26

that people kind of like this.

30:30

Let's just be honest, right? This

30:32

is more entertaining than trying

30:34

to figure out what to do about

30:36

the manufacturing of computer chips or

30:40

the border or dealing with

30:42

the complexities of the Middle East or

30:45

collective security in Europe. Those

30:47

are hard things. And

30:50

if that were what the country really wanted to

30:52

focus on, guess what? That's what they

30:54

would focus on. Trump

30:56

is fundamentally an entertainer. That's

31:00

where he started, right? That's when

31:02

he walked onto the stage. And

31:06

the test we're all facing, and

31:09

I was thinking about this all day yesterday,

31:11

the test we're facing is, as

31:13

citizens, do we want

31:15

a reality show or

31:17

do we want reality? Do we want

31:20

to govern our

31:22

affairs in a less

31:25

vivid, but certainly more

31:27

serious way? And

31:30

that's a real question for a democracy. Do

31:33

we get what we deserve? And

31:36

I think that that's the question, that's

31:38

a question fundamentally that the country has

31:40

to confront going forward. And it's a

31:42

very stark choice, right? Biden

31:47

is one way and

31:49

former President Trump is another. And

31:52

I don't think this is a particularly

31:54

close call myself, but

31:56

that's where a lot of the country needs

31:58

to make their decision. Yeah,

32:01

in that reality show Donald Trump has cast

32:03

himself as a martyr as he sits in

32:05

these courtrooms and many people are

32:07

buying that, but the question will be, are there

32:09

enough in the middle who have seen enough of

32:12

the reality show, those Nikki Haley voters that

32:14

keep turning out to vote against

32:16

Donald Trump in primaries long after she's dropped

32:18

out of the race? We'll see. John

32:21

Meacham, always great to have you on my friend. We'll see you soon.

32:23

MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, former US

32:26

Attorney Barbara McQuaid, thank you so much

32:28

for your analysis as well. Still

32:30

ahead on Morning Joe, there is growing

32:33

international pressure on Hamas this morning to

32:35

free the hostages. The group has held

32:37

captive for more than seven months now.

32:41

Take a look at the new statement from the

32:43

leaders of more than a dozen countries.

32:45

Plus a live look here at Secretary

32:47

of State Antony Blinken speaking in Beijing

32:49

on the heels of his meeting with

32:51

Chinese President Xi. We'll talk

32:54

to Richard Haas about the state of relations

32:56

between the US and China. Good

32:58

job. It's coming right back. The

33:01

UN Refugee Agency or UNHCR

33:03

responds to emergencies and provides

33:05

long-term solutions for refugees. They

33:07

provide aid in over 130

33:11

countries including Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan

33:13

and Sudan where people are

33:15

forced to free from war

33:17

and persecution at their greatest

33:19

moment of need. UNHCR helps

33:21

and protects refugees by providing

33:23

food, shelter, medical care and

33:25

other life-saving essentials. The

33:27

agency jump-starts relief in three key

33:29

ways. They transport core relief items

33:31

stored in even the most remote areas

33:33

of the world. They deploy expert emergency

33:36

staff trained to help in crisis situations

33:38

and they transfer funds directly to support

33:40

the emergency. Because of generous

33:43

supporters and donors, UNHCR can scale up

33:45

its response within 72 hours

33:47

of a large-scale emergency. Your

33:50

support helps provide life-saving aid

33:52

for refugees whenever and wherever

33:54

emergencies occur. State

33:56

to USA for UNHCR by

33:58

visiting unrefugees. or donation.

34:07

I picture the White House 636

34:09

on a Friday morning. President Biden

34:12

met with four-year-old Abigail Adon yesterday.

34:14

She's the youngest American hostage freed

34:16

by Hamas. The president posted a

34:18

photo to social media writing, last

34:21

year we secured the release of Abigail,

34:23

a four-year-old who was being held by

34:25

Hamas. She is remarkable and

34:27

recovering from unspeakable trauma. Our time together yesterday

34:29

was a reminder of the work we have

34:32

in front of us to secure

34:34

the release of all remaining hostages.

34:36

The president meeting with Abigail

34:39

for more than an hour at the White House.

34:41

Meanwhile, the United States and 17 other

34:44

countries are demanding Hamas release.

34:46

More than 130

34:48

people still being held hostage in Gaza.

34:50

In a joint statement, world leaders write

34:52

in part, the fate of the hostages

34:55

and the civilian population in Gaza who

34:57

are protected under international law is

34:59

of international concern. The

35:02

leaders called for a deal that would not

35:04

only secure the hostages release, but

35:06

also a prolonged ceasefire. Qatari officials

35:09

have been mediating talks between Israel

35:11

and Hamas. They say some progress

35:13

has been made, but the leader

35:15

of Hamas vetoed the latest proposal.

35:17

That deal would have included a

35:20

six-week truce and exchange of hundreds

35:22

of Palestinian prisoners for dozens of

35:24

sick, elderly and wounded hostages.

35:26

Joining us now, President Emeritus of

35:28

the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard

35:30

Haas. He's author of the weekly

35:32

newsletter, Home and Away, available on

35:34

Substack. Richard, good morning. A lot

35:36

to talk with you about today.

35:38

Let's start right there with the

35:40

hostages in Israel. I'm not sure

35:42

a strongly worded letter is

35:45

going to compel Hamas, given that it's

35:47

a terrorist death cult who doesn't seem

35:49

willing to negotiate anything reasonable at

35:51

all to release the hostages. But what do

35:54

you make of the collective statement made by

35:56

world leaders and what progress might

35:58

there be in getting these hostages? his home. I'm

36:02

really sorry to say I agree with you here.

36:04

I don't think this call is going to resonate

36:06

to put it gently. I'm

36:08

also in a serious and really tragic

36:11

way. I don't know anyone who feels

36:14

most of the hostages are still alive and

36:16

that's probably one of the principle

36:18

reasons that Hamas is hanging so

36:20

tough here being so difficult and

36:22

not wanting them to have this

36:24

if you will exposed. The

36:28

conditions they constantly put out in

36:30

exchange are high. They want to end

36:32

the occupation and so forth. So I

36:34

don't think this is moving towards either

36:36

a quick resolution or a positive resolution.

36:38

I'm really sorry to say that. Jen,

36:41

we got that video yesterday, just the

36:44

wrenching video of Hirsch Goldberg polling. We

36:46

had his mom on yesterday, Rachel, who's

36:48

been so extraordinary through all of this,

36:50

giving some hope that he is alive

36:53

and that he may come home someday

36:55

soon. The president doing what

36:57

he can. Obviously, we saw him

36:59

doing perhaps what he does best yesterday, which

37:01

is spending an hour with a four-year-old at

37:04

the White House as she climbed around the

37:06

Resolute Test. What more

37:08

pressure can the president apply? Not

37:10

necessarily in Hamas, who's not a reasonable

37:12

party in this, but on Qatar and

37:15

other nations who may have some influence. It

37:18

has sort of this dreaded sense

37:20

of treading water at this point. And then

37:22

you see across the country, campus is

37:25

really igniting and protests

37:27

and the president having the thing they're very aware

37:30

of what kind of politics they're dealing with. But

37:32

at the same time, the most important thing is

37:34

to try is to take whatever levers that they

37:36

can to push

37:39

towards some sort of

37:41

ceasefire. And it

37:44

does, I mean, I want to go back to Richard

37:46

about this because it does just sort of

37:49

feel like it is at sort of

37:51

like not even just an impasse,

37:53

Richard, but almost like just a

37:55

disturbing status quo lull. And

37:58

it won't last for long. I think it's more a

38:00

question of when not if Israel goes

38:02

into Rafah. You're beginning to

38:04

see plans being made for moving out some

38:06

of the gods and civilians. I

38:09

think the most, the influence the Biden

38:11

administration can probably have here is not

38:13

whether Israel goes in, but how it

38:15

uses military force when it goes

38:17

in. So I think

38:19

we could be looking once Passover ends,

38:21

sometime later, let's say in May, potentially

38:24

months of a

38:27

fairly focused, lower level Israeli

38:29

military operation in Rafah.

38:32

I'd be really surprised if we avoid that. So

38:34

I'm not real optimistic, not just

38:36

about the hostages, about hopes for anything

38:38

looking like a prolonged ceasefire.

38:41

I just don't see it. Indeed, funnily

38:43

enough, the deal on Iran where

38:45

the Israelis avoided doing anything big in

38:47

retaliation for Iran, I think has raised

38:49

the pressure on Netanyahu, at least as

38:52

he sees it, for doing something fairly

38:54

muscular in Rafah. And

38:57

of course Hamas could release these hostages tomorrow

38:59

and bring this to an end, but it

39:01

won't because again, it's a terrorist death cult

39:04

who, that's the only leverage it has is

39:06

holding these hostages. Richard, Secretary of State Antony

39:08

Blinken just wrapped up a meeting with Chinese

39:10

leader Xi Jinping to discussing

39:12

the war in Ukraine and China's support

39:14

for Russia in that war as well

39:16

as Beijing's economic and trade practices. This

39:18

is Blinken's second visit to China in

39:21

less than a year. Secretary

39:23

Blinken said he had hoped to make

39:25

progress on some of these issues. Ahead of his

39:27

meeting with Xi, Blinken met with the Chinese

39:30

foreign minister and described those

39:32

talks as extensive and constructive.

39:34

So Richard, what's the objective here as

39:36

China, now we know, continues

39:38

to help Russia in the war against

39:40

Ukraine, obviously a polar opposite position from

39:43

where the United States is. What

39:45

does the Secretary hope to get done in Beijing over

39:47

these couple of days? Well, to

39:49

some extent, Willie, just the high level meetings

39:51

becoming more normal and more regular is one

39:54

of the goals. And I think both sides

39:56

are committed to that ever since November when

39:58

President Biden and Xi met

40:00

men in San Francisco. Yes, as

40:02

you just pointed out, there's

40:05

a desire to put a limit

40:07

on any Chinese aid to Russia.

40:09

It's not working real well. China's

40:11

not sending military arms, as best

40:13

we know, but they're sending just

40:15

about everything else short of that,

40:17

in many ways trying to strengthen

40:20

the Russian arms industry so Russia

40:22

can increase its production of militarily

40:24

relevant technologies and

40:26

equipment and so forth. The

40:29

emphasis is still to a void war, not

40:31

just over Taiwan, but probably more imminently in

40:33

the South China Sea. The fact

40:36

that if you remember a couple days ago

40:38

when the Japanese Prime Minister here, one day

40:40

there was a trilateral. Why? Because she wanted

40:42

the leader of the Philippines to be part

40:44

of it. That's probably the most immediate flashpoint.

40:46

So sometimes for the United States and China,

40:48

it's not what the two can accomplish, but

40:50

it's what the two can agree to avoid.

40:53

And that in some ways is at

40:55

the heart, I think, of this relationship.

40:57

Really, just think about the backdrop. You

40:59

just had Janet Yellen there, tremendous pressure

41:01

on the Chinese not to export all

41:03

these electronic vehicles and stuff. Then

41:06

you have the legislation was basically

41:08

seller ban TikTok. This is a

41:10

troubled relationship and both sides want

41:12

to calm it down, but there's

41:14

no real basis. There's no real

41:16

intellectual or political consensus for how

41:19

to move it forward. And

41:21

of course, the Congress just passed and

41:24

President Biden signed that foreign aid bill

41:26

that gives aid to our partners in

41:28

the Indo-Pacific to bolster against China. We'll

41:31

keep a close eye on these meetings.

41:33

Secretary Blinken has taken questions from the

41:35

press now. We will monitor that. Richard,

41:37

stay with us in our next hour.

41:40

We'll have an update on all of

41:42

this from White House national security spokesman,

41:44

John Kirby, also ahead. President Biden reminding

41:46

Americans what Donald Trump

41:48

thinks about the most popular sport in

41:50

the country. We'll show you a new

41:53

campaign ad surrounding the NFL draft

41:55

in Detroit. Plus ESPN's Pablo Torre will

41:57

join us with his grades for

41:59

the teens in

42:01

last night's first round, Jen

42:04

Palmieri not happy with the Giants pick

42:07

details when Morning Joe comes right back.

42:17

For more than a decade, Comcast has

42:19

been committed to bridging the digital divide

42:22

and connecting millions to affordable high speed

42:24

internet. But the barriers to

42:26

get connected go well beyond affordability.

42:28

Through Project UP, Comcast is committing

42:30

$1 billion to reach Learn

42:43

more at comcast.com/Project

42:45

Up. Today and

42:47

every day Planned Parenthood is committed to

42:50

ensuring that everyone has the information and

42:52

resources they need to make their own

42:54

decisions about their bodies, including abortion

42:56

care. Lawmakers who oppose abortion

42:58

are attacking Planned Parenthood, which means affordable,

43:00

high quality basic health care for more

43:02

than 2 million people is at stake.

43:05

The right to control our bodies and

43:07

get the health care we need has

43:09

been stolen from us. And now politicians

43:11

in nearly every state have introduced bills

43:13

that would block people from getting the

43:16

sexual and reproductive care they need. Planned

43:18

Parenthood believes everyone deserves health care. It's

43:20

a human right. That's why

43:22

they fight every day to push for

43:24

common sense policies that protect our right

43:27

to control our own bodies and against

43:29

policies that interfere with decisions between patients

43:31

and their doctor. Planned Parenthood

43:33

needs your support now more than

43:35

ever. With supporters like you,

43:37

we can reclaim our rights

43:39

and protect and expand access

43:41

to abortion care. Visit planned

43:44

parenthood.org/future. That's planned parenthood.org slash

43:46

future. The

43:56

first pick in the 2024 NFL draft.

44:00

Chicago Bears select Caleb

44:03

Williams, quarterback of

44:05

Southern California. No

44:08

drama around that one. As expected,

44:11

former USC quarterback Caleb Williams selected

44:13

first overall by the Chicago Bears

44:15

in last night's NFL Draft. A

44:17

record crowd of more than 275,000

44:19

fans attended

44:22

the event in Detroit, which for

44:25

the fourth time saw quarterbacks selected with

44:27

the top three picks. The

44:29

Washington commanders followed the Bears drafting Jayden

44:31

Daniels out of LSU at number two,

44:34

and the New England Patriots took UNC's Drake

44:36

May off the board at number

44:38

three. Teams went on to select

44:40

a record setting six quarterbacks in

44:42

the top 12 picks, including the

44:45

surprise number eight pick by the Atlanta

44:47

Falcons who selected the University of Washington's

44:50

Michael Pennicks Jr. Less

44:52

than two months after signing veteran Kirk

44:54

Cousins to a four year $180 million

44:56

contract. More

44:58

on that in a moment. Meanwhile, the

45:00

New York Giants did not join the QB

45:03

Bonanza electing instead to add a new target

45:05

for Daniel Jones with the selection of

45:08

talented LSU wide receiver Malik

45:10

neighbors at number six overall.

45:12

Let's bring in the host of

45:14

Pablo Torre finds out on Metalarc

45:16

Media, ESPN's Pablo Torre. Pablo, great

45:18

to see you. Want to

45:20

get into some of the picks, but can we just go

45:22

big picture for a moment? Those

45:25

scenes of nearly 300,000 people there, by

45:28

the way, hours before the draft started.

45:31

I mean, we're entering into Woodstock territory

45:33

now around the NFL draft. It is

45:35

amazing the spectacle this has become. Yeah,

45:37

and it's crazy. It's crazy because this

45:39

is mostly a TV show for everybody

45:41

at home. And here you

45:44

have, yeah, post Woodstock level crowd

45:46

gathering, and these people are psychopaths,

45:48

Willy. Let's be honest. I

45:50

believe that the NFL draft is super fun

45:53

to watch from home every year. You're sitting

45:55

there a mile away to get a glimpse

45:57

of Roger Goodell hugging somebody. Technically

46:00

it doesn't make sense, but this speaks to

46:02

the psychosis and truly the theme of the

46:04

day, which is always, and Jen Palmieri's already

46:07

wagging your finger at me, because she

46:09

went to this thing last year at Kansas City, this

46:11

is a day of delusion. There is

46:14

no greater day for a football fan in

46:16

the NFL Draft because all things are still

46:18

possible. No one is a bust

46:20

just yet. It's winning a press conference. And so

46:22

I just want to get into that as the

46:24

context for how we should feel today in reality.

46:27

Your delusion is our hope Pablo.

46:30

It's a day of hope for football fans.

46:32

And I don't think the good people of

46:34

Detroit or psychopaths at all, I'd like to

46:36

be on the record for that. So let's

46:38

talk about, yes, let's talk about the picks

46:40

Pablo. So no surprise really at the top

46:42

of the board, Caleb Williams, Jayden Daniels, Drake

46:44

May, kind of expected to go, but I'm

46:46

not sure everybody saw six quarterbacks

46:48

in the first 12 picks. Bo

46:50

Nicks went higher, maybe than some people

46:52

thought out of Oregon. And then that

46:54

Michael Penix pick, as I said, they

46:57

just signed the Falcons, Kirk Cousins to

46:59

a $180 million deal. And

47:02

we even last night heard some rumblings from

47:04

Kirk Cousins camp that he was a little

47:06

confused that the Falcons didn't go get him

47:08

a receiver say. Yeah,

47:10

yeah. Let's start with the Falcons thing and

47:12

all of this again, not to be just

47:15

a cynic about all of this, but the

47:17

fact that six quarterbacks are taken in the

47:19

first 12 picks speaks to a desperation on

47:22

behalf of owners who all see the

47:24

ability to sell hope to a fan

47:26

base. That's what a quarterback gets you.

47:28

That is the promise of getting your

47:30

franchise guy. The Michael Penix junior pick

47:32

is the greatest symptom of this condition.

47:35

And Kirk Cousins was told about this pick while the

47:37

pick was basically happening. And so Kirk Cousins, I don't

47:39

want to weep too much for him, but I do

47:41

want to put him in context here. Kirk Cousins is

47:43

a very good quarterback who also happens to be, I

47:45

believe, the person in America who is paid more money

47:48

by people who

47:50

don't really respect him than

47:52

anybody else I've ever seen. The

47:54

guy is going to wind up getting paid, I believe,

47:56

career earnings of $300 million by

47:59

the end of the season. and the third most money paid

48:01

to anybody in the history of the NFL.

48:03

And the story of him is that he's

48:06

given a lot of money, but also constantly

48:08

undermine him by getting other guys that we

48:10

think could do the job better. So Michael

48:12

Penix Jr. was the biggest shock of the

48:14

night. He's a great quarterback. When you give

48:16

Kirk Hudson $180 million as of March and

48:19

you do this, that just speaks to a

48:21

lack of strategy and foresight that I think

48:23

should be very worrisome to anybody who's ever

48:25

heard of the Atlanta Falcons and how they

48:27

operate. Okay, I don't understand why Pablo is

48:29

stealing all of our choice. Don't you write about

48:32

football? I feel like the Grinch now. Do you write

48:34

about football for a legend? But this is

48:36

the thing, Chad. Think about the greatest quarterback

48:38

in the history of the NFL. What round did he get

48:40

taken in? Tom Brady was a sixth-rounder,

48:42

right? Right. Patrick Mahomes was a tenth pick

48:45

in the draft. We're not even going to

48:47

get to the tenth pick in this draft

48:49

because that's the way that the discourse works.

48:51

Who did Patrick Mahomes defeat in

48:53

the Super Bowl last year? Right? Brock

48:55

Purdy was the last pick in the

48:57

draft. I'm just saying, he should talk

49:00

about the promise and the potential, but

49:02

the reality is that nobody knows what

49:04

they're doing. Nobody knows. Oh,

49:06

but it's a great celebration of

49:08

America. I mean, I just love it almost,

49:10

you know, when I went to the Kansas

49:12

City last week or last year for the draft,

49:15

it's like everyone comes home with a prize and

49:17

it feels like the first day of football

49:19

season. It's the dominant cultural phenomenon in America

49:21

and it's a way for people to come

49:23

together. And I, you know, but let me

49:25

ask you about the Giants. Yes. Because

49:27

like here, I'm like, I'm wearing Eagle Green right

49:29

now because... I know. It's very disturbing. I mean,

49:31

we're good. This is what this is having in

49:33

my family. We're going to become Eagles fans even though

49:35

we've been lifelong Giants fans because they have Saichuan.

49:40

Richard has been giving Sixers takes all morning

49:42

to me, by the way. But look, talk

49:44

to me about the Giants because I

49:46

was hoping, I know, I know

49:49

we have Daniel Jones, the quarterback,

49:51

he has a $40 million contract. Yes.

49:53

Another year on that. Still, there was

49:55

some hope from Giants fans like me

49:57

that made the Giants might recruit. take

50:00

Michael Penix. They could have done that.

50:02

That would have made a lot more sense in the Falcons

50:04

taking him. That would have been more sense. But you

50:06

know, how do you know, for there's a lot

50:08

of New York fans out there wondering what gets

50:10

your take on that. I'm just hurting neighbors. I'm

50:12

hurting that you have erased Tommy Cutlets from

50:15

history. You're right. Tommy DeVito living with his

50:17

mom, the greatest New Jersey story in the

50:19

history of the NFL has been blanked by

50:21

Jen Paul Mary. But I get it. I

50:24

get it because nobody actually believed that he's

50:26

the solution. Daniel Jones is less just Richard,

50:28

I believe you have more faith in him

50:31

than Jen. Daniel Jones is at some cost.

50:33

So how do you help the $40 million

50:35

man get the receiver get Malik Nigg? I

50:37

think the Giants get props for basically not

50:40

creating a quarterback controversy. That's right. For

50:42

$40 million this year. He's never really had a

50:44

chance. They've had a terrible offensive line. They now

50:46

gave him a good weapon. We could argue whether

50:48

they maybe got the wrong weapon. Maybe they should

50:50

have gotten Bowers the best tight end in the

50:53

draft out of Georgia. Maybe they could have gotten

50:55

another offensive lineman for the right side of the

50:57

line, but they avoided creating a quarterback controversy. And

50:59

I think they said to themselves, Daniel Jones has

51:01

never had a fair chance. We're going to give

51:03

him one more year, try to build a better

51:05

team around that if it doesn't work, we draft

51:08

a quarterback next year or last night check giants

51:10

still have what? Five more draft choices this year.

51:12

I would not be surprised if one of those

51:14

is their version of let's go for a late

51:17

round quarterback. Maybe he will develop. Yes. And late

51:19

round value is always there to be had. It's

51:21

the most underrated part of this thing. You're a

51:23

day one guy or you're nothing. We're talking about

51:26

the day one guys, the first round, but I

51:28

just, I just like the idea of one more

51:30

year is a less inspiring chance than four more

51:32

years in the NFL as well as

51:34

politics. I don't know if Daniel Jones has done to

51:36

himself, Oh, great. Richard has to say to me, I

51:39

got one more year in my career here. Great. I'm

51:41

sure he really cares what I have to say. Yeah. So

51:44

Pablo, what are you looking for? The rest of the

51:47

draft day one is also it's long. You know what

51:49

I mean? It ends at like one o'clock in the

51:51

morning to get 10 minutes for every pick. Things kind

51:53

of pick up now today and through the weekend. What

51:55

else are we watching for? Because as you say, many

51:57

of the greatest players in NFL history did not. go

52:00

on day one. Yeah, look, selfishly I'm monitoring

52:02

what the Jets are gonna do. The Jets

52:04

took a lineman, Olu Fashan, who

52:06

is great, right? And that is a reasonable

52:08

pick. It is a non-dramatic pick. But I

52:10

believe that what Aaron Rodgers is

52:13

thinking is just one of the most fascinating stories

52:15

when you watch that team and you watch this

52:17

draft. So will the Jets take their own late

52:19

round quarterback, mid round quarterback even, to threaten the

52:21

hole that that guy has on that job? I

52:23

think that that would be a wise move. I

52:25

think that would be a move that would immediately

52:28

start a lot of, let's say, television appearances that

52:30

will probably veer far beyond football in a way that

52:32

will make all of us uncomfortable for yet another year.

52:36

So now we can fold in some politics

52:39

to the NFL draft because in an attempt

52:41

to capitalize on all that attention we've been

52:43

talking about around the draft in Detroit, the

52:45

Biden campaign launched a digital

52:47

ad featuring Donald Trump's past comments

52:50

disparaging football. Football

52:54

is boring as hell. Nobody

52:57

cares about football because of it. So,

53:14

Jed, I'm not sure that's going to move a

53:17

vote, but I wouldn't have done that with him

53:19

personally. Jed, Donald Trump there,

53:21

he said over the years that the

53:23

NFL has gotten soft. He can't knock

53:25

people's heads off anymore. They're too worried

53:27

about concussions and CTE. That's coming

53:29

from the tough guy who's never played a sport that

53:31

didn't involve a golf cart. But what do

53:34

you make of the ad last night? I think it's great. You

53:36

know, I think it's great when Biden is like saying when they got

53:38

their finger on the bolts of, you

53:40

know, of where culture is, even

53:42

though Pablo is apparently an NFL, an

53:45

NFL hater. No, how dare you

53:47

group me with Donald Trump at the end

53:49

of this segment? Delusion, if

53:51

nothing else, is wildly exciting and

53:54

fascinating. Make no mistake. I

53:56

just put, Jed, to your point though, the

53:59

greatest, easiest lay. is

54:01

liking the NFL as a politician and the

54:03

fact that he decided to run against America's

54:05

lone monoculture is truly one of the

54:07

greatest and worst heat checks for a

54:09

politician that I've ever seen or could

54:11

imagine truly at this point football is

54:13

king I don't dispute it and it's

54:15

king because we all believe that it's

54:17

our year this year finally and actually

54:19

spoiler alert some of us as giant

54:22

fans don't believe this is our year

54:24

very good we have a degree of

54:26

realism Richard

54:29

there's hope there's no Pablo calls it

54:31

delusion and again we want to just get

54:33

on the record and say Pablo

54:35

Torres views about the good people

54:37

of Detroit or his and his

54:40

alone morning Joe did not approve

54:42

this message correct Pablo

54:44

Torre just pouring cold water over a thing

54:46

the rest of us all love in America

54:48

great to talk to you this morning Pablo

54:50

thanks so much always Time

54:53

for a quick break to talk about McDonald's.

54:55

Mornings are for mixing and matching at McDonald's.

54:57

For just $3, mix and match two of

54:59

your favorite breakfast items, including a sausage

55:02

McMuffin. at

55:16

regular price