Loading summary
Transcript100 lines
- [00:00]
Mika Brzezinski
The bottom line is, even as the.
- [00:02]
Joe Scarborough
Trump administration tries to end abortion access funding and shut down health centers, Planned.
- [00:08]
Mika Brzezinski
Parenthood continues its vital work without flinching.
- [00:11]
Joe Scarborough
The assault on reproductive health is strategic and persistent. And who gets hurt the most?
- [00:16]
Mika Brzezinski
Women, People of color, rural communities, folks with low incomes, the people who already face the biggest barriers to care.
- [00:23]
Joe Scarborough
If you believe everyone deserves to control their own body and future, donate now@PlannedParenthood.org defend.
- [00:32]
Richard Engel
Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows are ad free. Plus ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad free and with bonus content including why is this happening? Main justice, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [01:02]
Willie Geist
King Charles was in Canada today to show his support for the commonwealth during this difficult time.
- [01:07]
Mika Brzezinski
The king delivered an uncharacteristically fiery speech.
- [01:11]
Willie Geist
This morning in front of the Canadian Parliament. Won't someone please come lick the royal thumb Next?
- [01:39]
Mika Brzezinski
I want to see him try to open a Capri Sun.
- [01:41]
Willie Geist
That would be better.
- [01:44]
Jim Van DeHei
All right. A rough start for King Charles there, but he did show serious support for Canada yesterday.
- [01:50]
Willie Geist
It's good to see the king out.
- [01:52]
Jim Van DeHei
Yes, it is. As President Trump continues to float statehood for the country. Meanwhile, the president's escalating his rhetoric with Russia for stonewalling cease fire negotiations. We'll get to that and Russia's response in just a moment. We'll also go through new reporting from the Guardian on a Pentagon leak investigation that revealed an illegal warrantless wiretap. Also ahead, the controversial presidential pardon for a man whose mother attended a million dollar dinner at Mar? A Lago. And we'll dig into a dire new warning AI and the amount of jobs it could eliminate in the next five years.
- [02:33]
Willie Geist
It is, it is going to be a white collar. Oh, my goodness. I mean, and it's something Jim Vande. Hey, Mike Allen. Are reporting about and it's extraordinarily important. We're going to be talking about that and so much more. But Willie, let's start with the bad news for New York fans and then I'll provide the bad news for Boston fans. You go first. Yeah.
- [02:51]
Mike Allen
New York Knicks lost last night. If I look a little tired this morning because I was up late hoping for another one of those comebacks that we've seen so often in the playoffs. At the back page this morning of the New York Post, The Knicks losing 130 to 121, I think, was the final score last night in a. In a game that they hung around, but the Pacers really were in control of the entire time. That guy, Tyrese Halliburton, was unbelievable. An assist there. He had 32 points, he had 15 assists, he had 12 rebounds. A triple double with zero turnovers for the point guard. The guy who handles the ball on every possession had no turnovers. A brilliant performance by Halliburton. Pacers win at home. They're up three one. We do come back to Madison Square Garden tomorrow night. The Garden will be rocking again. You hope you win at home, go steal one in Indiana in game six and then a game seven back at the Garden. But the odds are against the Knicks right now. They flashed that stat after the game last night that it's something like 94% of teams that lead a series three games to one in NBA playoff history have gone on to win that series. Knicks just didn't quite have it last night. They weren't hitting open shots down the stretch. Pacers were good. Give them credit. They've got a really good team. But we've learned this year, Joe, not to give up on the Knicks. They have a way of coming back. So we'll see what happens tomorrow night at the Garden.
- [04:08]
Willie Geist
I mean, you and I, in a lot of sports have seen teams come back from 3:1 deficit to win. I think, if I'm not mistaken, my. My Cleveland friends tell me that's exactly what the Cavs did in 2016 when they came back to win their one championship. It happens. And I think that was, if I'm not mistaken, against, you know, the great Golden State team. So, yeah, you just have to do it one game at a time. If they can win at Madison Square Garden, then it all comes down to them putting the pressure on the Pacers and winning back in Indiana. And then anything's possible in that game seven. Nothing, though possible right now for our Boston Red Sox, by ours, I mean collective Red Sox nation. It's just been, you know, it's. It's one of these things where they. They've got a. They've got a good team. They. They underperform. Our guys keep getting hurt running to first base. I mean, you know, you look at our. Yeah, there's a grand slam. Thanks. You can take that down now, Alex. I don't know why you even played it, but you look at our 3, 4, and I don't want to see that again. You look at our. You start the season with our three 4 and 5 hitters, and you have two of those hitters and out and a run to first base. That went horribly wrong with Bregman, of course, rounding first base. I'm still trying to figure out exactly how he hurt himself doing that. And then Cassis also. So Red Sox right now struggling a little bit. But TJ thank you so much for not showing. Willie. There we go. Because when I. You. When Meek is just there, Willie, it's like I'm talking to myself. Because she's not hearing anything.
- [05:53]
Mike Allen
Her mind is elsewhere, I'm going to guess.
- [05:56]
Jim Van DeHei
Yes. What about Russia?
- [05:58]
Mike Allen
The Red Sox? Yes. Their bullpen hasn't been great. They have some strange injuries. That's a tough run, Josh. You know, those 90ft to first base can be very challenging. Yankees, meanwhile, we talked about how kind of mediocre that the AL east has been for the beginning of this season. Yankees, though, putting some distance, they won again last night out in California. They've got a seven game lead now over the Rays, Eight on the Jays and eight and a half on the Red Sox. But Max Freed, the pitcher, has been great as the ace of the staff. While Cole is out of Judge is having a good year and Goldschmidt has been a pleasant surprise, having a great season. He really has. We'll see. You know, it's a long season, as we say every year at this time, Joe, it's a long season. Injuries come, streaks come and go. So we'll see what happens.
- [06:45]
Willie Geist
I always say it's a long, long season, but you start falling eight and a half behind in May. Okay, maybe, maybe you can start panicking a little bit.
- [06:54]
Jim Van DeHei
All right, let's get to the news now. No panicking yet. It's pretty early, right?
- [06:58]
Willie Geist
It's early.
- [06:59]
Jim Van DeHei
We begin our news with escalating rhetoric between President Trump and Russian officials with no signs of a ceasefire in Ukraine and tensions only rising. Just before noon yesterday, the president posted on social media that if it wasn't for him, quote, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia. Trump goes on to add that Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing with fire. Hours later, the former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, responded to Trump's post directly, writing, quote, I only know of one really bad thing. World War Three. I hope Trump understands this. The Russian state media outlet RT also responded to Trump's post outright mocking him, writing, quote, trump's message leaves little room for misinterpretation until he posts the opposite tomorrow morning.
- [08:00]
Willie Geist
No, Willie, I mean, obviously, this is. Donald Trump is experiencing what Joe Biden and what Barack Obama and what George W. Bush have experienced before him. Vladimir Putin plays by his own rules on his own timeline, and he spends as much time as he can trying, trying to succor American presidents. And he's done it now for the past 20 years. Looks like Donald Trump understands that right now. That's, that's what's starting to happen. He's starting, he's starting to understand that. And you also see in the Senate, very interesting, Republicans now finally starting to step up and saying, enough's enough. I mean, the consequences. Wall Street Journal talks about it today. US Bowing down to Russia. Donald Trump allowing Russia to keep doing this to Ukraine sends a very clear and unmistakable message to China, which is invade Taiwan, open season, and the White House won't do anything about it. And it will be open season on Taiwan, open season on Ukraine, then open season on Poland. You go down the list. It is Trump's foreign policy crossroads right now. Will we all remember Joe Biden not listening to his generals, not listening to his admirals, and pulling all the troops out of Afghanistan? His approval rating was at 54%. When he did that. A week later, it was below 50%. He never got over 50% again. This is truly a crossroads, and it looks, at least for now, like Donald Trump is pushing back hard, along with Republicans in the Senate, finally pushing back hard on Vladimir Putin.
- [09:49]
Mike Allen
Well, it's fascinating that the Republican senators now have gone so hard against Putin calling for more sanctions, led by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, now that it feels safe to, because there looks to be an opening, as President Trump has voiced now publicly his frustration with Vladimir Putin. As Russian media said yesterday, we'll see how long this lasts for Donald Trump, if he can be flattered again into giving, giving Vladimir Putin what he wants. That remains to be seen. But it's very interesting that Russia, for a decade now and longer before he was president, has used flattery to get into the good graces of Donald Trump. And it has worked, by and large. And now they're sort of mocking him a little bit. They're saying he's become emotional, that they say he'll change his mind tomorrow. Don't worry about what he says, only further enraging President Trump. And we'll see now if he listens to those Republican senators. Let's turn to NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, who, of course, has been covering the war in Ukraine since its beginning. Richard, what do you make of this back and forth between the Kremlin and President Trump?
- [10:55]
Joe Scarborough
So I think we're seeing a new strategy, a new media strategy, a new Donald Trump approach, strategy from Vladimir Putin and from Russia. Many countries from Europe to Ukraine to recently saw the South African president have been struggling to deal with Donald Trump. They don't want to be publicly embarrassed with him. I know certain countries, I've spoken to governments, they're reluctant to send their leaders to the White House because they don't want one of these embarrassing moments where they're forced to kind of sit on their hands and look awkwardly and apologize and be obsequious to President Trump. It happened to the king of Jordan. It's happened several times. And now we're seeing Russia take the opposite approach, where Vladimir Putin is now openly being rude to President Trump. The state media in Russia saying, well, President Trump says this until he flip flops, until he changes his mind the next day. Dmitry Peskov said that what Trump is doing now is because of his, quote, emotional reaction and emotional overload. So they're trying to goad him a little bit, trying to see what kind of reaction. And the question is, for what purpose do they assume that sanctions are coming either way? So if they're coming, you may as well earn them, or are they trying to frustrate him? And analysts that I'm speaking to believe that they are trying to frustrate him, that it is ultimately in Russia's interest and Vladimir Putin's interest if President Trump, as he says he's going to do, just lifts up his hands and walks away, say, these people don't want peace. I don't want to deal with this. I have other things to worry about. He could be busy fighting with American universities or fighting with immigration at home, that he ignores Russia, ignores this peace portfolio, which he said was going to be so easy. And that analysts believe that if he does do that, that it would favor Vladimir Putin because he would have more room to operate, more room to carry out his war in Ukraine, which is obviously ongoing. So it's a different approach. Instead of trying to appeal to his ego, maybe frustrating him, frustrate him enough into giving up interest on the war in Ukraine.
- [13:09]
Mike Allen
Meanwhile, Richard, as this public back and forth plays out in front of the world, Vladimir Putin is marching on with his aims inside Ukraine, escalating, attacking civilian targets, drone strikes, missiles inside of Ukraine. The largest aerial assault a few days ago since this war began. What is the strategy there? That during ostensible ceasefire talks, ostensible peace talks, he's escalating his war?
- [13:37]
Joe Scarborough
Well, there are no real cease fire talks at this stage. And there's a lot of ceasefire theater. You saw President Zelensky of Ukraine go to Turkey, where there was some talk that maybe Putin himself would show up. And instead there were these images of peace, of Zelensky the peacemaker there alone. Trump expressing frustration that this isn't going anywhere. And then President Trump saying that he's surprised. He's surprised at the way Vladimir Putin is angry. Why is he behaving like this? He's not behaving as if he wants to have a peace deal because he's still attacking Kyiv. He's still sending rockets, he's still sending drones. He's not behaving like someone who's looking for a peace deal. So perhaps it's just dawned on President Trump that Putin doesn't want a peace deal, but wants a piece of Ukraine, if not all of the country. And if that is in fact the case, then the best thing that could happen for Vladimir Putin was that the US which is not just a peace broker here, but is the main guarantee of Ukraine's stability, the main supplier of intelligence and weapons, that if the US Just walks away, it benefits the government.
- [14:51]
Jim Van DeHei
So, Richard, then there's this. Here's what the Wall Street Journal editorial board writes in a piece entitled Trump's Foreign Policy Crossroads quot President Trump's foreign policy has been coasting so far on his verbal threats and public cajoling, but he'll soon face moments of decision on US Adversaries that will echo throughout his second term and could determine his legacy. Mr. Trump has mused about leaving Russia and Ukraine to fight it out. But walking away won't insulate America from the consequences. If Ukraine succumbs, Mr. Putin will advance his forces closer to more of the NATO border. As important, Mr. Trump will send a message to Chinese President Xi Jinping that the US can sustain support for an ally under siege. Beijing will conclude that its support for Russia's war carried little cost and that its alliance with Russia has paid off. The message will be that if China moves on Taiwan, Mr. Trump is unlikely to respond with more than verbal protests or toothless sanctions. Instead of restoring US deterrence, Mr. Trump would further undermine it.
- [16:07]
Willie Geist
And Richard, this is something that Republican senators have been warning Donald Trump about. Walking away is what Joe Biden did in Afghanistan. Walking away is what remains the turning point in his presidency, where his poll numbers went below 50% and never went above there. And as Lindsey Graham says, if you think Afghanistan was bad, walking away from Ukraine would make that look like a Spring picnic, talk about that side of things, what the consequences of America just, quote, walking away, how badly things become. And also the fears and concerns that you've heard from foreign policy leaders, world leaders, diplomats about the message it would send to Xi on Taiwan if Donald Trump and Americans were to walk away from Ukraine now.
- [17:06]
Joe Scarborough
So if the US Walked away from Ukraine, it would be considered an enormous betrayal for Ukraine. It would be America breaking its promise. There have been many, many agreements. So it's not just verbal agreements. There have been many written agreements between the United States and Ukraine to provide weapons, to provide logistics, to provide arms, to provide intelligence to support the Ukrainian economy. The US has emerged as Ukraine's main backer in this. So does walking away and allowing the two sides to fight it out, as President Trump has threatened, does that mean that the U.S. that President Trump would no longer just be this active peace broker, that he would stop making the phone calls, or would it be, as I think Russia hopes it means walking away, meaning we're done with this. This is Europe's problem. We have no interest in Ukraine and hoping that it just stays a European conflict. So the US Reputational damage would be enormous. Ukrainians would feel abandoned. I think Europe would be very frightened that it has to handle security for itself on every level. And that is probably a long term positive thing. Many Europeans believe that this wake up call is, is a necessary wake up call, but it can't happen that rapidly because they're not in a position to take care of their own security for several more years. They're in a situation where they're dependent on not just NATO, but on American cooperation. So if the US Leaves the biggest security challenge in Europe right now, it effectively leaves Europe and leaves the European security framework. It will be destabilizing for Europe. It will be devastating for Ukraine. And of course, it clearly sends a message to that if the US Is walking away from a security challenge in Europe, why wouldn't it walk away from another security challenge in China? So the repercussions of simply walking away and what walking away means could be one of the most important decisions taken by President Trump in terms of foreign policy. You mentioned President Biden thinking he could just walk away from Afghanistan. Afghanistan, at the end of the day, is a small, landlocked Central Asian country that, that the US had been there for 20 years. Walking away from that had consequences. It was the betrayal of a generation of young people in Afghanistan. Walking away from Europe's biggest security challenge in modern times would not go unnoticed by China and would have a much, much broader impact than walking away from Afghanistan, without a doubt.
- [19:45]
Willie Geist
Exactly.
- [19:46]
Jim Van DeHei
Certainly gives a little perspective there. NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel, live from Lisbon. Thank you so much for coming on this. So, as we mentioned, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who's leading a bipartisan push on a sanctions bill against Russia, sent a letter to the editors of the Wall Street Journal suggesting the Senate will act if President Trump is unable to broker a ceasefire. Graham's letter comes a day after Republican Senator Chuck Grassley also publicly called on President Trump to take action against Putin.
- [20:20]
Willie Geist
Let's bring in right now the co founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van Dijk. Jim, we're, we always talk about the two tracks on Russia that Republicans took in Donald Trump's first term. You had Donald Trump saying and doing things with Vladimir Putin and Helsinki in other places that horrified hardliners. At the same time, you had him signing sanction bills, going through the United States Senate that were the harshest sanctions that had then been imposed on Vladimir Putin. I'm wondering if we're getting to that place again now.
- [20:53]
Mika Brzezinski
We certainly could be. I think there's no issue where there's a bigger gap between Trump and especially Senate Republicans than Russia. Like, senators aren't going to say it on the record, but they think that Putin is a psychopathic dictator who murders people and who is an untrustworthy thug. Right. That's their view of him. And they think it's crazy that the president continues to have such a friendly relationship with Putin and that he continues to say that, you know, Ukraine could be on its own. I think the confluence of their views being what they are in reality, plus Putin continuing to reject every overture from Trump could change that. We'll see. The president's been very, very, very unpredictable on this topic and really does want to wash his hands of it. But we'll see. I thought that provocative. Tweet the idea. He'll tweet one thing one day and say the opposite the next. That's pretty provocative. That's like in your face, like taunting of a world leader. You don't see that tw often from others.
- [21:50]
Willie Geist
You see from Trump now and they have had a history of it. I mean, of openly mocking him, mocking his wife, state media. And they're doing this again in a way, again, as Richard said, seems openly provocative, hoping that he'll do with Ukraine what Joe Biden did with Afghanistan and just wash his hands of it. So we'll see what happens. But, Jim, stay with us. Oh, yeah, Jim and Mike Allen put together an explosive report talking about the frightening impact of AI and how it's going to gut white collar workers the same way that the tech revolution gutted blue collar workers.
- [22:36]
Jim Van DeHei
Yeah, we'll get to that. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll have the very latest on that horrific parade crash in England, what police are now saying about the man accused of driving a minivan into a crowd of soccer fans. Plus, we'll take a look at some of President Trump's recent controversial pardons, including one for a reality TV couple convicted of fraud and tax evasion, and a pardon for a man whose mother attended a million dollar per person fundraising dinner for President Trump last month. And a quick reminder for you, the Morning Joe Podcast is available each weekday featuring our full conversations and analysis. You can listen wherever you go. Get your podcasts. We'll be right back.
- [23:30]
Richard Engel
Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows are ad free plus ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja News. And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad free and with bonus content including why Is this Happening? Main justice and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [23:59]
Willie Geist
Hey everyone, it's Chris Hayes.
- [24:00]
Joe Scarborough
This week on my podcast, why Is this Happening?
- [24:03]
Mika Brzezinski
Veteran progressive organizer, former head of MoveOn Anna Gallant on where we go from here.
- [24:08]
Elizabeth Bue Miller
I just keep thinking like we're going to be digesting the results of that election for the next four, five, ten years to really fully understand it. So we should have strong opinions loosely held and make some decisions on them and also not neglect the work of standing up right now to fight back. Because that actually if we get too preoccupied and navel gazing into what we just did wrong, we might actually undermine the work of confidently, powerfully standing up and resisting the very scary stuff that's coming at us.
- [24:36]
Joe Scarborough
That's this week on why Is this Happening?
- [24:38]
Mika Brzezinski
Search for why is this Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.
- [24:45]
Jim Van DeHei
27 past the hour live look at the White House foggy morning in Washington, D.C. a federal judge yesterday struck down the Trump administration's executive order targeting the top law firm Wilmer Hale as unconstitutional. Wilmer Hale is one of the firms fighting the President's order that penalizes the company for working for his political opponents. District Court Judge Richard Leon struck down the entire order in a strong 73 page ruling yesterday. The Bush appointed judge barely hid his shock at the case, peppering his order with exclamation Points and even calling an argument from President Trump, quote, absurd.
- [25:30]
Willie Geist
I mean, Willie, you go through this and again, there are dozens of exclamation points.
- [25:35]
Jim Van DeHei
Obviously, yes, some strong feelings about it.
- [25:38]
Willie Geist
You didn't take to heart of Scott Fitzgerald's and we know a few you watch, Tad, what the F and that stands for, but F. Scott Fitzgerald point that putting exclamation points is like laughing at your own joke. Well, he was laughing at a lot of his own jokes yesterday. But a very important, obviously very important decision that really is in line with several other decisions. Just saying the president cannot go after law firms because of who they represent.
- [26:11]
Mike Allen
Right. And this strategy has worked, by the way, for President Trump. He's extracted money from these law firms and gotten them to represent causes that he wants them to represent pro bono. So some of them have caved to him. But now the court's stepping in saying, no, this isn't how this works. Let's bring in co host of our fourth hour, contributing writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire and writer at large for the New York Times, Elizabeth Bue Miller. So, John, we can start with that story right there, which is the idea that the courts are taking on sort of one by one, many of these executive orders. The president trying to sideline Congress, do things through executive order. And it is the other branch, the judicial branch, saying slow down.
- [26:48]
Mika Brzezinski
Yeah.
- [26:49]
Jonathan Lemire
And for many, the targeting of the law firms is among the most egregious sort of overstepping of the bounds here for the president. We know coming in the door here that he wanted to expand the use of executive power to a degree we have never seen before. And part of that was his campaign openly of retribution, trying to exact a price, a penalty from those he believed opposed him in his first term and then in the second campaign. But we have seen now the courts hold a number of cases, a lot of the immigration cases we've seen even some conservative judges, even some Bush appointed judges, even some Trump appointed judges have said this goes too far. And now we're seeing this is his third significant loss in terms of his targets of the law firms. And I know that there are some who believe that, you know, he also with Harvard University and he took another defeat there.
- [27:34]
Mika Brzezinski
There, there's some thought that more could.
- [27:35]
Jonathan Lemire
Be coming as well. So the White House is not budging. They feel like this is still, this is something they believe in. They want to wield power. As just noted, they extracted some real concessions. They got some wins early on this. So this is not something I think they will Stop. But you're right at a moment where Congress has largely washed its hands and said, do whatever you want on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The courts, at least for now, holding. Holding more firm.
- [27:59]
Willie Geist
You know, though, Elizabeth, it's a New York Times story this morning Noted reported that sometimes, even when you win in these cases, you end up losing. You have clients that are fleeing these law firms. You look at the situation. That's Harvard that Harvard's in. Michael Schmidt has reported repeatedly that while Harvard may be winning in court, they understand they're on an unsustainable course right now, that their grants that have fueled so much R and D across this country over the past 20, 30, 40 years, they're still in grave danger even. Even when they win court cases.
- [28:38]
Elizabeth Bue Miller
That's correct. I mean, in Harvard's case, that $53 billion endowment, most of that is earmarked. You can't just spend that. Harvard's been looking for major donors to come in and take up some of the slack. But I would say that on the other side, on the other side of Harvard, we have a story this morning just saying that what this has done at Harvard is unified for the first time in a long time, campus. So pro Palestinian students and pro Israel students and Jewish students are marching in lockstep, denouncing, you know, the President's executive order, trying to get Harvard, just trying to stop Harvard from enrolling international students. And I would also say in the case of the law firms, it has not gone so well for the law firms who have capitulated to Donald Trump. They are now facing demands from veterans across the country to take their cases. They're demanding. Trump is threatening to use them to negotiate trade deals. So they're not in a good situation either. And they're also losing partners who are just appalled that they're exactly capitulated.
- [29:49]
Jim Van DeHei
Yeah. They're so embarrassed. By the way, Alex counted, there are 26 exclamation points in that ruling. 26. All right.
- [29:58]
Willie Geist
I've never seen Elizabeth use one.
- [30:00]
Jim Van DeHei
Well, Elizabeth doesn't need one. She doesn't need one is extremely important. And. All right.
- [30:08]
Willie Geist
I love the text and the emails where there's, you know, people will put.
- [30:11]
Jim Van DeHei
One every, like, third word I write in all caps. So there you go.
- [30:16]
Elizabeth Bue Miller
I try and reduce my. Yeah, I try to reduce my exclamation points and emails. I try to cut back at them, sign a good case.
- [30:25]
Willie Geist
I feel it's.
- [30:26]
Joe Scarborough
It's judicious.
- [30:27]
Willie Geist
It's hard. Yeah.
- [30:28]
Jim Van DeHei
Oh, a sign of weakness.
- [30:29]
Willie Geist
Why not? I had somebody say if your words can't provide the emphasis without the exclamation point, then you're not writing that sentence well enough.
- [30:38]
Jim Van DeHei
I'm going to keep that in mind. Okay, moving on now, a new report from the New York Times reveals details about Donald Trump's pardon of a man convicted of tax fraud just one month after his mother attended a major fundraiser for the president. Former nursing home executive Paul Walzack pleaded guilty to tax crime days after the 2024 election and was ordered to pay more than $4 million in restitution and serve 18 months in prison. The Times reports a pardon application submitted around the time of Trump's inauguration cited Walzack's mother and her support for Trump, claiming her political activity motivated the prosecution against him. Trump eventually granted that pardon. It comes as the president announced just yesterday he will fully pardon reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley. The couple was found guilty in 2022 of multiple counts of financial fraud and tax evasion.
- [31:39]
Willie Geist
I mean bilt banks. The courts found over $30 million through the years, not even a close call, according to the courts.
- [31:49]
Jim Van DeHei
The Chrisley's attorney told the White House they were targeted because of their conservative views.
- [31:55]
Willie Geist
So, Jonathan o' Mear, this keeps happening, doesn't it? Donald Trump is using his pardon power in a way that no other president's used it before, and he's using it indiscriminately.
- [32:07]
Jonathan Lemire
Yeah, we usually see presidents issue pardons at the very end of their terms and certainly President Trump did that as well. A number of his predecessors, Republic Republicans, Democrats is like did the same. But we're now seeing it happen from day one. Let's remember that it was on the night of January 20th. Inauguration Day is when Trump pardoned the January 6th convicts, going much further than his staff had advocated. I had reporting at the time that there was most in the senior staff wanted pretty limited measures and there was a lot of arguments back and forth in the weeks and then days before the Inauguration day and it was only, only about 24 hours before Trump took the oath office again, we made a decision, everybody just do them all. And now we're seeing here again he feels that whether it's a conservative cause or a supporter of his or someone he can paint as a victim of the weaponization of government, put that in quotes from the Biden administration. He has shown Willie that he is not going to be reluctant. He's going to be very aggressive using the pardons. We've seen some blowback. We've seen some of those January 6th pardons some of those people have been rearrested for other terrible crimes. Some of the pardons have even gained some skepticism from fellow Republicans. But Trump has made no secret that he's going to keep using it.
- [33:22]
Mike Allen
And the people who got these pardons know what world leaders know, what Vladimir Putin knows. Flattery gets you everywhere.
- [33:27]
Jonathan Lemire
Flattery and money.
- [33:27]
Mike Allen
We love Donald Trump. We'll donate to your cause. Get us out of jail. And it works. Let's bring in New York Times reporter Kenneth Vogel. He's the author behind the Times picture piece on that pardon of Paul Walzack. Ken, good to see you this morning. So if you could just a little bit. I think people probably aren't familiar with who he is and what he did. He was headed for prison shortly before this came down. What more can you tell us about his case and how the pardon came?
- [33:53]
Kenneth Vogel
Yeah, he was set to be sentenced. He was actually already sentenced. I'm sorry. He was sentenced just 12 days before the pardon came down. And he was sentenced to. Sentenced to 18 months in prison and to pay this $4.4 million in restitution. And we should stress here, he had pleaded guilty. This wasn't like a contested thing. He pleaded guilty to two counts of taking tax, of basically payroll tax fraud. He had, like, taken the taxes, the federal withholding taxes out of the paychecks of his employees at these nursing homes and then $10 million worth. And then instead of giving them to the IRS to be used for their Social Security, Medicare, etc. Etc. Later, he spent at least part of that money on his own enrichment. He bought a $2 million yacht. He made purchases at Cartier, Bergdorf Goodman, Sachs, did a bunch of traveling. And he was aware of this and worked with the IRS for a number of years before he was criminally charged and then ultimately pleaded guilty. It's important to note the timing here. He pleaded guilty 10 days after President Trump was elected in 2024. So his family, which had deep ties to the Trump and had raised a bunch of money to the Trump family and raised a bunch of money for Donald Trump, had reason to believe, hey, this is potentially a good time for us to plead guilty because we have someone coming into the White House with access to this pardon power who's gonna look at our case sympathetically.
- [35:21]
Mike Allen
And we're looking, as you're talking, Ken, photographs of him posting to social media with the hat on. He's riding a bicycle with a Trump flag, doing all the things, sending all the signals he needed to get the pardon. But let's talk about his mother's role in this, who she is, the dinner she attended last month that perhaps led to this pardon.
- [35:38]
Kenneth Vogel
Yeah, she'd been a stalwart fundraiser in South Florida for Republican campaigns and party committees going back to the George W. Bush administration. But it's notable that her, her strength was really as a fundraiser that is bringing in checks from other people, including at fundraisers that she hosted at this lavish home that she had in Jupiter, Florida. So she didn't have a record of giving huge checks. And it's interesting that she was invited as she was waiting as her family was awaiting this word on this pardon. She was invited to a million dollar ahead candlelight dinner fundraiser with President Trump at Mar a Lago. There's really not a lot in her Federal Election Commission record that would suggest that she had the ability to stroke this kind of check. But it was certainly during a period when she and her son and her family wanted something from President Trump. And it's hard to ignore that timing that she receives this invitation to a million dollar fundraiser while they're awaiting the pardon and while the son is facing the prospect of 18 months in prison and $4.4 million in restitution.
- [36:50]
Jim Van DeHei
Gosh. All right, New York Times reporter Kenneth Vogel, thank you very much for your reporting. Thanks for coming on this morning. And coming up on MORNING Joe, we're going to take a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning, including last night's failed Space X test flight. We'll tell you what went wrong. Plus, we'll dig into new reporting from the Guardian on concerns from the White House over Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth's leak investigation that resulted in the firing of three Pentagon aides. MORNING joe. We'll be right back.
- [37:25]
Richard Engel
Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows are ad free. Plus ad free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra Bagman and Deja New. And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad free and with bonus content including why is this Happening? Main justice and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
- [37:59]
Jim Van DeHei
Welcome back to MORNING Joe. Look at that panoramic view of New York City at 41 past the hour.
- [38:06]
Willie Geist
Thanks, Ja.
- [38:07]
Jim Van DeHei
Jim, you co authored a new piece that just posted on Axios.com moments ago taking a critical look at the future of artificial intelligence. It's a pretty incredible piece. It's entitled behind the Curtain, a White Collar Bloodbath that is could be the result of A.I.
- [38:28]
Willie Geist
Well, yeah, and, and you know, Jim, people that run AI companies don't want to talk about it. They want to pretend it's not going to happen. Silicon Valley wants to pretend it's not going to happen. Wall street doesn't really want to talk about it. But the fact is, as you report, just like the technological revolution, the IT revolution gutted blue collar workers throughout the 90s and beyond, you're now talking about a bloodbath for white collar workers because of AI. And from what you've seen and what you're reporting on, it is going to be a bloodbath for workers.
- [39:07]
Mika Brzezinski
I mean, that is certainly the warning of Dario Amadei, who is the CEO of Anthropic. And just for your viewers, Anthropic is one of the top creators of this AI, these large language models in the world. So he has better visibility than probably all but two or three people in the world into the power of this technology. He'd been telling us in private for a while that this bloodbath could be coming, but that lawmakers don't want to want to talk about it. The federal government doesn't want to talk about it. AI companies don't want to spook people. We finally convinced him to go on the record. And his point is like, listen, just play with this technology, not just casually, like once you really dive into it, you realize it can do the work already of researchers, of analysts, of a whole host of entry level white collar jobs. And he put it in the starkest of terms. He said based on their early analysis, over a five year period, it could wipe out half of white collar entry level jobs. Unemployment could spike to 10 to 20% in the next five years. And this is a guy who's building the technology, who's boasting about the power of it. And when we push him on, then if you're building it, like how do you morally kind of think about it in your own mind? And he said, I have an obligation to build the technology. I also have an obligation to get the federal government to get lawmakers to get other AI companies to figure out how do we prepare the American worker and how do we protect, protect the American worker. And so, you know, as someone who runs a company, I run Axios, as a CEO, I spend an inordinate amount of time studying AI and how it's going to play out just in my space of media. And I can guarantee you in the next five years, it's going to radically transform the makeup of our company. Well, every single company in the World is doing this. Every CEO is sitting there saying, should I fill this role? Should I open this role? Will a machine do this better than man in the next couple of years, when you see data out about the difficulty of college grads finding new jobs, this is one of the early telltale signs that this could be coming. And so I think the column is very much worth a read. I wish lawmakers spent more time thinking about this rather than some of the small ball things that they debate day to day.
- [41:15]
Mike Allen
It's been fascinating to see many of the people who are developing AI technology, Jim, offering warnings about what's coming because of. And in your interview, he effectively says, you cannot stop this train. It's coming down the tracks. This is happening. I think the way he puts it in your interview, though, is you can steer it a little bit. What does that look like? What does steering it look like in his mind?
- [41:37]
Mika Brzezinski
I think it's sounding the alarm. It's like, listen, we gotta have a national debate that this isn't 10 years from now. It could be six months from now, it could be 12 months from now. Then there has to be a debate about, okay, how do you make sure that workers are prepared to use artificial intelligence to augment their work, not displace their work? That's what we've been doing at Axios. We gave everybody access to the technology. We have a deal with OpenAI. We make sure that every single unit, no matter what your job is, is already playing with this to figure out, how are you going to augment your work so you don't get displaced by it. Hell, I told my own staff, you're committing career suicide if you're not spending 10% of your day experimenting with the technology. And I don't think most people are. I think people are like, whoa, this is too science fiction. Or, you know, it's a really neat search engine. They're not actually looking at the capabilities. They don't have the time. They have real lives. But I think Dario's point was they might not wake up until it's way too late. And if lawmakers are way too late to it, you could have real issues. You could have unemployment, as he said, 10 to 20% if he's right, which would then lead to obvious political unrest. We have Steve Bannon, Bannon on the record in there saying he thinks the exact same thing is going to play out. He said Trump's not talking about it, but he thinks this will be maybe the biggest topic of the 2028 presidential election.
- [42:52]
Willie Geist
I mean, you Have Steve, you have Steve Bannon on the right, you have other people on the left very concerned about this. And Jim, underline, you underlined a point that I've actually told my kids, which is if you're going into an interview, if you're going into anything where you are going to be talking and you want to understand a topic, it's just foolish not to go, go on to a search engine app and a search engine app and dig in deep to try to understand company that you're talking to or an issue that you're talking about better. It's, it is, Elizabeth. It is the future. The future is now. And a lot of the spaces that we work in 10 years from now are going to look completely different because of AI and, and white collar workers across the country, as Jim said, are going to be deeply impacted.
- [43:47]
Elizabeth Bue Miller
Well, so Jim, tell me how, how exactly will this affect, like our business? So will we still have copy editors, reporters, bosses? What do you, what do you, what do you say?
- [43:59]
Mika Brzezinski
I don't, for journalism, I don't think that the machines are going to do the journalism per se. But if you play with it at all, you realize it's going to be a really good copy edit, it's going to be a really good marketer, it's going to be really good at doing research, it's going to be really good at doing marketing, it's going to be really good at taking any piece and maybe creating eight different variations to send it out to all the other platforms. And that's what I would encourage people to do, is play with it, assuming that the hallucinations and the errors go away because there are times where it is truly magical. Truly magical. And if that were to happen with human level efficacy, anybody running a company, I'm telling you, as someone who runs a company, they're always going to choose automation because they're going to believe that over time it's going to make their company more profitable and it's going to create more jobs. And that might be true. And that often is true with technology that in the long arc, it creates more jobs. What's different here is this is a technology that could hit hard in the next six to 18 months, and it's going to hit every single role potentially simultaneously. And something that fast, with that kind of breadth could have a much bigger effect than almost any of the topics that they're debating on Capitol Hill. And when you talk to members of Congress, it's alarming how little they know about this topic and how little and how infrequently they talk to their constituents about it. You're doing a disservice to the country if you're not starting to think through what does the world look like in 18 months to three years.
- [45:26]
Elizabeth Bue Miller
Yeah.
- [45:27]
Willie Geist
I mean, let's say you have 40 or 50 people in your company with AI, most white collar companies you could hire four or five people that know the right prompts to ask the right prompts of AI and it would cover so much of, so much of that work. And you are right. This is a, this is a five alarm fire and Congress is sleeping. Co founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van Dye, thank you so much. And Elizabeth, before we let you go, you got to talk about clubs and the ones that are popping up all over Washington, D.C. and how it explains just how divided the city is.
- [46:05]
Elizabeth Bue Miller
Well, there's a couple new clubs. The main one people are talking about is called Executive Branch. It's a Trump aligned club that is set to open very soon, next month, sort of in a subterranean space in Georgetown. That's the whole point to keep it from prying eyes. And this is Donald Trump Jr. Is one of the owners, donors, along with some of his business partners. And the idea is to keep everybody out except for the people that the Trump allies want in. And they're hoping that the president will stop by since he has lost the Trump Hotel. He sold it after the end of his first administration. And they're hoping he will stop by and that will, you know, do business. And the other important about Executive Branch is that it is it isit costs $500,000 as much as $500,000 to join. And bear in mind Donald Trump Jr. Is an owner. And so this is, this is a pretty steep price of access to the White House. And it's also very much enriching the Trump family. And there's another club called Ned's Club, which is a little less expensive. But also Scott Besant, the Treasury secretary hangs out there. There a lot of journalists. That's over across from the treasury building.
- [47:24]
Jim Van DeHei
All right, writer at large for the New York Times, Elizabeth B. Miller. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. And still ahead on MORNING joe, we're going to bring you the latest on the Trump administration's efforts to cut federal funding for Harvard and the broader implications it could have on higher education. Also ahead, we'll show you the surprising admission from a Republican congressman during a contentious town hall. MORNING JOE is coming right back.
- [48:03]
Mika Brzezinski
Live.
- [48:03]
Mike Allen
Picture the United States Capitol five minutes before the top of the Hour Rifts between Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, senior advisor now are fueling internal speculation about how long Hegseth will last at the Pentagon. Several former and current officials tell the Washington Post those issues within Hegseth inner circle are, quote, brought on by unresolved personality conflicts, inexperience, vacancies in key leadership roles, and a steady state paranoia over what political crisis could emerge next. One of the most fraught relationships reportedly is between Eric Garrison and Ricky Berea. Berea is functioning as an acting chief of staff. Sources tell the Post Republicans have tried to appeal that decision, citing Berea's warm relationship with officials in the Biden administration. It is unclear if the Trump administration will appoint someone else to do that job permanently. Meanwhile, new reporting from the Guardian finds the White House is losing confidence in Secretary Hagenow at the Pentagon. Three top aides were fired last month, you'll remember, amid accusations they disclosed military plans for retaking the Panama Canal. They have denied any wrongdoing there. Now, four people familiar with the incident tell the Guardian some advisers raised concerns an illegal, warrantless National Security Agency wiretap may have been used to oust them. The advisors later found the claim to be untrue, but complained they were being fed dubious information by Hegs personal lawyer who is overseeing the investigation. Joining us now, the reporter behind that piece for the Guardian, Hugo Lowell. Hugo, good morning. A lot in there, kind of to weave through characters to remember. So as you reported out this story, what was the bottom line? What did you find here?
- [49:48]
Hugo Lowell
I think the bottom line is that it's just a totally surreal situation at the Pentagon and no one really knows where this goes next. I think, you know, the story really begins when Hegseth fires these three aides to kind of like summarily just ejects them out of the building. After the investigation that had kind of been percolating for several weeks, supposedly developed smoking gun evidence that Dan Caldwell, who was one of the senior aides who was fired, supposedly leaked classified information to a reporter using his Post personal phone. Right. So the White House originally is like, well, okay, we'll take this at face value until several weeks later, someone actually follows up and says, well, how could you possibly know what's on someone's personal phone? At which point Tim Politori, who is Pete Hecseth's personal lawyer, effectively tells these Trump advisors, well, you know, I understood that to be because there was a warrantless, illegal NSA wiretap on Dan Caldwell's phone. And this claim kind of stunned everyone. It was relayed to. And it was went, you know, as far as people around the Vice President and the White House effectively decided that this claim could not possibly be true. And it led to this kind of breakdown in trust and this breakdown in relationship between the White House and the West Wing and the Pentagon. And we should say, of course, that Tim Politori has since denied having any knowledge of NSA wiretap and has told associates that everything he knows in the investigation was briefed to him by other people. And so I think you get a picture of just how convoluted and dysfunctional that front office has become.
- [51:20]
Jonathan Lemire
So, Hugo, let's dive in a little bit more on the relationship between Pentagon Hegseth staff, shrinking inner circle there and the White House. He largely escaped blame, at least internally, for Signalgate. Mike Walsh was a convenient scapegoat there. But I have reported, and others as well, that some in the West Wing staff really are dubious of Hegseth and his ability to do this job. Some of them openly speculated that his time may be relatively limited, that Trump's not looking to push him out now, but he's not someone who may be in the Pentagon for the long haul. The President himself, though, still pretty fond of him. What's the latest you're hearing in terms of Hagsett's future there and whether he's managing Trump well enough to stay in the gig?
- [52:02]
Hugo Lowell
Yeah, the best way it was described to me was one Trump aide saying, you know, he's one scandal away from being cut loose. And, you know, let's see how Hex Seth fares in the coming weeks and months. You know, there is speculation inside the Pentagon and I think in the West Wing that Hegseth might not last beyond the summer. But there's also this idea that if he does, you know, last through the summer, then he can have the job for as long as he wants because then he would have kind of proven himself, as it were, to the president. You know, I think it's. I think it's a really tough time for Pete Hegseth because he is trying to run the Pentagon, which is nearly a trillion dollar agency, 2 million troops deployed worldwide, and he has a staff that is really a skeleton crew. You know, he has six senior advisers on his team right now. You know, we talked about at the start of the segment about, you know, Ricky Berea, who is the acting or the de facto chief of staff. You know, he was the junior military aide to Hegseth all of what, five months ago, and he basically leapfrogged a bunch of people, because people either getting fired or they quit or they got reassigned, and he's basically the de facto chief of staff, started redecorating the chief of staff's office, even though he didn't have that position formally. And the White House kind of looked at. Looked at what was going on at the Pentagon and said, you know, Pete, there's no way we're going to allow Ricky Beria to be the chief of staff. And so I think there is this widening problem that the White House has with how the Pentagon front office is being managed. And I think what you're seeing is the White House step in to try and, you know, carve away any problem areas, any problem children that could lead, that could lead Pete Hegseth's tenure astray.