it actually is president biden who wants to eliminate these programs. biden went on the record saying again that he doesn't, and he wants to meet with mccarthy next week with a proposal, making it clear what he wants to do with the budget. cutting these programs is not one of them. >> the president's budget out next week. the republicans still haven't offered theirs in that defense of medicare and social security, a staple of every biden event right now. he points to republican plans to the contrary. eugene scott, thank you so much for joining us this morning. thanks to all of you for getting up "way too early" with us on this friday morning. have a great weekend, everybody. "morning joe" starts right now. so welcome to america in the year 2023. where we are destroying the country we love. that's what's happening right here in america. we are destroying the country we love. now, to be clear, it's not you,

it's not me. we're not destroying our country. it's the president of the united states who is destroying our country. it's the u.s. senate that is destroying our country. it's the news media. it's the democratic party, academia, hollywood, wall street, and many of our big corporations. >> wow. florida senator rick scott starting his cpac speech with a light hearted and optimistic tone. whew. >> bulgaria. >> plenty of maga messaging at the conference, just as you can see. not a lot of people there to hear it. >> not a lot. >> that was dark. that was really dark. donald trump will take the stage tomorrow. >> very reagan esque. that's where he said -- oh, wait, he said we're a city -- >> shining on the hill. >> right, for all the world to

see. >> no, that was not that. >> tone is a little different there, okay. >> incredibly different. anyhow, this trump appearance tomorrow is following a campaign announcement clearly influenced by florida governor ron desantis. we'll explain what's going on with those two. meanwhile, a new decision from the justice department connected to january 6th. it could mean more legal issues for the former president. my god, he has, like, four or five different legal cases against him going at the same time. how could he get more? now people can sue him? >> they have, like, bingo cards. >> for january 6th? >> yeah, at mar-a-lago. >> that's a lot of lawsuits. >> bingo cards, you know. this person shouts out, "georgia prosecution!" >> he's swimming in them. >> yeah, i know. >> good morning. >> january -- i mean. >> yeah. >> all over the place. >> all over the place. >> see where i'm going here. >> i do. >> enough potential prosecutions and civil lawsuits to fill a bingo card. >> okay. >> it is going to be a busy couple of years for the former

president. >> could be why he is running. good morning and welcome to "morning joe." it is friday, march 3rd. we made it to friday. can you believe it? who also made it to friday, think never understand after all the television he does, the host of "way too early" and white house bureau chief at "politico," jonathan lemire is still with us, hanging in there. >> still there. >> amazing. and pulitzer prize winning columnist at "the washington post," eugene robinson is here. and white house editor for "politico," sam stein. willie as the morning off. >> jonathan lemire, he got into -- >> he is energizer. >> -- a special club yesterday. >> what's that? >> he was attacked on truth social by the former president. >> oh, welcome. >> it seems those scars that he got politically from your question on helsinki continue to burn. >> yeah, the former president weighed in on "way too early" yesterday and its host, suggesting that i don't quite have what it takes.

look, we know mr. trump calls it like he sees it. who are we to dispute his assessment of things? i think the somewhat serious point about this is, you're right, joe, he has been talking about helsinki repeatedly in recent weeks. he know it is something he has to face as he ramps up his next presidential campaign. obviously, his assessment of vladimir putin is, shall we say, out of step with most of the rest of the country during russia's invasion on ukraine. >> well, and, of course, the question, for those of the uninitiated, it was jonathan lemire in helsinki in 2018 that asked donald trump, "do you trust professionals in the intelligence community, or do you trust an ex-kgb agent who called the collapse of the soviet union the biggest disaster of the 20th century?" donald trump, of course, chose vladimir putin over professionals that work every day to keep us safe. >> yeah. and -- >> that doesn't go away. you can't run away from that. >> no, you can't.

but i do think jonathan lemire has what it takes. >> thanks, mika. >> i think he is going to be okay. >> you know i don't lie. i say what i think. you know what you're getting from me, lemire. >> that's rare praise. i appreciate it. he also said i was boring. >> a little bit, but that's okay. you want to -- >> see, there we are. >> i'm an honest person, but this is good. you want to start from a solid base. you don't want to be trying to do lots of tricks and be a comedian, this and that. straight news. >> okay. >> right down the line. you're doing a great job, kid. >> you do that. i'm going to -- they just delivered "the wall street journal." you do want to continue this conversation. >> i was just giving him some tips. real estate there. >> thanks, guys. >> you're welcome, jonathan. we begin in south carolina, where a jury, you'll find this interesting, has found disbarred lawyer alex murdaugh guilty of murdering his wife, his son, and this happened in three hours. >> state versus richard alexander murdaugh, department,

indictment for murder, code 16-3-0010, cdr 0116, verdict, guilty. >> a jury of seven men and five women deliberated for less than three hours before unanimously finding the 54-year-old guilty. murdaugh was also convicted on two counts of weapons possession. following the verdict, the defense immediately moved for a mistrial, which the judge denied. the defense and prosecution then addressed reporters outside the courtroom. >> we're very disappointed in the verdict, but -- >> justice was done today. it doesn't matter who your family is. it doesn't matter how much money you have or people think you have. it doesn't matter what you think, how prominent you are. if you do wrong, if you break

the law, if you murder, justice will be done in south carolina. >> murdaugh faces 30 to 50 years in prison without parole on each murder count. he also faces up to five years for each weapons charge. sentencing is set for later this morning. >> i've got to say, you know, gene, usually, if the jury is out for three hours, they come back in, i don't know. you sense the weight of these charges are so grave and you have so much evidence. usually, that means, you know, they're going to dismiss him. i'm just surprised that they came to this that quickly. >> yeah. look, it took them three hours, it seems, to decide between guilty and guilty as hell. i mean, they just clearly -- you have to assume those jurors --

you know, i assume jurors do what they're supposed to do. they sat in the courtroom for 28 days. they heard the testimony. they didn't talk about it among themselves. they got in the room, and they discovered that, unanimously, they didn't believe this guy. they did believe the prosecutors. >> at all. >> you know, in retrospect, actually, at the time, you knew that when he took the stand in his own defense, that's usually a pretty desperate move as a man who knows the law. he's a lawyer. he knows how risky, how dangerous it is for a defendant to take the stand. he decided to do so, and i think that's because he knew that the case was going south. he was repugnant and so easy to

dislike and to disbelieve on the stand. you just have to confess to lie after lie after lie after lie. then the circumstantial evidence just was pretty overwhelming, that what happened was nowhere near what he said happened. in fact, it put him right at the scene of the murders. i think, what, four minutes before they happened. they found it overwhelming and convincing and, you know, three hours. >> wow. >> i mean, you look at his response to the guilty verdict. i mean, looked like he -- >> stone faced. >> looked like he was walking to lunch down the street. let's bring in attorney from palm beach county, dave aronberg. also legal analyst danny cevallos, a long-time defense attorney. dave, as active prosecutor, let me ask you, when you heard they were coming back at 30 minutes,

what was your thought? >> three hours. >> i mean three hours, what was your thought? >> guilty, joe. a five-week trial, three-hour verdict, after that mountain of circumstantial evidence, there was no way that jury was coming back in three hours with unanimous not guilty verdict. it was because he lied, and the jury, i think, was so repulsed by the fact that he lied to them, to their own faces. saying, essentially, yeah, he lied every day about his alibi, but today was the day he was telling the truth. because he said it was the opioids that made him so paranoid, that he lied previously. if the opioids made him so paranoid ae l that he lied and would it be so paranoid that he would kill? jury didn't buy it. justice was done. >> danny, it seemed very clear that he was -- i mean, he

convicted himself,practically, choosing to testify. he opened door after door, questions about innocence. he talked openly and kind of in a blase manner about hurting the people he loved. >> not only that, he admitted to paranoia when he was on massive amounts of drugs and all kinds of other lo lies he told. as soon as your client, the defendant, loses credibility with the jury, it's over. in a strange way, there was such a mountain of lack of credibility here, that it was almost lost in the case. so you're absolutely right. if we go back to the tape, you can hear his attorneys say when he is called, they don't say "the defense calls alex murdaugh," they say, "mr. murdaugh would like to testify on his own behalf." that could be a hint as to who really wanted to testify. was it the defense team, or i think more likely, the man who

believes he's been able to talk his way through absolutely everything. that is a hallmark of white collar defendants. they believe that if i just get a chance to get to the podium, i can explain everything away. just like alex murdaugh presumably did with all his financial fraud crimes he is accused of and now that he has to face. was his testimony planned? most of the time, it's a last-minute decision. he had a constitutional right to go up there and bury himself. >> dave, there's been some legal analysis, including from danny last hour, that suggested that the motive actually was -- remained unclear and was the weakest part of the prosecution's case. obviously, that didn't seem to matter to the jury, considering how quickly they came back with their decision. how usually is that, to have a motive that's murky? they set it aside but get a guilty verdict, especially a super quick one. >> danny is a smart guy. >> i think so. >> you don't have to prove

the why, and it was the weakest part in the state's case. he was a loving father but slaughtered his wife and son. why did he do it? he gave prosecutors an additional motive by testimony and why it backfired. it was the paranoia he admitted he experienced from the opioids. they made him paranoid to lie and also energized him. look, members of the jury, use your common sense. here's a guy hopped up on drugs who had nothing to lose. everything was coming down on him. he acted desperately. i thought a powerful moment in the close was when the prosecutor said, "yeah, he loved his son and loved his wife, but alex loved himself more than anyone else." >> i'm going to just throw this open to everybody. i know there are probably a lot of viewers that are like me. i didn't follow this closely.

and the thing that whenever i would walk past the tv set and i'd see him, and we just showed pictures of his family, his beautiful family, i would just sit there and go, what in the world? what's going on? what happened? why did he do it? why would any father do this? does anybody -- we just heard dave talk about the motive, one of the motives. does anybody have a good, convincing motive as to why this guy would do this? >> i have an answer to that. >> danny? >> the answer is who cares? prosecutors all the time convict people, and they don't even bother to introduce a motive. you know why? because crime is senseless. it doesn't make sense. you don't always find out the answers to your questions in a criminal case. >> right. >> the defendant isn't talking, and sometimes you'll have some robbery gone by. somebody robs someone who was their best friends five minutes before, and they get convicted. in the average run of the mill case with some nobody in some

impoverished neighborhood that you haven't heard of before, this would have been a guilty verdict in ten minutes, not three hours. so the prosecution almost buried themselves by introducing this motive theory. they didn't have to. you know what? you know how i know they know that? in the rebuttal, they addressed it. they pivoted away from this financial crime sympathy theory and told the jury, we don't need to prove motive. yeah, it would be great, but we don't have to prove motive. all you need to find is that there was one person there with a gun who killed his wife and son. it's that man. they used the old prosecutor tool, sure dave knows it, point again and again to that defendant in the room. look, the prosecution did a great job. don't get me wrong. but they almost sabotaged themselves with the financial crime evidence. even that i can't fault them for because they have the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt. it encourages backing up the back trump and putting everything you can in front of the jury. there's the paranoia you might

leave something else. good case on both sides. defense did the best they could with terrible facts. >> wow. >> danny just answered, if we could show the whole group right now. danny answered for the three lawyers that you see on the screen. me and the guys on the bottom right-hand side. but, gene robinson, for the non-lawyers, there are a lot of non-lawyers out there who says, i get what danny is saying, but i want to know. that's what people are going to be doing podcasts about the next two years. why did he do that? >> it's sad. >> hbo and netflix have done documents, both of which i recommend, on the murdaugh family, on this dynasty in this small, insular, low country county of south carolina. his great grandfather, his grandfather, and his father, all

of them, successively, were the solicitor, essentially the district attorney, for that judicial district in south carolina. it is a dynasty unbroken for 100 years. he also was a kind of deputy solicitor for a while, so he kind of was a prosecutor in addition to his own law practice. so they were very, very big fish in this small town, small pond of hampton county. he was kind of the end of the line. i mean, he was the one who, after all of that, had become addicted to opioids. he wasn't that great a lawyer. he made a lot of money, but he -- nobody accused him of being the brightest light, certainly, at the end of this line. his -- you know, the son he

killed had been involved, had been responsible for a tragic boating accident in which a young woman was killed. alex murdaugh had essentially tried to cover that up, tried to blame somebody else for it. there's a history of this family, and i think there is a sense, a southern gothic sense, of him sort of knowing he was the end of the line of this dynasty. >> yeah. >> going out in a blaze of annihilation. i mean, that's kind of what it feels like to me. >> my goodness. >> you know, sam stein has been obsessed with this trial from the very beginning. >> yeah. >> he's been taking notes. he's been sitting in front of the tv set. it's not even fair asking him about it. we're going to move on to the next story. >> maybe he has something to say about this. >> see if he has something to say about the next story. >> okay. justice department says

members of congress and members of the public can sue donald trump for his role in inciting violence on january 6th. in a court filing, attorneys for the doj wrote, trump does not have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits related to the capitol riot. it does not say whether trump is liable for the violence. an appeals court asked for the doj's opinion after trump claimed immunity to several lawsuits filed by two capitol police officers and 11 members of congress. trump says he was acting in his official duties when he told supporters he would never concede the 2020 election and that they should, quote, fight like hell. the doj argues presidential duties, quote, do not include incitement of imminent private violence, urging an appeals court to reject trump's immunity claims and return the cases to a lower court. a trump spokesperson said the president, quote, repeatedly called for peace, patriotism and respect for our men and women of law enforcement. >> yeah.

>> on january 6th. >> well -- >> and the court should rule in favor of president trump in short order. >> and sat back and watched. >> dismiss these frivolous lawsuits. their words. >> watched the violence for hours. rewound, according to his own trumper staffers. >> family members doing little dances. >> rewound and watched the violence again on his tv set. the most violent parts he would sit there and revel in while everybody called him. his family, his aides, his lawyers, everybody begged him to call off the violence. he refused to do so. so lots of luck with that in a civil court case. sam stein, of course, i know you're not a lawyer, but you can play one on tv. >> sure. >> obviously, the thing with the civil lawsuit is the standard is so much lower. this is yet one more legal headache for donald trump. >> well, yes, 100% agree with

that. i think you have to consider this in the broad context of the myriad different cases that he is dealing with, both from his time in office, his actions around the certification of the election, the recounts in various states, and, of course, his business empire up in new york which is, again, under scrutiny, legal scrutiny, that is. you know, this is just such a weird posture or position for someone to launch into a presidential campaign. it's a diversion of resources for him. he's had to hire so many different lawyers, it is very difficult to keep track of who is covering what. it is also very difficult for him to find lawyers. of course, if you are running for president, you're just having to wait for the next shoe to drop on any of these fronts. it could be something having to do with the retention of documents from his time in the white house, right? there's just so many different cases. you know, in a weird, perverse way, you can make the case that it could help trump.

it could rally his most loyal fans, the base behind him. i certainly think that's what they believe. the republican party will look at this as an unfair attack on him. but i think in the aggregate, this is not something you want to have to deal with when you're trying to win the presidency. >> that's the issue. look, it's merrick garland or, look, it's just, you know, georgia going after. no, it's coming from so many different directions. jonathan lemire, it seems -- well, it is just quite something to see. a man who has gotten away with cutting corners, gotten away with lying, gotten away with cheating, gotten away with stiffing contractors, gotten away with constantly thinking that he's above the law, that all of this seems to be coming together. we've seen the slow buildup over years. all of this seems to be coming together. i've got to say, we went over the list yesterday, i can't figure out what causes the most

immediate threat to him, georgia certainly is a problem as we said yesterday. he's got the perfect phone call. the perfect phone call for prosecutors. then you look at the document case at mar-a-lago. it's very clear, the guy lied through his teeth. >> on instructed an investigation. >> obstructed an investigation. >> anybody else would be in jail by now. >> the stormy daniels payoff money before election that was funneled through different channels. any member of congress would be in jail. you have the civil lawsuits. you have what's coming in new yorkside of his business. now, you have these cases which, man, you get a family member of a cop who got the hell beaten out of him on capitol hill on january 6th, while donald trump was sitting in the oval office

and people were begging for him to stop the violence and he refused. instead, he just kept rewinding the most violent parts where cops were getting their brains bashed in with american flags. i -- i would not want to be the defendant in that civil lawsuit. >> we're going to need to add an hour to the show to cover all the legal peril, all the cases that donald trump is facing right now. you're right, he is someone who, his whole life, has managed to escape without penalty. he's always managed to get out of it. yes, he lost the 2020 election so faced political repercussions there, but he's always someone who managed to somehow land on his feet. there is a sense that time might be ending, just because of the sheer, overwhelming number of legal challenges he faces right now. it takes one to trip him up. aagree with sam. there could be short-term rallies for his base, but in the

end, it'll be challenging for this man to run for president with all this burden. i'm not a lawyer who with rank them, the legal peril, but i'm surrounded by two of them. dave, we went through the list so we don't need to repeat them. but what is one or two that poses the gravest threat. >> the documents are the gravest threat to donald trump's future freedom. there is a direct tie between trump and the criminal conduct there. it's the obstruction. it's not the possession of the documents. biden and pence have nothing to do with this. it is his refusal to give them back. he said, "the documents are mine." you don't need a lot more than that. that's the greatest threat. georgia is a great threat, too, because the d.a. said charges are imminent. there is a recording of trump saying, "find me 11,780 votes." that is powerful evidence. we saw from the grand jury, it looks like he'll be indicted. the question is when.

i don't put too much stock in the new york litigation. tish james is doing something real from the civil side, but i don't believe my counterpart, the d.a., will indict the former president. he had the chance and didn't. i don't think it'll happen now. >> danny, what should trump be most worried about? >> the new york ag and d.a., their efforts have been mostly a fizzle. they've stopped, started. at the end of the day, the only thing they indicted was a company. which, at the end of the day there, is really about fines and getting money back. the money they got back was about $1 million. not a huge win there in my opinion. i would have said the georgia grand jury posed the biggest threat, but not necessarily on the substance. it's more because it is a state, a county prosecutor, and they have something the federal government doesn't have. the federal government is concerned about institutionalism, separation of powers. you can hear it when merrick garland gives a press conference. they worry about things like whether or not this will violate

separation of powers to charge a former president. a county, elected d.a., they can shoot for the moon. they can try to put the biggest trophy on their wall. in a sense, because they're elected, they're incentivized to do that. there is stuff on the substance, georgia poses a threat. i agree with dave, the documents are the greatest pressing threat. >> legal analyst danny cevallos and palm beach prosecutor dave aronberg, thank you, both. ahead, we have more from cpac. >> no, do we? >> we have a look at yesterday's speakers and how they tried to fire up the crowd with dire warnings about 2024 and red meat for the maga base. that's a crowd there. plus, mike pence won't say whether he would support donald trump as the 2024 nominee. what he had to say about better choices. also ahead, the house ethics committee has officially opened

an investigation into embattled republican congressman george santos. the latest on where that new probe stands. and what president biden is now saying about a potential trip to ohio in the wake of that toxic train derailment four weeks ago. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back. >> beautiful shot of new york. >> yes. people remember ads with a catchy song. so to help you remember that liberty mutual customizes your home insurance, here's a little number you'll never forget. ♪ customize and save. ♪ only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ my husband and i have never been more active. only pay for what you need. shingles doesn't care. i go to spin classes with my coworkers.

good for you, shingles doesn't care. because no matter how healthy you feel, your risk of shingles sharply increases after age 50. but shingrix protects. proven over 90% effective, shingrix is a vaccine used to prevent shingles in adults 50 years and older. shingrix does not protect everyone and is not for those with severe allergic reactions to its ingredients or to a previous dose. an increased risk of guillain-barré syndrome was observed after getting shingrix. fainting can also happen. the most common side effects are pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, muscle pain, tiredness, headache, shivering, fever, and upset stomach. shingles doesn't care but, shingrix protects. shingrix is now zero dollars for almost everyone. ask your doctor about shingrix today.

your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

we must finally hold social media companies accountable. it's time to pass bipartisan legislation to stop big tech from collecting personal data on our kids and teenagers online. ban targeted advertising to children. it is 32 past the hour. it's been a month since that train derailment and toxic chemical spill along the ohio-pennsylvania border. after previously saying he didn't have any plans to go to east palestine, ohio, president biden now says he is looking

into visiting the area. >> i've spoken with every official in ohio, democrat and republican, on a continuing basis, as in pennsylvania. i laid out a little bit in there what i think the answers are when we get together. we will be working with the legislature here. >> the white house also praised the senate's bipartisan railway safety act, writing in part, quote, this legislation provides us with tools to hold companies accountable to prevent terrible tragedies like the norfolk southern derailment in east palestine, and to make those communities whole. the legislation heightens fines for safety violations and requires more frequent inspections on routes carrying dangerous chemicals. meanwhile, residents in east palestine continue to demand answers from local officials and the rail company, norfolk southern. they express concerns about their health during a town hall

yesterday, saying they fear dioxins that have not yet been detected will cause long-term damage. the epa says it has ordered norfolk southern to begin testing for those chemicals. president biden surprised some senate democrats yesterday, telling them he won't veto gop legislation designed to rescind a new d.c. crime law. multiple senators told reporters that biden made an announcement at a closed door meeting yesterday with democrats on capitol hill. the d.c. city council passed the crime bill in january. it'd get rid of mandatory sentences and lesser penalties for lesser crimes like carjackings. the house blocked the bill in a bipartisan vote last month. house democrats who voted against blocking it cited washington, d.c.'s historical precedent of home rule or self-governance. the resolution still needs to pass in the senate.

so far, democratic senators joe manchin of west virginia, mark kelly of arizona, and independent senator angus king of maine have all told nbc news they support the resolution. the senate is expected to consider the resolution next week. >> gene, this is fascinating on so many fronts. you have a lot of democrats who support d.c. statehood, who don't usually like to get involved in things like this. >> mm-hmm. >> but i know a lot of people that live -- well, a lot of people, most people i talk to who live in d.c. talk about quality of life problems, crime problems, and they really want the city to be more aggressive. this bill seems to be going the other way. kind of an extraordinary moment where the democrats, enough democrats are siding with

republicans here to overturn this law. joe biden is going to step aside and let them do it. >> well, yeah. i mean, you know, there are problems in d.c. anybody who has been here any length of time knows that the quality of life in d.c. is now, you know, much better than it was 30 years ago. much better than it was 20 years ago. i mean, it is an incredible city. the issue right now is that the downtown is kind of empty, like every downtown, because of work from home after the pandemic. but home rule is, you know, a democratic party position of longstanding. it is an outrage that the city's citizens of the district of columbia, nearly 700,000 people, have no voting representation in congress. we had a revolution about that in 1776. i mean, it is -- these are citizens of the united states who pay their taxes and don't have representation.

what they have is -- they're under congress, essentially. what they have is a commitment, a law of home rule structure that allows the district to make its own decisions to appoint. congress can always intervene. there are a lot of people who don't like this new bill, this new crime bill and feel it is too lenient. congress has the right to block it. i think president biden probably doesn't like it either, but he certainly decided that, as he looks ahead toward 2024, that he is not going to be on the wrong side of this issue, or what he sees as the wrong side of this issue. he cares about that enough to essentially violate this principle that the democratic party has held for a long time, that citizens of the district of columbia ought to be able to

make their own decisions. there have been over the years a number of sort of, you know, originalist, constitutional republicans who have taken the same position. when they have run the relevant committees, have taken the position that, no, d.c. ought to be able to make its own decisions. but congress still has the ultimate say. apparently, they're going to exercise it in this case. >> all right. coming up, steve rattner says it's not clear what the u.s. can do to punish china if it sends military support to ukraine without hurting our own economy. he'll join us with charts on that and explain. also ahead, we'll speak with a former cia officer afflicted by the so-called havana syndrome after an intelligence community assessment found no evidence linking the mysterious illness to any foreign adversary. plus, we'll be joined by the ranking member of the intel house committee.

"morning joe" will be right back. (psst psst) ahhhh... with flonase, allergies don't have to be scary spraying flonase daily gives you long-lasting, non-drowsy relief. (psst psst) flonase. all good.

what causes a curve down there? is it peyronie's disease? will it get worse? how common is it? who can i talk to? can this be treated? stop typing. start talking to a specialized urologist. because it could be peyronie's disease, or pd. it's a medical condition where there is a curve in the erection, caused by a formation of scar tissue.

and an estimated 1 in 10 men may have it. but pd can be treated even without surgery. say goodbye to searching online. find a specialized urologist who can diagnose pd and build a treatment plan with you. visit makeapdplan.com today.

if that standard bearer is the former president, if he is the nominee, would you support him? >> well, i think we'll have better choices. i really trust republican voters to sort it out. again, i'm very proud of the record of the trump/pence administration. i think no one could have defeated hillary clinton in 2016 other than donald trump. but i think different times call for different leadership. >> that's not a yes in terms of supporting trump if he's the nominee. >> i'm very confident we'll have better choices come 2024, and

i'm confident our standard bearer will win the day in november of that year. >> former vice president mike pence remaining cagey over whether he'd support his former boss in 2024. >> that bothers you, doesn't it? >> he's saying trump is a bad choice, saying we'll have better choices. a very bad choice for the republican party, a horrible choice, and there will be better choices. is he the better choice? i guess republicans can decide that. >> i mean, you know, sam stein, let's say you're running and you want to win the republican nomination. >> right. >> you know donald trump has 40%, maybe 45% support on a good day in that party. i think it is going to be hard to say, "no, i won't support the republican standard bearer," even though it is deeply offensive to us. if you're still in that party and want to win that nomination, how do you tell 45% of the people you won't vote for a

republican when you want to be the republican nominee? >> this is the existential question right now for republicans. we were writing about this in "politico." how big is the always trump portion of the party, right? we talk about the never trump portion, but what is the always trump portion of the party? those people who will essentially say that they'll sit out the election if trump is not the nominee. you know, they may be full of it right now, and that's the calculation i think pence is others are making. you can keep them in the fold, but you have to somehow win the nomination without offending them and winning the nomination means defeating donald trump. the flip side of this, of course, is that if you don't go after trump by name, you risk something similar to what happened in 2016. which is essentially everyone is trying to be the last man standing against trump. in this case, the last man or woman standing against trump, and he end up getting by with that 35% to 40%. so far, you know, it's really early, obviously, and we only have a couple declared

candidates and pseudo candidates, but, so far, you're seeing that same script, right? nikki haley is a great example of this. someone who is clearly trying to contrast herself with trump but not doing so in name. she does it by saying, oh, we need to have mental acuity tests for politicians over 75. well, that would be trump. we need generational change. we need to get rid of the permanent politician. those are subtle digs at trump. remember, nikki haley said trump disqualified himself at january 6th. one thing haley has not brought up on the early part of the trail is january 6th. none of these candidates want to go after trump for his weaknesses. they're hoping he can go away or they can whisk him away. >> it's like they're pretending he doesn't exist. >> it doesn't work. hoar is nikki haley trying to do it. >> i don't kick sideways. i'm kicking forward. i don't kick sideways. i kick forward. i talk about joe biden. i'm not worried about trump.

>> i don't even know -- >> what does that mean? you have a primary to win. >> who kicks sideways? what do you do -- >> opponents. you can kick sideways. >> you trip? i don't get it. >> i think in a primary, you need to, to win. >> kick sideways? >> look -- >> i don't -- >> is there any way to speak to donald trump's base about -- to be a republican t maybe pence, maybe haley, maybe somebody well-known in the republican party who worked with trump, who decides to address his people, the trump base, the maga base, whatever you want to call it, and say, "this man has led you astray. this man supports insurrections." >> no, they don't care about that. they tune to a network that lies to them about that every night, who admits that they lied to

them every night. they don't care. they're tuned into an alternative reality system. they gobble up the lies every day. they love it. they don't care about that. they don't care about the fact that donald trump said that he wanted to -- he wanted termination of the united states constitution. they don't care that donald trump revved rioters up on january 6th and that he sat in his oval office and -- his side office and watched the rioting, then would rewind to rewatch the most violent parts while cops were getting their brains beaten in. and while kevin mccarthy and others were calling him, begging, screaming at him to call off the rioters. he refused to do it. they don't care. they are forever trumpers. you know, what's that number? it may not be 40%. it may not be 45%. it's certainly enough, though, that if somebody other than donald trump wins the nomination, doesn't matter what

these people are doing going halfway. there's going to be at least 5%, 10%, 15% that stay home and will not vote for any candidate other than donald trump. the thing is, you know, jonathan lemire, you've got the guy. he's king of the hill of the republican party and has been since 2016, since early 2016. you're not going to beat the king of the hill without going up to the top of the hill and pushing him off. you can't shout from the bottom of the hill, "i kick sideways. i don't kick side" -- i mean, that doesn't work. you have to go to the top of the hill. >> that's what i was asking. >> the way you do it, though, is, i mean, it's the whole -- he's done a great job for us in 2016. he won an election nobody else could have won. you know, use the mike pence line. but we've done nothing but lost

since then. give him a gold watch, thank him for his service, and now let's start looking ahead. we can't afford to keep losing to democrats like we did in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022. i mean, it seems to me they're all being too cute by half, and it won't work. you can't take out, you know -- it's old saying about the king, and we'll say it politically. if you go after the king politically, you better take him out. >> yeah, there is a real sense on strategists from both parties that, yes, donald trump was the only republican who could have won in 2016. he might be the only republican who would lose in 2024. now, let's be clear, that underestimates the incumbent president, joe biden. though his approval numbers are middling, can point to an impressive list of accomplishments. the white house feels good about their chances. the white house feels good about

their chances particularly against trump. we've seen that race before in 2020. president biden won. there's no sense that donald trump is more popular now than he was in 2020. you know, obviously, since then, the insurrection and then, of course, his hand-picked candidates lost in 2022 for the republicans in those midterms. you'll have a diminished trump going into this potential rematch, a rematch that joe biden won the first time any wiianyway. if it is a different candidate, the age of the president is more of an issue, but there is the old change versus more of the same argument that is powerful in politics. that would be, some believe, a more competitive race. if you are ron desantis and bite your tongue right now, you'll have to change at some point. nikki haley, pompeo, pence, whoever it is, you have to go at him and knock him off. >> donald trump will make a campaign stop in davenport,

iowa, in march, his first stop there since announcing his bid in november. it was hours after ron desantis said he is visiting iowa. it's three days before trump on march 10th for his book tour. joining us now, the co founder". new reporting on trump's plans to attack desantis. >> good morning, mike. >> good morning, joe and mika. first thing's first, happy friday. >> he still has it. >> love it. >> tell us about donald trump's plan to defeat ron desantis. >> yeah, joe, this is a great contest to see who can get in whose head. so donald trump is trying to scare ron desantis out of the race. he's trying to rattle his self-confidence, his support, and that's why he, according to conversations he's having with

friends that we've talked with, is going to be going after him, ramping up the rhetoric. mika, joe, why this matters is that trump thinks that florida governor ron desantis is the republican who is most likely to go the distance. he can imagine the republican primary winding up as a two-person race. so he is trying to use his fear factor against desantis. of course, you well know a reason the opponents aren't attacking trump is they know he'll come at them. for desantis, trump will talk about his past, talk about cutting entitlements, medicare, social security, when he was a congressman. he'll talk about the loyalty he thinks that he should have for trump who was a big help in making him governor. trump has been truthing, as he calls tweeting on his platform, truth social, he's been talking

a lot about paul ryan, trying to say that desantis is a lackey of the former speaker and shares his views. he's going to go after, ironically, desantis to say that he was too cautious about covid. of course, largely the rap on the governor is the opposite. fifth, mika and joe, he'll say that he's waffled on ukraine. as we do this contest of who is in whose head, governor desantis is not taking the bait. he's brushing it off. his staff is not commenting. the other day, governor desantis dismissed what donald is saying, his constituent in palm beach, as background noise. >> mike, it's sam stein here. i'm just sort of curious, of those five, a couple of them actually say more about trump than desantis. the idea that he may be feeling vulnerable on covid, for instance. i'm curious about, actually, number one, the medicare and

social security stuff. i presume that this came up when desantis was running for governor of florida, the issue that he wanted to make drastic changes to social security. this is odd to come up in the context of republican party, but talk a little bit about how trump world views this as a vulnerability. the fact that desantis is married more toward the conservative idea of reforming these entitlement programs, and trump's vision which is that you don't touch them at all. >> sam, those are two very smart points. just on covid, you're totally right. president trump is going to try to -- former president trump is going to try to fight that issue to a draw. then on entitlements, social security and medicare, this is a very interesting window into the voter groups that these two candidates are going after. donald trump, who has said republicans should shy away, pull away from any kind of talk about cuts of entitlements. he's always been there. it's because his crowd is older.

those are voters who are more dependent on that. whereas, ron desantis, much younger, has a more traditional, conservative ideology. that's where president trump is going to try to tie him to paul ryan. he'struthing, his version of tweeting, about paul ryan. i think that you're right about it saying a lot more about trump. paul ryan not top of mind for probably a lot of people, but trump is trying to put him there. >> the co-founder of "axios." >> again, it's amazing that donald trump, again, it's all personal grievance. he's not looking forward at all. there are no predictions. talking about paul ryan. >> you can predict every move. >> who cares about paul ryan? >> i like paul ryan. >> yeah, i like paul ryan, but who cares? >> why do republicas like paul ryan. >> oh, being connected to paul

ryan is a negative? who is going to go, oh, boy, i can't vote for ron desantis? >> that's the point. >> nobody is thinking that. >> and the same thing on his, oh, he's not loyal to donald trump. if you're looking for an alternative, that's probably not the game-changing issue for you. >> right. >> exactly. the co-founder of "axios," mike allen. >> happy friday, mike. >> happy weekend. >> yes. >> thank you for being on. ahead, we'll look at the stories making front page headlines in papers across the country. also ahead, former cia officer mark polymeropoulos explains why the gop is abandoning its reputation as the party of national security. "morning joe" is coming right back. okay everyone, our mission is complete balanced nutrition. together we support immune function. supply fuel for immune cells and sustain tissue health. ensure with twenty-five vitamins and minerals, and ensure complete with thirty grams of protein. ♪ this feels so right... ♪

adt systems now feature google products like the nest cam with floodlight, with intelligent alerts when a person or familiar face is detected. sam. sophie's not here tonight. so you have a home with no worries. brought to you by adt. big pharma has been unfairly charging people hundreds of dollars, making record profits. not anymore. we capped the cost of insulin at $35 a month for seniors on medicare.

second date, wish me luck buddy. mouth to mission control. we have a denture problem. over. roger that. with polident cleanser and polident adhesive refresh and secure for any close encounter. if your mouth could talk it would ask for polident and poligrip.

are you concerned that china is covering up the full extent of coronavirus? >> china is working very hard, and i think they're doing a very

professional job. >> there's just some talk in china that maybe the transparency isn't everything that it's going to be. do you trust we're going to know everything we need to know from china? >> i do. i do. i have a great relationship with president xi. we're working very closely with china and other countries, and we think it is going to have a very good ending for us. we are coordinating with the chinese government and working closely together. we are working with them. you know, we just sent some of our best people over there. we're working with china, just so you know, and other countries very, very closely so it doesn't get out of hand. >> there are worries about a pandemic at this point? >> no, not at all. we have it totally under control. it's one person. >> oh, my god, wow. >> gene robinson. >> it is brutal. >> i have to say, it's something that the energy department comes out with low confidence that it may have been a lab leak, and all the trumpers just go absolutely wild. go, "oh, my god, we told you all along. how dare you, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah."

>> yeah. >> they don't understand. here's another example. here's another example of whatever they open their mouths and try to launch a conspiracy theory, they're the ones that end up looking like fools. because you have donald trump on january 24th saying, "thank you, president xi, on behalf of the american people. they are being transparent," et cetera, et cetera. and "china has been trying to contain the coronavirus. the united states greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. it will all work out well for the american people. i thank president xi," said donald trump. >> on january 24th. >> he was asked, think china is covering it up? he said, "no, no, they're doing a great job. china is working very hard, very professional. i've got a great relationship with president xi. we are coordinating with china. we are working very, very closely." you go on and on and on. >> yeah.

>> it's donald trump who, when it mattered the most, was saying, "no, china is doing a great job, and president xi is my friend. we should be grateful that they're so transparent." >> absolutely. he is sort of the political gift that keeps on giing for the democratic party. because he was so wrong about so many things, and there's always a tweet, there's always a statement, there's always video of him taking positions that the republican party now cannot possibly defend. this is a great example. so if he wants to sort of fight, if they want to fight on the battleground of donald trump's reaction to and handling of the pandemic, especially initially, be my guest. i mean, they're not going to get very far with that. >> yeah. >> and -- >> by the way -- sorry.

go ahead, gene. >> no, i was going to say that it's also kind of crazy, the way they have been reacting to this he confidence finding about the lab. it may well be the virus did, in fact, escape from the lap. it may well be that it came from an animal. the problem is that china won't let us find out. they won't give us the information. >> yeah. >> that the world needs to figure that out. so far from being our great friend, president xi is obstructing this really, really important research that needs to be done about the virus. >> well, yeah. you know, i said two years ago on this show, in june, we don't know. it could be a lab leak. it could have happened at the wet market. we won't know until china cooperates. but, you know, even then, i was saying, and a lot of other people were saying, china is

just not cooperating. we were saying that from the beginning. matt pottinger from the beginning, inside the trump white house, was telling trump, they're not cooperating. they're hiding things from us. they're lying to us. what did donald trump say? well, for those of you just waking up, let's take another look. this is what donald trump said. >> are you concerned china is covering up the coronavirus? >> no, china is working very hard, and i think they're doing a very professional job. >> there's just some talk in china that maybe the transparency isn't everything that it's going to be. do you trust that we're going to know everything we need to know from china? >> i do. i do. i have a great relationship with president xi. we're working very closely with china and other countries, and we think it is going to have a very good ending for us. we are coordinating with the chinese government and working closely together. we are working with them. you know, we just sent some of our best people over there. we're working with china, just so you know, and other countries

very, very closely so it doesn't get out of hand. >> are there worries about a pandemic at this point? >> no, not at all. we have it totally under control. it's one person. >> again, one person. if you're just waking up, again, donald trump tweeted on january the 24th of 2020, back when his administration, when people like matt pottinger were begging him to try to get information out of china, he was saying, "china has been working very hard to contain the coronavirus. the united states greatly appreciates their efforts and transparency. it will all work out well." >> geez. >> "in particular, on behalf of the american people, i want to thank president xi." and he said that china is working very hard, i have a great relationship with president xi, on and on and on and on. yeah, if trumpers want to fight on that ground, let's fight on that ground. let's do it. let's talk about who said what, when they said it, and who was

in china's corner when it mattered the most. as things were breaking, when we could have gotten more evidence, let's talk about that. because donald trump was saying president xi was being transparent. on behalf of the united states, donald trump thanked president xi. so, you know, when it mattered the most, he was in the pocket of the leader of china. >> absolutely. as for the current administration's handling of china amid growing concerns the nation is considering providing lethal aid to russia's war effort. u.s. secretary of state antony blinken did not meet with any chinese officials during yesterday's g20 meetings, but blinken did speak about china yesterday, saying at a press conference, america's concern is shared by other countries. he added, those nations brought it up with chinese officials themselves during yesterday's meetings. leaders of allied nations are

also voicing the same concern. in a speech to german parliament yesterday, chancellor olaf scholz warned china against arming russia and called on beijing to pressure moscow into withdrawing. chancellor scholz will meet at the white house today with president biden. >> front page of the "wall street journal," you actually have the lead story being that blinken met lavrov at the g20 talks, warned him against giving weapons to russia. or told him that he was going to be -- that we were going to be staying there for quite some time. the warnings, of course, going to china. i'm curious -- from other countries. i'm curious, why didn't blinken meet with any chinese officials yesterday? i know they've been trying to get together and meet. there was talk about joe biden

making, you know, david ignatius, talking about the importance of him calling president xi and reopening conversations. what is the latest from the white house? >> blinken did meet with his counterpart just a week or so ago at a different international gathering. there was no meeting yesterday. there is some talk of future conversations between him and the foreign minister. presidential phone call in the mix, but we were asking about this yesterday. certainly, the white house suggested nothing has been scheduled yet. certainly tensions remain high. the lavrov point, we should note, he's fallen out of putin's inner circle. there's a limit to how significant that meeting was. the two men seemed to be talking past each other anyway, so no progress there. encouraging, of course, there was any conversation at all. the first in-person meeting between blinken and lavrov since the war began last february. joe, just to also talk about, button up what you were saying

about donald trump and china. i broke the news that january, january of 2020, the reason why trump pulled his punches, didn't want to criticize xi jinping is the u.s. and china were on the brink of signing a trade deal, which trump thought would juice the economy and, in particular, the stock market, which would be that much more helpful for his re-election bid. so he didn't want to criticize beijing and endanger that deal. of course, events with the pandemic spun out of control from there. the deal didn't happen anyway. but that is why he was so rosy with xi jinping for weeks and months in the early stages of this virus. >> well, joining the conversation, we have former u.s. senator, now an nbc news and msnbc political analyst, claire mccaskill. claire, we are so glad you're back and everybody is okay. i know you had a scare in your family, a health issue, but we are just so blessed to have you back and happy for you. >> thank you. i just need to tell you that there is one thing that makes

everyone on twitter be nice, and that is having a grandson that is diagnosed with a brain tumor and has to have emergency surgery. everyone was so kind. he's home from the hospital and doing great, and i'm very grateful to all the people out there that expressed love and prayers and support. >> oh, my goodness. claire, thank you for sharing that. we're so glad you're back, and we're so glad he is okay. also joining us this morning tr "morning joe" economic analyst, steve rattner. he brought with him his charts on the economic state of u.s.-china relations. really perfect timing for the charts. >> perfect timing. steve, you say it is not going to be quite so easy to punish china economically if they send weapons to russia. why is that? >> it's not going to be quite so easy, joe, because china is a completely different kettle of fish from russia in terms of our economic relations with them. our dependence on them

economically and their centrality in the world economy. what you can see is how important china is as a source of our imports. we import $500 billion a year of stuff from china. it is, by far, our largest trading partner. four times what we imported from them as recently as 2021. eclipsing all these other countries. >> steve, that cuts both ways, too, right? we're their number one market, so both of us have an incentive to figure out how to make things work, right. >>incentive. it's a mystery to some of us as to why china even wants to get into this ukraine, russia, u.s. triangle, but they do. yes, it definitely goes both ways. they want to sell stuff to us, but it also limits our ability to put sanctions on them, particularly when you look at the number and range of products that we get heavily, if not completely, from china. >> all right. let's talk about your second chart. >> well, that's exactly what my

second chart shows. what you can see here on the left is what we get from china. and the percentages of it. we get something like $80 billion. we import $80 billion a year of cell phones from china. we don't really make cell phones here anymore. 60% of all our cell phones come from china. computers, slightly less money but similarly high percentage. toys we don't make here anymore. they mostly come from china. so on and so forth. what is interesting, you contrast it on the right with what do we send to china? the answer is not a heck of a lot. soybeans went down under the trump administration. few other odds and ends. some computer chips, n1s. the balance of trade power is, unfortunately, very much on the chinese side. let me also add, things we did to russia, like cutting them out of the world financial system, barring all trade with them, things like that, it is not

practical to do with china given these numbers i'm showing you. >> steve, your next chart surprised me. i must say, over the past several years, obviously, you're talking to ceos, business owners, entrepreneurs, investors every day. you know, i do it randomly here and there. my gosh, every time i strike up conversations with ceos or business owners, entrepreneurs, investors, i always ask about china. i'm fascinated by it. the last several years, nothing but negative comments. they hate working and traveling to china. the second they go to china, their phone is being hacked into. their laptops are being hacked into. environmentally, they don't like it. they say the people are not the nicest people in the world. i mean, it is just a deluge of criticism about working in china, working with china. far different than it was, say, ten years ago when people were

all excited about rushing into china. but you say that our ownership stakes, despite all of that, continue to grow in chinese businesses. tell us about it. >> yeah, joe, i agree with, certainly, everything you said. none of us particularly like going to china. dealing with the chinese can be difficult, opaque at best. but you can see on this chart what has happened to u.s. companies' activities in china. they are simply getting more deeply into china with every passing year. you can see here, for example, tesla, which sold no cars, really almost anywhere back in 2011, now sells 26% of its cars in china. intel, 26% of its sales are in china. companies like nike, apple, starbucks, all very heavily dependent on china for their sales. now, this doesn't mean they make stuff here and sell it to china. we don't do that. they make stuff either in china

or elsewhere and sell it in china. but it is a very important source of profits for these countries. so it's a love/hate relationship, really, between the companies in china. they don't love it but they know they need it. later this month, china will, for the first time in three years, have their international chinese development forum. you're going to see a parade of u.s. ceos, led by tim cook from apple and so on and so forth parading over to china to continue to try to do business there. so all this makes it so difficult. it makes it so difficult for us to do anything along the lines of what we did in russia. we can sanction some individual companies. we've done that. we can ban some exports of critical technologies, we've done that. in terms of really broad-based, economic punishment, that doesn't seem likely. >> yeah. claire, let me just ask you, if you were on a committee right now in the senate, let's show

this third chart, everybody is talking about tiktok. i certainly understand why. talking about the need to get it out of -- get it out of -- whether it is government-owned phones. >> devices. >> you know, i just look at apple and wonder, how wise is it for all of us to be carrying around telephones, communication devices that are so easily hacked into, the majority of which were made in china? >> well, i think tim cook would disagree with you, that an apple phone is easily hacked into. but there is no question that china has been stealing our stuff for a long time. in business, in variety of different ways. they are -- they have robbed us of a lot of technology. there's no question about it. this interdependence is the challenge. from my perspective, the more difficult question about china

is the move they're making on russia right now. i'm worried about taiwan. because if the american public loses its appetite for supporting ukraine, if the american public decides that, politically, they're not that excited about our assistance to ukraine, how would the american public feel about going to war over taiwan? china knows that. we are in a more vulnerable position because of the fatigue that americans are beginning to feel about the financial support of the ukraine military. so i think that is something, aside from the economy, that is really -- should be front of mind for a lot of policymakers in washington. >> i want to bring in marc polymeropoulos. we're going to be talking about your piece, about how the party of law and order is ruining its reputation when it comes to national security. first, i want to ask you, if you gave the u.s. intel community

the ability to figure out how to hide tracking devices inside telephones because you knew that every chinese government official and every russian official and every north korean official and every other official that you consider to be a serious rival, if they were all having their phones made in the united states, how much confidence do you have that our intel services would figure out a way to put some sort of surveillance device inside those telephones? >> well, joe, as i sit here with my iphone in my pocket now, of course, i'm smiling, but, look, in the intelligence business, i think we've evolved from the notion of, if you have a cell phone, turn it off, in terms of sensitive conversations, to don't bring your cell phone anywhere near a location where you have sensitive conversations. in essence, it is a giant communications and tracking device. there's gps units embedded there. it's going to tell people where

you are, and, you know, there's lots of reports that even if your phone is off, it can be actually activated. at the end of the day, you know, in the intelligence world, a cell phone is something you don't want anywhere near any type of sensitive conversations. i think that goes across the board. we have to assume our adversaries have this technology. i can't comment if the united states does. cell phones are something we have to take more seriously when you talk about security. >> you don't have to talk about whether we do because whenever somebody talks about whether other countries are doing something that's so terrible as far as listening in or whatever, i always say, multiply that by ten, and that's our technology. when the russians found out the middle of the mueller investigation that not only did we know who hacked into the dnc, we knew what base it was on, what building it was on, what computer terminal it was on, what keystroke was used, i think the russians and the rest of the world got an understanding of how advanced we are.

but that said, again, you know, one of my last conversations with john mccain, we went in and were talking about russia. he said, turn off the phone. he -- >> get it out of here. >> -- talked about conversations he had where cell phones were had been picked up by the russians. >> what about my dad five years before that? >> yeah. >> we were, like, oh, okay, what are you talking about? >> dr. brzezinski warned us all the time about it. you know, now, you're exactly right. we were doing interviews at the pentagon, those fo phones didn'o into the rooms. you know, you put them outside the room. so, you're right, they are massive listening devices. i don't know. >> so -- >> go ahead. >> marc, tell us more about your piece. the conversations we've been having over the past hour seem to back up your theme here. that the republican party u once

the party of national security, is imploding on that very credential. >> mika, i wrote the piece almost imploring, you know, members of the gop, and there are members who really do care about national security, you know, the heads of the foreign affairs committee, the heads of the intelligence oversight, the new china committee, these are people who are serious. but my point was two-fold. one is this notion of releasing 40,000 hours of footage on january 6th, you know, into the public is crazy from a security perspective. it's almost giving operational blueprints of the capitol. this is what criminal groups and terrorist groups want to see. it shows camera locations, ingress and egress routes. my appeal is, don't do this. the second part is this kind of budding controversy over the fisa 702 program. the u.s. can compel companies that, you know -- or u.s.-based

companies to turn over data on non-u.s. persons operating abroad. who is that? terrorists, spies. but they're using u.s. communications infrastructure. for a long time, privacy groups on the left didn't like this program. now there is a soundbite on the right saying it is spying on americans. that's not true. the administration has been quite good at putting forth arguments, that, look, the fisa 702 program is important in catching terrorists. that's how we found and killed the leader of al qaeda. i ran a unit at cia, counterterrorism unit that used the 702 program very successfully. look, you're always looking for reform, but you can't gut this program. you can't send me with a knife into a gunfight. that's what i would always say. and so, you know, this 702 program is really important. i would urge the national security republicans to push for reauthorization. >> yeah. you know, gene, marc brings up

some great points here. you do have people like mike mccaul. we've seen the china committee. it got off to a good start. it's under republican leadership but acting in a bipartisan way. mike gallagher is running the committee, and it's running in the way committees used to be run on capitol hill when you have serious matters at hand. even in the house, there are national security republicans. yet, you have other people closest to kevin mccarthy. you have kevin mccarthy releasing these tapes and accusing the ukrainians of starting the war and americans being the ones that are killing russians. it's really a bizarre turn for a party that used to be a party of national offense. now attacking our military, attacking our intelligence officers, attacking the very people who try to protect us day in and day out.

>> yeah. it seems like the hawk party is now the dove party. it seems like they are -- it seems they've almost switched roles. you know, i think there is a point at which there can be agreement on this stuff, and i think that point is that there be enough transparency for americans to at least know, for example, what the patriot act and other legislation is, what it allows in broad terms. maybe the specifics of programs like the program that marc was talking about. but, in general, we need to know what the law is that our congress passed and our president signed, what they mean for our own privacy. once we know that, yeah, we cannot send our intel agencies into a gunfight with a

switchblade. i mean, we can't do that in this atmosphere. everybody listens to everybody all the time, but if we're not on top of this game, we're really going to suffer. >> you know, i think this also -- marc's article brings up a point about what is the republican party right now? what do they stand for? it feels like the only thing they're doing is shadow boxing cultural issues. because that party used to be the party of strong national security, strong military presence, smaller government and, meanwhile, they're using the heavy-handed government to try to control local school boards around the country. so i don't understand where the republican party -- and since you've written an article for "the washington examiner," i would love marc to speak to, what is the republican party today? what does it stand for?

>> well, claire, you know, certainly, there's different sack factions there. the fox news sound bites say, we're giving the farm away to ukraine. we're doing things like spying on americans. then there are some -- you know, responsible individuals there. i wrote the article because i'm trying to appeal to kind of some sanity here. at the end of the day, that's how things are going to get done. for things to pass in the house, there has to be some bipartisan compromise. you know, i do worry for the struggle of joe's old party. you know, it is incumbent on them to take measures that are going to help protect americans, help keep us safe, not go down the rabbit hole of, you know, late night, the late-night crazy on other networks. let's see what happens. certainly, it is worth making an appeal. >> yeah. you know, when it was my old party, i grew up in a family of, you know, my democr parents had

democrats, but they were cold warriors. they were conservative when they saw the republican party being the party that was pushing back against the soviet union, pushing back against totalitarianism, pushing back against russian aggression. all of those things that made generations of former democrats, republicans are now changing. you've got republicans saying, again, saying outright, that they wish u.s. troops were more like russian troops. who were blaming the united states for the war in ukraine. i mean, it is the most preposterous arguments. like claire said, it is shadow boxing. whatever biden is for, they are against. whatever biden is against, they are for. they don't realize that that's no way to run a foreign policy. i think you're right, i think they're split. i think it is going to cost 'em.

i wanted to ask you about something that is very personal to you. i know you have great respect for the cia director, director burns. i know also, though, you probably disagree very much with the cia's conclusion regarding havana syndrome, something that impacted you greatly since you went on a trip to russia. >> yeah, joe. you know, the last couple days have not opinion easy. those analytical conclusions were certainly a gut punch. i think diving deep into it, it was almost kind of the messianic zeal of the conclusions that really kind of hurt a lot of us. there's been, unfortunately, kind of an antagonistic relationship between some of the victims and some of the analytic unit that came to the conclusions that it was very unlikely it was a foreign adversary. i'll say a couple things. first, you know, bill burns is a good man. he made the promise when he came into office to hold those officers accountable who treated

us so poorly in erm terms of access to health care. he tore down the new medical offices and put in new people. in terms of health care, we have access now to walter reid. they are implementing the havana act, compensation for line of duty injuries. on the analytic piece, nothing, of course, he can control, but i would say this really kind of moves into, you know, the gravity moves to the oversight committees in the house and senate. they'll have access to the classified document. they'll welcome at the methodologies. how did the analysts weigh parts of information? the last piece is, in the briefing, it was clear it was dissent from the department of defense. my daughter called me and said, what does this mean when they say, one intel agency assessed with low confidence the notion that a foreign adversary was unlikely? that's kind of the old verbal analytic diary. i don't know what that means. i don't her, it means there is dissent. this really does move to the oversight committees.

dod will take over the investigation, and we'll see where it goes. joe, you and i talked a lot about this. something happened to me. my doctors at walter reid treated me for traumatic brain injury. it was not a pre-existing condition, and a lot of us are receiving compensation for line of duty injuries. there's a lot more to this, but the last couple of days have not been particularly pleasant. it was a gut punch. >> it was when you were in russia? >> that's right. it was a trip in december of 2017 to moscow. other officers who have been affected by this were in places like, you know, hanoi or belgrade or other parts of europe. certainly in havana. these are friends of mine who were at the top of their game mentally and physically. these are the, you know, tip of the spear officers for the u.s. government. they've become -- they're medically retired now. they've really become -- they've suffered debilitaing juris. it is sad to see the analytic side of the agency taking such a strong, you know, bent on this.

again, it shifts. you'll have congressman hines on later. it'll shift to the oversight committees, and they can dive into the methodology and challenge the assumptions. most importantly, the investigation has to continue. >> former cia officer, marc polymeropoulos, thank you very much for being on this morning. we appreciate it. and the annual conservative political action conference kicked off in maryland yesterday. let's bring in nbc news correspondent vaughan hilliard, live from national harbor. vaughan, what did day one look like? >> reporter: hey. yeah, good morning, guys. this is a scene that comes annually here. it used to be the who's who across the republican party. now, really for the first time since donald trump's rise, you're seeing notable names not here. rnc chair ronna mcdaniel, mike pence, ron desantis. this is much more looking like a room full of trump loyalists ahead of his big speech here

tomorrow. we wanted to take the camera off the tripod. for those who are not lucky enough to be here this weekend, we wanted to give you a behind the scenes look at what this place here looks like. take a look. >> we are at the 2023 cpac. yes! >> reporter: this place, cpac, used to be the conservative's weekend out. it was the annual gathering for the who's who across the republican party. >> the conservative movement is alive and well. >> reporter: george h.w. bush made the rounds here, and dick cheney. george w. bush and john mccain. mitt romney and paul ryan, too. >> i don't see this great divide in our party. what i see is a vibrant debate. >> reporter: the rise of donald trump has changed these halls. >> trump, trump, trump, trump! >> reporter: nikki haley, mike pompeo, ted cruz are here, but rnc mcdaniel, mike pence and ron desantis are not. what does it say from the trump team's perspective about governor desantis not being here. >> you know what, the absence speaks volumes.

i know who is going to show up because he does every time, which is president trump. >> reporter: also not mitch mcconnell and kevin mccarthy. what does it say about you being here versus the likes of mitch mcconnell or kevin mccarthy? >> if you keep going down the line, you'll name enough lines where i'd say, i'm not a rhino. that's why i'm here. >> reporter: other members of congress are. how has cpac changed since the rise of donald trump? >> well, look, cpac is always ruckus and wonderful. there is an electricity to it. i think there has been more of an electricity. >> reporter: other republicans, including speaker mccarthy is not here. why are you at cpac? >> are you kidding me? these are the activists of our party. we can't do anything without them. >> reporter: there are presidential candidates who you maybe haven't heard about. perry johnson. you got a shot for 2024? >> i wouldn't be here otherwise. >> reporter: this is media row, but they're right-wing outlets. >> it is politically bias.

>> the best news in the country. >> who is war room? >> steve bannon, of course. >> this is the grassroot. >> reporter: the attendees here largely remaining trump loyalists. why are we at cpac? >> donald trump! >> reporter: who do you have in 2024? >> trump. >> trump. >> trump. >> reporter: this is the merchandise expo room that includes a mock oval office. all of this ahead of trump's appearance for the final major speech on saturday night. what does it say about donald trump coming here this weekend? >> it's awesome. i play golf with him once a month. he's ready to go. got a lot of energy. i'm anxious to see him get on the trail, touching flesh and telling people what he is going to do. >> reporter: today's lineup here on this friday, you've got the likes of marjorie taylor greene taking the stage here in just about two hours from now. then matt gaetz. lauren boebert and then gary

lake. you have two presidential candidates, nikki haley as well as swami and former secretary of state mike pompeo. micah. >> vaughan, really quickly, what about the attendance? i had some people sending pictures with some sessions with a lot of empty chairs. looked like, by the time you were interviewing, looked fairly crowded. were there more empty seats there than usual? >> reporter: right. out in the halls, you know, there's a pretty good crowd that is out there, you know, trying to shake the hands of don jr. or kimberly or mike lindell. it was more of a sparse crowd. we expect the friday and saturday to pick up here. it is definitely notable. one year ago, i was down in florida when they were holding cpac last year. at the time then, there was still more consolidation of support around the likes of donald trump.

you had even senator josh hawley in attendance. not here, of course, allegation against matt schlapp has made it easier for some to stay away. but this is kind of a dividing line now of power structure within the republican party now. there is charlie kirk, turning point usa, that have sort of their own separate operation going. there are some who see them as the future of the conservative movement, as opposed to cpac and matt schlapp here. that is where there was some hesitancy among other republicans, like mike pence and ron desantis, to come here. when you were talking to the attendees here, one person after the other told me they were backing donald trump for 2024 here. so very much so, cpac is looking like, you know, a smaller version of a trump rally, opposed to one that's really scouting the rest of the field. nonetheless, nikki haley and mike pompo are showing up this

afternoon. it'll give us a better sign here of the openness of republicans here over the months ahead to tune into a little different message from that of donald trump. >> nbc's vaughan hilliard, thank you for that report. we look forward to hearing more. still ahead on "northern in joe," after three hours of deliberation, a jury has found alex murdaugh guilty on four counts, including the murders of both his wife and son. we'll go live to south carolina where sentencing will get under way in just about two hours from now. and coming up in our fourth hour of "morning joe," emmy award winning actor matthew rhys joins us with a look at his project with apple tv project. on wednesday, on international women's day this wednesday, tune in at 7:00 a.m. eastern when former secretary of state hillary clinton and i will co-moderate an iconic conversation, live from the

30/50 summit. we'll talk to equal rights activist gloria steinem, tennis legend billie jean king, and ukrainian first lady olena zelenska will be joining us. they'll talk about their accomplishmens and the path forward in the battle for women's equity. learn more about the 30/50 summit, the greatest global gathering of women in history at forbes.com and knowyourvalue.com. you're watching "morning joe." we'll be right back.

your record label is taking off. but so is your sound engineer. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

moderate to severe eczema still disrupts my skin. despite treatment it disrupts my skin with itch. it disrupts my skin with rash. but now, i can disrupt eczema with rinvoq. rinvoq is not a steroid, topical, or injection. it's one pill, once a day. many taking rinvoq saw clear or almost-clear skin while some saw up to 100% clear skin. and, they felt dramatic and fast itch relief

some as early as 2 days. that's rinvoq relief. rinvoq can lower your ability to fight infections, including tb. serious infections and blood clots, some fatal, cancers including lymphoma and skin cancer, death, heart attack, stroke, and tears in the stomach or intestines occurred. people 50 and older with at least one heart disease risk factor have higher risks. don't take if allergic to rinvoq, as serious reactions can occur. tell your doctor if you are or may become pregnant. disrupt the itch and rash of eczema. talk to your doctor about rinvoq. learn how abbvie can help you save. it's 43 past the hour. just about two hours, sentencing is set to take place for convicted murderer alex murdaugh. a jury found the disbarred lawyer guilty yesterday in the murder of his wife and son. murdaugh blinked repeatedly as

the verdicts were read but remained stone faced as he stood there in court. joining us live from outside the courthouse in walterboro, south carolina, nbc news correspondent catie beck. she has been covering this case from the very beginning. catie. >> reporter: well, good morning, mika. this was a remarkable verdict because it came back in less than three hours. this jury has heard a mountain of evidence over six weeks. they've heard from more than 75 witnesses. they've seen over 800 pieces of evidence introduced. this decision was decisive, and it was fast. now, murdaugh moves on to sentencing today, facing the possibility of a life behind bars. in south carolina, a major fall from grace for a member of a prominent legal family. >> guilty. >> reporter: alex murdaugh found guilty on all counts for the murders of his wife, maggie, and son, paul, on the family's

sprawling hunting estate back in 2021. the prosecution, which argued murdaugh's motive was to distract from alleged financial crimes and other accusations swirling around his family, speaking just after the verdict. >> it doesn't matter what you think, how prominent you are. if you do wrong, if you break the law, if you murder, then justice will be done in south carolina. >> reporter: the jury coming to its decision just hours after hearing closing arguments by the defense, who suggested there were missteps in the investigation and what they call circumstantial evidence surrounding a man who they portrayed as a loving husband and father struggling with addiction. >> i respectfully request you do not compound a family tragedy with another. >> reporter: perhaps the most vital evidence, this video at the family's kennel from paul's phone, where alex's voice is heard in the background along with maggie and paul just

minutes before the murders. murdaugh had repeatedly told investigators he wasn't there that night, later admitting it was him when he took the stand. >> i did lie to them. >> reporter: prosecutors pointing to that lie as part of a troubling pattern for murdaugh. who they say was willing to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill his family to maintain his wealthy lifestyle. >> i think he loved maggie. i think he loved paul. but you know who he loved more than that? he loved alex. he exercised his greatest power of choice to make sure that continued. >> reporter: in the end, the jury concluded the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. murdaugh staring blankly as the court clerk read the guilty verdict. later mouthing, "it's okay" to his surviving son buster. the judge denying a request by the defense for a mistrial and thanking the jury for their service. >> certainly, the verdict that

you've reached is supported by the evidence, circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, all of the evidence pointed to only one conclusion. that's the conclusion that you all reached. >> reporter: outside the courthouse, south carolina's attorney general calling it a good day for his state, and saying the evidence spoke on behalf of maggie and paul. >> we can't bring him back, but we can bring them justice. >> alex, is there anything -- >> reporter: after a dramatic day in court, murdaugh led out into a van in handcuffs to continue his life behind bars. now, sentencing will be in the hands of the judge, as you said, in just a few hours. mika, we expect to hear more witness testimony from the stand, both some advocating for alex murdaugh and some of the victims of his alleged financial crimes are expected to testify, as well. >> wow. >> reporter: he is facing 30 years to life on each of those murder charges. mika. >> nbc news correspondent catie beck, thank you very much for your reporting.

we're going to be taking a lot of the sentencing hearing live to see what some of the witnesses have to say. let's bring in msnbc legal analyst charles coleman. we also have claire mccaskill with us, former prosecutor. claire, i'll let you take it to charles. but it seems alex murdaugh convicted himself with his horrific testimony and, if i way, blubbering and admitting to lying and hurting and cheating and stealing and hurting people he loved very much repeatedly over the course of his life. >> yeah. i think, as charles knows, most -- 99% of the homicides that are prosecuted in this country are prosecuted in courtrooms like this across the country. the fbi doesn't have much to do it. the federal government has nothing to do with it. these are all state-elected prosecutors that handle local police and the evidence that's gathered. i think this trial demonstrated

that they are good at their job. i think this was -- you know, charles, i don't know how you feel about this, but as somebody who has prosecuted a number of murder cases, you always have that moment where you think, do i need to put motive in? as people know, motive is not required to prove. you don't have to prove why someone did something. you just have to prove they did it. and speak to the evidence of motive in this case and whether you think it kind of mucked up the view of the jury or whether it was really important for the jury to understand the lies behind alex murdaugh's facade as it related to his financial problems and his addictions. >> claire, normally, i do think that if you have a compelling motive that is going to tie together a coherent narrative for the jury, you should present it. quite frankly here, i wasn't swayed by the motives they tried to advance throughout the case.

they tried to pivot a number of times, and i didn't necessarily think that was successful. to your point, you don't have to prove motive. i thought it was brilliant when the prosecution on their rebuttal closing yesterday talked about the fact that, ultimately, we don't need to understand or establish why he did it. we just need to understand and establish that he did it. i think that was a big thing. i also think that one of the things that was really smart that the prosecution did during its rebuttal closing was it put law enforcement in the clean and clear view of the jury. like you just talked about with respect to people doing their jobs, one of the things they did during that rebuttal was they essentially turned the turned ts argument on the head with the investigation and the things they thought were wrong with the investigation to seem as though murdaugh were attacking law enforcement. in south carolina they knew that was likely going to play very well. you didn't have to spend as much time as they did on motive and wise of them to begin to get

away from that and talk about whether he did it and whether they believed he did it. >> wow. >> charles, this is gene robinson. my guess is if you were defending alex murdaugh you would have prevented physically from taking the stand and thrown his body in front of the stand yet he did. why did they allow him to be in that position to acknowledge, i lied, i lied, i lied? i told the big lie about being there at the kennel. that seemed to me absolutely devastating. >> one of the reasons why this happened is because lawyers oftentimes make the worst clients. a proven fact over and over again. it's hard to convince a lawyer

because they feel like i know best. you have never tried a case with you in this position and a witness and been on the stand why you cross-examined people but never been cross-examined and that's a fatal flaw. i was surprised how much the prosecution allowed him to ramble on and on. because of the way he did like the stumbling and bumbling i think that maybe it played better toward the prosecution to have that decision made to ask the open-ended questions and give the long answers. this was a bad move by the defense. >> nbc legal analyst charles coleman. thank you. we'll be watching the sentencing hearing in a few hours. coming up, secretary of state blinken meets with the

russian counter part. we'll show you what he had to say about that conversation and the interesting dynamics around it. worst most famous publication, "time" magazine is celebrating 100 years. we'll be joined by its editor and chief next on "morning joe." ! i know. giant uncle dane and his giant beard. maybe a dragon? no, dragons are boring. twin sisters! and one is a robot and one is a knight. and i'll be on the side of... the octopus. rawr!!! the volkswagen atlas. more room for possibilities.

power e*trade's award-winning trading app makes trading easier. with its customizable options chain, easy-to-use tools, and paper trading to help sharpen your skills, you can stay on top of the market from wherever you are. power e*trade's easy-to-use tools make complex trading less complicated. custom scans help you find new trading opportunities. while an earnings tool helps you plan your trades and stay on top of the market.

it is great to have you back on the show. tell us how is "time" looking back at the 100 years and celebrating? >> we are just thrilled. everybody in the "time" family to hit this milestone and both looking back and forward.

would have been indicted at the very least by them so this is another example of a two-tier system of justice in america. if you are not connected you will be sitting in a jail cell rotting somewhere. >> i don't know how to respond. >> this guy. >> the stupidity. to say, well, the fact he didn't say that he was involved means he was involved. that is like debating a second grader. here is the guy talking about the two tiers of system of justice and sits back quietly

and supports donald trump year after year after year after year. again, it is almost like -- you know, why even respond to it? it is just such a joke. it almost as if they forget that other people will hear this stuff besides the very small circle of people. by the way, he is on a woman's show who fox kept on the air after they admitted she was participating in peddling falsehoods that she knew were false. the fact that she is in an anchor chair at fox is astounding. taking two things together and realize that they are not speaking to middle america, the people to decide statewide and national elections. merrick garland has done hands off on hunter biden.

he left the u.s. attorney in place that trump put there and the investigation is not disturbed. whatever happens to hunter biden will happen to him under the facts and the law. it shows you they got nothing else to talk about and bathrooms. >> they have absolutely nothing else to talk about. also, you are exactly right. they talk to such a small group of people and the microtargeting they have been doing for years now is the national campaign. and that's why, again, i know i keep saying it but it is astounding. they keep losing elections every single year. >> i am anticipating that the desantis campaign is all shadow boxing on culture wars. i would like nbc and msnbc to

send the reporters out there. i have not seen it anywhere. it is like the replace plan for obamacare. you can get bloodhounds out and can't find that thing. it is books and trying to use the heavy handed government. and think they they can ascend to the presidency on that stuff. >> didn't work, didn't work in 2021 and 2020. >> would you like me to continue? >> no. so many losses. it would take forever. >> 2018. >> we have four hours. >> it doesn't work for them. i don't understand. when somebody is not going to take control of that party, not going to run, that talks about

issues that look forward and not just something that's more sort of tuned to programming for a podcast. >> oh my god. >> that's what they are doing. >> i don't understand u.s. senator. can they have a podcast? is that okay? >> i guess it is now. >> can a u.s. senator have a podcast and push conspiracy theories? >> the ethics come in with who is advertising on there and making money off of it. they have the right to broadcast the voice any way they want. the question is tricky if you sell advertising and or compensated by that for a source. >> let's bring in democratic congressman jim hines of connecticut. thank you for being with us. let's talk about merrick garland

and he was attacked for being involved in the hunter biden after the sworn testimony that he was involved in the case. it seems to me the guy's getting hammered by some wackos on the far right, by the far left. seems to me a

when i was his age, we had to be inside to watch live sports. but with xfinity, we get the fastest mobile service and can stream down the street or around the block! hey, can you be less sister, more car? all right, let's get this over with. switch to xfinity mobile and save big on the new samsung galaxy s23 series. i should get paid more for this. you get paid when you win. from xfinity. home of the 10g network.

sometimes you're so busy taking care of everyone else you don't do enough for yourself, or your mouth. but eventually, it will remind you. when it does, aspen dental is here for you. we offer the custom dental treatments you need, all under one roof, right nearby.

so we can bring more life to your smile... and more smile to your life... affordably. new patients without insurance can get a free complete exam and x-rays, and 20 percent off treatment plans. schedule your appointment today. there's always a fresh deal on the subway app. like this one! 50% off?! that deal's so good we don't even need an eight-time all-star to tell you about it. wait what? get it before it's gone on the subway app! we must finally hold social media companies accountable. it's time to pass bipartisan legislation to stop big tech from collecting personal data on our kids and teenagers online. ban targeted advertising to children.

♪3, 4♪ ♪ and teenagers online. ♪hey♪ ♪ ♪are you ready for me♪ ♪are you ready♪ ♪are you ready♪ if your business kept on employees through the pandemic, getrefunds.com can see if it may qualify for a payroll tax refund of up to $26,000 per employee. all it takes is eight minutes to get started. then work with professionals to assist your business with its forms and submit the application. go to getrefunds.com to learn more.

summit, which is now just days away i'm not going to ask if we're ready because i don't know the answer, but i think we are maggie, what exactly did the study find and why exactly are more women delaying or avoidin >> i would say we're absolutely ready, but we'll get to that. researchers wanted to study

whether women were changing their minds about childbearing at the height of the pandemic. they surveyed people in 2020 and 2021. 50% said they wanted to delay having kids or felt decreased desire. a year later those numbers had barely budged. the effect was most pronounced in women younger and earlier in their careers, women who lost a job during covid or have a lower income and also women of color, who experience systemic oppression at work and in society. this makes sense because women have a variety of factors to consider when have a child. we know it costs between $15,00n and $18,000 a year to raise a child. that adds up to $300,000 over the child's life.

that doesn't even include college. >> how do you think the supreme court's decision to overturn roe played in all this, especially as we see a federal judge in texas set to rule on a lawsuit that would restrict access to es one of the two drugs typically used to induce a medicated abortion? >> we are in the next phase of the post roe abortion wars. it is not an accident this case is before a conservative federal judge in amarillo, texas, appointed by donald trump. that's why who we elect matters, as a reminder. you have credible medical experts who say there is no basis for this claim, who say this was a drug approved by the fda 23 years ago. you know, with the precedent this could set is more than anything is sowing anxiety and

confusion. when you have a drug approved by the fda now being told you can't use this after dobbs when women already know abortion access in this country is limited, i say this as a woman who's had unintended pregnancies, the idea that you cannot make a conscious choice in this country is very troubling. i think we shouldn't stop using facts to help support women in this very difficult decision that you sometimes have to make about your own life. >> maggie, as you know, so many women left the workforce during the pandemic. as a result, we're seeing more companies starting to offer fertility benefits, like egg freezing and surrogacy, benefits for those things as they look for ways to retain really top female talent and recruit new talent and to really stand out from other competitors.

we have incredible opportunities here and companiep are looking for ways to capitalize on that as they try and keep people in the workplace. this and women's longevity are two areas where we're going to be exploring a lot at the upcoming 30/50 summit next week. tell our viewers what to expect. >> we are going to have great conversations around longevity, fertility and women's health. i'm going to sit down with the ceo of aarp. trillions of dollars in consumer spending and we'll tell our

audience exactly how they can tap into that. we're going to transition to the how.he how do you live long and healthy lives? i have the chief commercial officer for illumina. she's focusing on keeping people healthy. we have a founder of a fertility company. her mission is to increase gender equality by increasing our options around fertility care. in her opinion, it takes too long to go through an ivf cycle, it's too expensive and inaccessible to too many women. we spoke about how women keep pace with men's earnings into their mid 20s. as they start having kids, we all see the motherhood penalty and, of course, the fatherhood

bonus. she's going to tell us how she's going this, more acceptable fertility options increasing gender equality. >> we're going to be talking about those issues and how far we've come, how far we need to go. one thing 30/50 has already donl is it's proven what a long runway women have to find their success, to have impact, to find their happiness, to have that family. it's a much longer runway than ever before. thank you. i'm going to be seeing you both very soon as we head to abu dhabi next wednesday on international women'sxt day. tuneme in right here at 7:00 a. on "morning joe."e. former secretary of state hillary clinton and i will be co-moderating an iconic conversation live from the summit. we're going to talk to equal rights activist gloria steinem,

tennis legend billie jean king and ukrainian first lady owe len that zelenskyy. what an incredible conversationb we are going to be bringing it to you live right here on "morning joe." still ahead, we're going to take you to the courtroom in south carolina where last night alexgh murdaugh heard a jury fi him guilty of murdering his wife and son. this morning he will learn how long he will spendor in jail fo those crimes. the search for deep state whistleblowers goes off the deep end. s plus the house ethics committee has officially opened an investigation into embattled congressman george santos. kp congressman george santos.

♪ ♪ ♪ get directv with a two year price guarantee.

subway keeps upping their game with the subway series. an all-star menu of delicious subs. like #4 supreme meats. black forest ham and genoa salami. you can't stop that much meat. you can only hope to contain it - in freshly baked bread. try subway's tastiest menu upgrade yet. science proves quality sleep is vital to your mental, emotional, and physical health. the sleep number 360 smart bed. it's temperature balancing, so you stay cool. it senses your movements and automatically adjusts to help keep you both comfortable all night. our smart sleepers get 28 minutes more restful sleep per night. so, you're at your best for yourself and those you care about most. it's our lowest price ever! save $1,200 on the sleep number 360 i10 smart bed.

plus 0% interest for 36 months. only for a limited time. liberty mutual customizes your car insurance so you only pay for what you need. with the money we saved, we tried electric unicycles. i think i've got it! doggy-paddle! only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪

look at that beautiful picture as we start off the fourth hour of "morning joe." it is 6:00 a.m. out there on the west coast, los angeles for you. sun's coming up. time to get ready to go to work. it's 9:00 a.m. on the east coast. we've been up and running for a few hours now. you're like the energizer bunny. >> we're on tomorrow morning too from 6:00 to 8:00. >> why not? >> i just can't get enough. >> i know. let's just keep ongoing. >> you're a little punchy right now. >> i am. >> it's friday. >> i'm very tired. >> joining us for the hour, the host of msnbc's "politics nation" reverend al sharpton. i never really heard mika this tired. >> i'm slurring my words.

>> she's been doing this for 15 years. i think maybe it's friday, 20 hours a week, maybe it's getting to her. do you have a verse for her to give her some energy? >> inspire me. >> well, i think the verse i would say is she's getting ready to travel and she's probably anticipang that travel. so i would say that you must put your faith in your ability that god has given you, the talent and the ability to do things that others haven't done. so just relax and be not dismayed, god is not mocked and you may rest and do what you need to do as you go over across the waters to stand up and show what women are about, mika. >> i love it. at the crossroads of the world. >> by the way, he knows that you're feeling a little

overwhelmed right now. >> i am. i kind of am. i'm also excited about it and so grateful. but slurring my words just a little bit this morning. >> we're awaiting sentencing of alex murdaugh, who on thursday was convicted of murdering his wife and son. prosecutors are seeking life in prison without the possibility of parole. that hearing, we're expecting it to begin at the bottom of the hour. this morning one juror broke his silence and actually talked about how the jury reached its decision. >> it took basically 45 minutes to come to a decision? >> probably about that, 45, maybe an hour. >> that's really fast. >> the evidence was clear. >> what made you so sure that he had? >> his responses, how quick he was with the defense and his lies. >> did you feel like he was a

liar? >> a good liar. but not good enough. >> he's not good enough. the once powerful attorney is still facing other charges, including nearly 100 financial crimes. nbc news correspondent al has m. >> reporter: alex murdaugh now a convicted murder, awaiting sentencing this morning. the former lawyer disbarred last summer is also under indictment on charges of serious financial crimes, including fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. during his trial prosecutors said murdaugh committed the murders to distract from his financial trouble. under cross examination, murdaugh admitted to stealing money and lying about it while claiming an opioid addiction cost him tens of thousands of dollars per week.

>> you were generating millions of dollars in fees. that was not enough for you. would you concede that? >> if i concede that, you mean was i also stealing money that i shouldn't have, yes, sir. >> he believed the murders were related to a deadly 2019 boat crash involving his son paul. >> that boat wreck is the reason why paul-paul and maggie were killed. >> reporter: the crash portrayed in a new netflix series killed 19-year-old mallory beach, whose family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against murdaugh. paul was allegedly driving the boat and had a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. the case also prompting investigators to revisit two more deaths of people in murdaugh's orbit. in 2015, 19-year-old steven smith, a classmate of murdaugh's older son buster, was found dead

on a road ten miles from the murdaugh home. officials initially believed his death was a hit-and-run, but in 2021 opened an investigation based on information gathered during the course of the double murder investigation of paul and maggie murdaugh. alex murdaugh has also confessed to stealing a $4 million settlement from the sons of his family's housekeeper, gloria satterfield. she died in 2019 after an apparent fall at the murdaugh home. >> how much money did the family get after gloria died? >> zero. >> reporter: police also reopened the investigation into her death, which is still ongoing. >> it's just unbelievable. >> i mean, so many questions and so many people who died. there are questions hanging over their memory. >> yeah. >> we'll go live to the

courtroom later this hour for the sentencing hearing. the house ethics committee has officially opened an investigation into new york congressman george santos to investigate a slew of allegations against santos, including potential campaign violations, conflicts of interest and one allegation of sexual misconduct. it is the latest in a series of local, state and federal investigations surrounding the republican. he is facing bipartisan calls to step down after he admitted to lying about his background and experience. he briefly responded to the probe on twitter, writing in the third person, quote, congressman george santos is fully cooperating, there will be no further comment made at this time. joining us now democratic congressman dan goldman of new york, a member of the house oversight committee. he hand delivered the ethics complaint to santos's office back in january.

congressman, i'm curious what the goal of this complaint is. >> well, the goal of the complaint is to open an investigation, which i'm very encouraged that the house ethics committee has done on a unanimous, bipartisan basis. they will now dig into all of the financial red flags surrounding george santos's campaign, including where he got more than $700,000 that he donated personally to his campaign. so we're optimistic that the ethics committee will move very quickly and expeditiously in this investigation. i'm very glad to see that george santos says he will cooperate. that cooperation means that he will need to turn overall the documents underlying his own entity that he created that funneled money to himself as well as where the $700,000 came

from. >> so congressman, for constituents of george santos, those who might believe that he shouldn't be a sitting member of congress and would like to see him out of there, what in the complaint could lead to actual ouster or forcing him to step down? is there anything in there that goes beyond he just lied about a dog or something? is there something substantial in the complaint that could lead to action? >> well, you raise the issue of his constituents, who are in a nearby district of mine in new york. i've been in touch with many of them. they are furious that george santos deceived them and that they effectively have no representation in congress. congressman richie torres and i filed this complaint focusing exclusively on his campaign finances and financial disclosures, because at this

point all of his lies about his background, his education, his employment, all that stuff does not violate law. it is morally corrupt, but it does not violate campaign finance law or campaign law. that is why the complaint focuses exclusively on his financial representations, because there are very strict laws about the financial disclosures that we all must file under oath, as well as campaign finance rules and laws. >> congressman, you're also a member of the subcommittee launched by republicans to dig into what they call the weaponization of the federal government. republicans promised the panel was going to uncover massive bias against conservatives across the federal government. they were reportedly left scrambling to save their narrative after the first interview with witnesses went off the rails, the "new york times" reporting the three witnesses had little firsthand knowledge of any actual wrongdoing, ciing democrats on

the panel. the paper writes, the trio appears to be a group of three aggrieved fbi officials who trafficked in right wing conspiracy theory including about the january 6th attack at the capitol and they received financial support from a top ally of former president trump. the roster of witnesses, interviews and statements are detailed in a 316-page report compiled by democrats, obtained by the times, suggesting that representative jim jordan of ohio, the chairman of the panel, has also relied on people who don't meet the definition of whistleblower and who have engaged in partisan conduct that calls into question their credibility. in a statement a spokesman for jordan called the democrats' report disappointing. it doesn't sound like there's any oversight to fight tooth and nail, because once again, with

this republican party there's just no "there" there. tell us about it, congressman. >> that's right. it increasingly seems like the republicans are engaged in a scheme to deceive the committee and the american public by claiming that the fbi is out to get conservatives, when in reality they have put together a group of fringe conspiracy theorists who are backed and supported and paid -- paid -- by a top ally of donald trump in order to funnel through this committee allegations that are completely unsupported. we've heard a lot, as you know, about these dozens of whistleblowers that republican staff members have secretly met with. it's clear they don't meet the whistleblower standard. they have provided no information about all those meetings to the democrats.

so it is very curious and suspicious how they cultivated these witnesses, whether there was any coaching. ultimately they seemed to crumble in their interviews when democratic staff very deftly questioned them on their own bias. >> rev, i got to say, it's just mind boggling to me that these trump republicans have had this narrative that somehow the fbi has always been out to get donald trump, when it was the fbi that helped elect donald trump with one leak after another leak after another leak of hillary clinton throughout 2015, 2016, whether it was about the e-mails, whether it was about the clinton foundation, whether it was about you name it. it was the fbi leaking stories

nonstop. apparently the new york branch of the fbi that people said had a real anti-clinton bias. and then, of course, you had the fbi director holding this bizarre press conference in july of 2016 where he said, yeah, we're not going to indict her, but. then he did something no fbi director has ever done before. he went on a screed against hillary clinton and tried to indict her politically. and then, of course, he decided to put a letter out ten days before the election that even donald trump knows helped elect him president of the united states. and yet they have this bogus theory that the fbi is out to get them when the opposite has really proven to be true. donald trump would have never ever been president of the united states if not for one fbi leak after another fbi leak

after another over the course of a year. and then, of course, what comey did the last ten days of the campaign. >> no question about it. hillary clinton was a victim of what they're trying to create and hallucinate is happening to republicans and to the right wing. i think that's very clear. it's almost arrogant for them to now come and make these allegations and call for this after what happened in 2016. i might add, joe, while you have congressman goldman that this weekend is the selma commemoration of the selma march, the famous march john lewis was beaten going across the edmund pettus bridge in alabama. congressman goldman has for his first bill proposed to congress is a voting rights act. he announced it last week.

i'm going to bring a copy of that with me to selma on sunday. president biden is joining us going across the bridge in commemoration of that event. >> dan, you want to talk about that for a minute, talk about your bill? >> yeah. it's called the early voting act, which will require uniform voting laws around the country to allow for early voting, to allow for equal access to the ballots. it requires polls to be close to public transportation and on college campuses. it also requires early votes to be tallied before election day so we don't get this gap after the election that can be filled with conspiracies and undermining the integrity of our elections. you know, this is something that the rev and i believe very strongly in, which is, everybody should have equal access to the ballot no matter zip code, income, party or background. it is the foundational right to

vote that underlines all other rights in our democratic system. if we are to have a true democracy, every person in this country should be able to cast their vote easily and accessibly. >> one final thing, dan, let's circle back to the fbi. we talked about this supposed bias against trump. the bias for trump by elements of the fbi continues, continued even in the mar-a-lago raid, the fighting between the justice department and fbi agents. listen to this. here's the "washington post." starting in may, fbi agents in washington field office tried to slow the probe. some of those field agents wanted to shutter the criminal investigation all together in early june after trump's legal team asserted a diligent search had been conducted and all

classified records had been turned over. so you had field agents, you had people in the fbi saying, oh, we should trust donald trump. why would donald trump ever lie to us? why, he said that he's turned over all the documents. and, of course, we find out that he was lying through his teeth, that he had more classified documents, that he was intentionally obstructing the investigation. i ask you, how can fbi field agents say anybody is under suspicion of wrongdoing and say let's just trust them, because that's what these fbi field agents did. >> as you know, i was a prosecutor working alongside the fbi for ten years in the southern district of new york working with that new york field office, and no one would ever have accused the fbi writ large of having a liberal bias.

there's nothing wrong with having their own personal political views. i never saw it affect the work that we did together, but the notion that any agents would take for the facts and the truth anything donald trump had done and even if you just look at this investigation, he had stonewalled the national archives and the justice department for a year and a half. ultimately every single time they asked for more information, more documents, there were more documents. so the notion that that they should just take his word for it proves to be false as well, because the search warrant uncovered many more classified documents. it certainly undermines the allegation that the fbi is against donald trump or against conservatives. it is generally the case that it would be the opposite, but it certainly is unsupported by the facts that we've seen over the

last many years. >> congressman dan goldman of new york, thank you so much. reverend al, that's the point. the congressman made my point, which is on this show i defended the fbi consistently throughout the trump administration and i have. i defend the fbi more, i think, than a lot of people on this network. that said, when i hear republicans claiming that there is an anti-trump bias, we have one example of another example of another example of actually a bias that tilts towards donald trump. we saw it in the mar-a-lago case, throughout the 2016 election, at the end of the 2016 election. it's just one more fallacy that the republican party is trying to push on the american people. >> no doubt about it.

you would think given elements of the fbi showed on behalf of their party's president donald trump that they would not even want to bring up the issue of the fbi and bias so people would have to dig into it and people like you would have to speak up and say, wait a minute, why would you raise that when the facts speak so clearly on the other side? there are plenty of things they could raise. >> by the way, mika, i think whoever the supervisor of those field agents were who said just trust donald trump, i hope they've had a sitdown with their supervisor and say you had a guy that was dragging his feet, who improperly took classified documents down to his resort and wasn't straightforward with us and you wanted to shutter this

investigation because he assured you he had returned all the documents when there were more documents there? i'm sorry, it's absolutely preposterous. chicago voters will head to the polls again next month to choose between two candidates who advanced to a runoff in tuesday's primary for mayor. the two contenders, cook county commissioner brandon johnson, who we spoke with on yesterday's show, and former chicago public schools chief paul vallas, who joins us now. it's great to have you on the show. thank you for being on this morning. >> good morning. you do not have to provide bible verses, but we would like you to tell us why you should be chicago's next mayor. >> because chicago is in a leadership crisis. if you look at the problems the city is facing from a degraded, demoralized, poorly-led police

department to a school system that families are leaving in record numbers, for that matter, consistent budgets that have never been equity investment vehicles and have really neglected the city's most underserved communities, it's all been a product of bad leadership. i'm offering the type of quality leadership that is needed and not just a solo act, an individual who can draw from the community the type of leadership needed to get the city back on track. this is something i've done before in the city's budget crises early in the daley administration. rebuilding an entire school system in new orleans after the devastation of hurricane katrina, i think my record of

coming into crises situations and having great success by drawing from the community and building my leadership team within the community in an inclusive way has proven to be effective time and again. >> mr. vallas, we talked yesterday with the commissioner about crime rates. whenever we're talking to leaders of cities, we talk about crime rates and say, well, overall crime rates have actually gone down over the last year from 2021 to 2022. not the case, obviously, with chicago. overall crime if you compare 2022 to 2021, it's up. what is the problem? reverend al and i talk about the crime crisis in chicago nonstop. nothing ever seems to change. why does crime keep going up in chicago? >> even prior to 2019, when crime spiked, chicago had more

murders than new york and l.a. combined, because the city has never attacked the underlying causes of crime in the community. that's historic disinvestment in communities on the south and west sides. you're not going to get at the underlying causes of crime until you have that type of investment strategy. i've articulated in great detail how i would approach that. but the spike in crime was i believe the direct result of two things. one is the systemic shutting down of schools for 15 consecutive months. 200 murdered school-age youths since 2019. 95% of those students were not enrolled in school. 8% of the arrest for murder, 9% for shootings, 50% for carjackings school-aged youth 17 years of age and younger, 95% of who were not enrolled in school. clearly the shutdown for 15 consecutive months, no school

based activities for one of the districts that's the poorest in the country had devastating consequences. the city has never had a systemic comprehensive plan for returning citizens, individuals returning from incarceration. so there's no port of entry. there's a lack of housing, economic opportunities and obstacles for them to be hired. you need to deal with this issue of returning citizens. that said and done, there is no institution for a policing strategy that puts the police officers on the local beat and on the transit platforms. imagine new york with prioritized security securing its transit system. well, now you know what chicago is like. half the riders of public transportation polled indicate they're afraid to take public transportation because we have unarmed security with no power

to arrest basically providing security in our transit system. >> mr. vallas, al sharpton. you were heavily endorsed by the police unions during this primary. chicago has had heightened crime, crime rates undisputed. as joe said, we talk about it all the time. on the other hand, you've had cases like laquan mcdonald and cases of police abuse where, in fact, the city is under a consent decree now as we speak. so how do you thread that needle to deal with coming with a strategy that would bring down crime without having police going overboard and dealing with this consent decree problem and not having more situations like laquan mcdonald? your police chief resigned two days ago after the election. do you have in mind someone that could really become the police

chief that would be able to have the balance where we could deal with bringing down crime without police becoming abusive? >> right. let me respond, first, to your broader question. your broader question is this. i actually came in and negotiated an eight-year contract between the city and the fraternal order of police, a contract that was five years overdue. there were 2,000 police officers prepared to retire had they not secured a contract. just imagine chicago already down 1700 officers, down 3700 officers. i took on the contract with two prerequisites. one is that they had to embrace the accountability provisions that were consistent with the consent decree and that the sergeants' contract had included. those were the ability provisions that the police reformers were advocating for.

i got that contract passed. it had 80% support with the rank and file. the rank and file will embrace reform while at the same time feel they're being supported by a mayor who recognizes that police need to have a normal schedule, that police need to be deployed to local beats rather than moved around all over the city consistently and that police will have the leadership, which i will promote from within, who have their respect and have earned the right to lead. i believe i'm going to continue to fully implement the consent decree while providing communities with the type of local beat integrity so they don't have to wait two hours or three hours for a police car when they make a 911 call. >> reverend al, how important is that? we hear about that, having cops that live in the community,

having cops connected to the community and when people call, they don't have to wait 45 minutes or an hour? >> very important, because it gives people a sense of being policed by their neighbors, whose kids may go to school with theirs and they're not dealing with people who don't understand the environment and some that view themselves as an outside occupied force. i think it's very important. >> democratic candidate for the mayor of chicago, paul vallas, thank you very much. >> thank you very much for having me. coming up on "morning joe," texas republicans go after one of their own. we'll explain why they want to censure a congressman for legislation tied to the uvalde school shooting. and florida, where the first amendment goes to die, we'll go through a bizarre proposal from a state senator targeting bloggers. rom a state senator targeting bloggers

here's to getting financially ready for anything! and here's to being single and ready to mingle. who's ready to cha-cha?! oh booking.com, ♪ i'm going to somewhere, anywhere. ♪ ♪ a beach house, a treehouse, ♪ ♪ honestly i don't care ♪ find the perfect vacation rental for you booking.com, booking. yeah.

♪ ♪ ♪ get directv with a two year price guarantee.

's that simple. ♪ not to mention, it's free. singlecare is accepted by major pharmacies across the country and it works for everyone, whether you have insurance or not. next time you need a prescription filled, go to singlecare to make sure you get the best price. visit singlecare.com and start saving today.

. a little quick pitch right there. >> pitch with the clock, how about that? >> he got 12 seconds there, i think. now he's down two strikes within 8 seconds. >> wow. >> that was like my brother and me playing whiffle ball when we were kids. that's an example of how the new pitch clock is speeding the game up, peralta taking 20 seconds. >> i might watch baseball again. i was so bored. it might be for a.d.d. me. in other news, a state senator in florida has

introduced a bill that would require bloggers who write about governor ron desantis or any officials to register with the state. >> come on, comrade. >> it would also require bloggers to disclose who's paying them and how much. i wonder what kind of can of worms that could open up. failing to register would result in a fine of $25 a day. the penalty would be capped at $2500 per posting. nbc news had reached out to governor ron desantis's office for his position on the bill. the texas republican party will vote this weekend on censuring one of its own for supporting bipartisan gun safety legislation. congressman tony gonzalez voted for the gun measures in the last session of congress. it was written in response to the deadly mass shootings in

buffalo and uvalde. the resolution was proposed by a group of texas republicans, who say gonzalez violated core principles of the state gop . >> what core principles? it didn't come close to touching the second amendment. >> the congressman's office has not responded to request for comment. >> that's extremism. >> he voted his values. >> he voted his values in a way that doesn't infringe on the second amendment. if you don't believe that, just read the supreme court and what the supreme court actually says the second amendment means, which is of course how we define the outlines of the second

amendment. didn't violate any core principles or the second amendment, and yet the texas republican party wants to seven chur a guy who passes a gun safety law after little children were slaughtered. >> they love losing. we had graydon carter on the show to discuss his latest venture, airmail. there's really great content in this weekly newsletter. we're previewing this every week. we're taking a look at the debut of airmail, a new standalone monthly section edited by the founding member of "allure" linda wells. it's a lively and informed look at the world of beauty and

wellness with a reporter's eye and a sense of humor. linda wells joins us now. >> good to be here. >> i'm not gray don carter, sorry about that. >> we're fine with that. linda, tell us about the beauty and wellness issue. is this monthly or one special edition? >> this is monthly. it started this morning. it really taps into an interest that is growing by the second in this country and around the world, actually, this interest in beauty and wellness is a huge business, an over trillion dollar business in this country. it's not a niche subject anymore. we've got influencers and social media heightening up the excitement about the subject. we're going to explore every aspect of beauty and wellness really in terms of lifestyle as

well as anything else. >> i totally agree with you. this has become mainstream important topic. you hear a lot of people talking about taking a mental health day or talking about a self-care day. it's not just about shallow issues. it's about your actual how you live your life in order to be able to be in the moment, enjoy your life more, be more productive and be more healthy. >> and sleep, stress, mental health, health care, those are some of the topics you cover. >> that's right. i think it is interesting, mika, about how especially during the pandemic self-care became almost synonymous with beauty and it also was a sign of mental health and mental health care. the connection of those things really shows how vital and fortunate subject is. we like to think of it as we're taking a deep dive in a superficial subject. >> it is really surprising how

massive this area of health and wellness has become. you talked about influencers. you have people who were in movies, movie stars that start their own product line and suddenly you hear they're billionaires. what's been responsible for just the explosive growth of this area? >> first of all, social media with the iphone you could post on social media and suddenly you were seen by tens of thousands of people, whereas in your life you would not ever encounter that many people at one time. suddenly everybody became much more public even though they were doing it from a private place. along with that became the ease of direct to consumer sales so

that really anybody could sell products on a website and participate in e-commerce. that caused the absolute boon in so many different people who have created lines that have just exploded. it's a whole different kind of marketing. it's accessible. you feel there's a personal connection. it's just a very, very fluid, lively territory right now. >> check out "airmail look" which debuted today. linda wells, thanks for coming on. we'll see you soon. still ahead, a new drama coming to apple tv introduces us to a near future where the chaotic effects of climate change have become embedded into our everyday lives. emmy award winning actor matthew reese and series creator scott burns joins us with a sneak peek next on "morning joe." us with ak next on "morning joe." you are surrounded by people

who are all younger than you. i had to get help somewhere along the line to stay competitive. i discovered prevagen. i started taking it and after a period of time, my memory improved. it was a game-changer for me. prevagen. at stores everywhere without a prescription.

get refunds.com powered by innovation refunds can help your business get a payroll tax refund, even if you got ppp and it only takes eight minutes to qualify. i went on their website, uploaded everything, and i was blown away by what they could do. getrefunds.com has helped businesses get over a billion dollars and we can help your business too. qualify your business for a big refund in eight minutes. go to getrefunds.com to get started. powered by innovation refunds. ♪♪ giorgio, look. the peanut butter box is here. ralph, that's the chewy pharmacy box with our flea and tick meds. it's not peanut butter. i know, i know. but every time the box comes, we get the peanut butter. yes, because mom takes the meds out of the box and puts them in the peanut butter. sounds like we're getting peanut butter. yes, but that is the chewy pharmacy box. ♪ the peanut butter box is here. ♪

♪ the peanut butter box is here ♪ alright, i'm out. pet prescriptions delivered to your door. chewy.

now, there's skyrizi.elivered to your door. with skyrizi 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months, after just 2 doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine or plan to. ♪♪ ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. just a few years ago, this was all covered with ice. >> there's really nothing up here. >> exactly. that's what makes it a great

place to build. it's all the nothing you could hope for. in a year you'll be able to see it from here, ten stories, tropical gardens. let's build. >> we're concerned with this ice sheet in greenland. >> do you really see it as a problem? >> one of two problems. i'll show you the other. >> that was a clip from apple tv's highly anticipated upcoming show "extrapolations" with a star studded cast that includes meryl streep, forest whitaker, matthew reese. each episode tells an interwoven story about what our immediate future could look like if we don't get a handle on climate change now. take a look. >> human history is the story of one terrible catastrophe after

another. >> i for once would love to wake up magically in a better world. >> what makes you think the world is going to get better? >> today people get their energy from the sun. humans have set foot on mars. cancer has been defeated. and yet for every question answered, another one appears. >> let's bring in emmy award winning actor matthew reese and the series writer, director and executive producer and creator scott burns. we always start in these interviews with the star. first question has to go to the star, right? since i'm such a huge fan of matthew's, you would think that's where i would start. scott, you got me here. apple is not giving out much, right? this is so interwoven and so multigenerational, it looks like

an extraordinary series. we just don't know exactly what it's going to be. what can you tell us? >> that you'll have to watch to find out. >> there you go. >> no. you know, when we started on the show, the goal was to look at climate change, but instead of looking on the weather report, where i think some people anticipate seeing it, we wanted to show them it's on every page of the paper now. to illustrate that this is going to affect people's lives in ways that maybe they haven't been trained or prepared to look. >> you're right. so often it's like great documentaries that you've been a part of. here, you actually go through, again, generations. it's about life, it's about love. it's so personal, so emotional. really this seems to be going at this very important issue from

the heart as well as the head. >> yeah. that was what we were trying to do. i think at the end of the day, as all of us know, this is entertainment. i don't think i'm going to move people or change them or challenge them if i don't get them to care. i want people to walk away from these episodes first and foremost being entertained, because i think if we get them engaged that way, then they'll get curious about how we begin to really tackle this. >> matthew, your character looks absolutely him. he seems to be a climate denier of the first order. >> he is, loathsome would be the right word, which is why i was rather stunned when scott said i've got the perfect character for you that you'll just ease into. but yes, as scott said in the past, this is as much about

human behavior as it is climate change and how that is at the forefront of this denial, and he certainly is an enormous denier. >> is it the hope, matthew, that you doing this and others in this series that people see that this is reality that could be not too far removed from now if we don't do something about it? i hear scott saying he wants people to care, but also that you want people to do something about it before we p end up living in real life, which you're projecting in this series. >> absolutely, you know, exactly that. as scott said, it's only through, you know, we have the opportunity in this medium to do that through very personal stories because i think sometimes the science of it can kind of distance, you know, the audience. so it's these very personal stories, the hope is that's

where you'll really see how it will affect us. >> and scott, merl streep, tobey maguire, edward norton, heather graham, judd hurst, a lot of buy-in from a lot of people who care a great deal about this issue? >> yeah, it was really remarkably gratifying to have the cast that we had, and they are all heroes of mine. you know, i know that the story spoke to them, but i also really believe that the characters spoke to them and that we needed them to help come and tell these stories. i think if you ask matthew, it was fun for him to inhabit that role, so again, it isn't just, you know, it's not a public service announcement. it's entertainment. >> and matthew, what do you hope the viewer gets out of this?

>> you know, predominantly with all scott's work, you always come away thinking from a slightly different point of view, and i think that's my hope from this is that, you know -- like scott said, it's not a public service announcement. i hope people come away with a slightly different opinion of what's ahead of us. >> all right. thank you, guys, so much for being with us. we greatly appreciate it. just can't wait to see it. extrapolations makes its global premier on apple tv plus on friday march 17th. matthew reece and scott burns, thank you so much. the sentencing hearing for convicted murderer alex murdaugh is now underway. let's listen to the judge speaking. >> to being guilty to go back and explain to me what happened at that moment in time when they opted to pull the trigger, when

they opted to commit the most heinous crimes known to man. in this case qualifies under our death penalty statute, based on the statutory aggravating circumstances of two or more people being murdered by the defendant by one act or pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct. i don't question at all the decision of the state not to pursue the death penalty, but as i sit here in this courtroom and look around the many portraits

of judges and other court officials and reflect on the fact that over the past century your family, including you, have been prosecuting people here in this courtroom and many have received the death penalty, probably for lesser conduct. remind me of the expression you gave on the witness stand. it tangled. >> tangled web we weave. >> oh, what a tangled web we weave. what did you mean by that? >> i meant when i lie i continue to lie. >> and the question is when will

it end? when will it end? and it's ended already for the jury because they've concluded that you continue to lie and lie throughout your testimony, and perhaps with all the throng of people here, they for the most part all believe, or 99% believe that you continue to lie now with your statement of denial to the court. perhaps you believe that it does not matter, that there's nothing that can mitigate a sentence given of a crime, crimes that were committed. a notice of alibi was filed in

this case by counsel in november, and we conducted a hearing, pretrial hearing in which you claim to have been someplace else at the time the crime was committed. then after all of the witnesses placed you at the scene of the crime at the last minute, last minutes or days you switched courses and admitted to being there and then that necessitated more lies and continued to lie. when i say where will it end, it's already ended for many who have heard you and concluded that it will never end, but within your own soul you have to

deal with that, and i know you have to see paul and maggie during the nighttime when you're attempting to go to sleep. i'm sure they come and visit you, i'm sure. >> all day and every night. >> yeah, i'm sure. and they will continue to do so and reflect on the last time they looked you in the eyes as you looked the jury in the eyes. i don't know a person who's always been such a gregarious, friendly person cause a life to be tangled in such a weaved web, such a situation that yours have

spun into and it's so unfortunate because you had such a lovely family of such friendly people, including you, and to go from that to this, you know, your license to practice law has been stripped away from you, turned from lawyer to witness and now have an opportunity to make your final appeal as an ex-lawyer. it's almost -- it was really surprising that you're waiving this right at this time, and if

you opt to do so, it's on you. you're not compelled to say anything. but you have the opportunity to do so. >> i'll tell you again, i respect this court, but i'm innocent. i would never under any circumstances hurt my wife maggie, and i would never under any circumstances hurt my son pau-pau. >> and it might not have been you. it might have been the monster you become when you take 15, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 opioid pills. maybe you become another person. i've seen that before. the person standing before me was not the person who committed the crime, though it's