Morning Joe - Morning Joe 10/20/23

Episode Date: October 20, 2023

Biden urges Americans to support Israel and Ukraine

American leadership is what holds the world together. American alliances will keep us, America, safe. American values are what make us a partner that other nations want to work with. To put all that at risk if we walk away from Ukraine, if we turn our backs on Israel, it's just not worth it. Part of President Biden's address last night urging Americans and Congress to continue to support Ukraine and Israel in the vastly different wars each is fighting. We'll go live to Israel for the latest on the expected ground invasion of Gaza. Meanwhile, Republicans are somehow creating even more chaos on Capitol Hill with another speaker's vote scheduled for this morning.

It comes as the temporary speaker is getting fed up and is now threatening to resign. Plus, we'll get expert legal analysis on the surprise guilty plea from one of the many defendants in the Georgia election interference case. That's a big one. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Friday, October 20th. I'd love to get both you and Willie's reaction to the president's speech last night. I thought it was really effective, sort of part teacher, part influencer and trying to spread the word of democracy. I mean, part comforter. I mean, there's no doubt, Willie, that last night's speech, you never know what to expect of the president of democracy. I mean, part comforter. I mean, there's no doubt, Willie, that last night's speech, you never know what to expect of the president's speech. And you think sometimes

there are going to be some platitudes here, some platitudes there. I'm talking any president. Last night's was a significant speech. This was a speech that was delivered on the heels of China and Russia's leaders getting together, Russia's foreign minister and Kim Jong-un getting together, Iran and Hamas coming together. We heard the term back in 2003, axis of evil. If that word is offensive to people out there this morning, we'll make them spit out their lattes. We'll just say there is an axis of anti-American forces out there this morning will make them spit out their lattes. We'll just say there is an axis of anti-American forces out there that are coming together that want to recreate the world in their own tyrannical image. And against that backdrop, Joe Biden gave a historic speech last night. It

was a speech that talked about America's role in the world at a time that a lot of Republicans on the far right and a lot of Democrats on the far left want to retreat. And Joe Biden's not for retreating. He also was a comforter in chief. I thought it was very moving when he said, if you are hurting out there, whether you are Jewish or Muslim, I hear you. You are part of our family. You are an American. For those incredibly important thing to say. I'm so glad he said it.

He actually called the father of the six year old child who was brutally murdered, senselessly murdered, comforted him, let him know that he and Jill were praying for his wife. So it was, I've got to say, it was a surprise of a speech for me. And it surprised some people who aren't Joe Biden fans. Brit Hume called it, at points, remarkable and said it was, by by far it was a critically important speech and the best speech of the president's career. Yeah, this president has had, it seems, absolute clarity on this issue since the war, actually going back to Ukraine, but especially in the last two weeks since Hamas attacked Israel. There's been no equivocating in his

support for Israel, the way he talks about America's relationship with Israel. There's been no equivocating in his support for Israel, the way he talks about America's relationship with Israel. He flew into a hot war zone two days ago to stand shoulder to shoulder with the prime minister. And that was on display, I think, last night. And you're right. In a time when you have Putin meeting with President Xi, you have Houthi rebels, you have different Iran-backed groups attacking now American troops, trying to with drones. It feels like a very heavy, dangerous, serious moment for Americans who are watching this all play out and wondering where our place is in this. And I think you're right that the president was trying to settle people a little less. They'd say we have an important role to play. We're the United States of America, but we can do this.

We can continue to support Ukraine. Here's a reminder why that's important. And we must support Israel. Here's why that's important, if you're wondering. And he did something that we heard President Bush do in the days after 9-11 was try, as you said, to reassure Muslim Americans that they are a part of all of this, that they have a safe place to be and to talk about that beautiful six-year-old boy who was murdered just for being Muslim. So it was it was a pretty extraordinary speech. And I would say in a string of extraordinary moments that this president has had in the last two weeks. He's very much in the moment and understands the assignment clearly from his decades of experience and mistakes made in foreign policy over time. It's brought him to this place where he truly

understands the mission here. Here's President Biden calling on Americans to support both Israel and Ukraine in their respective wars and explaining why it's critical to our national security. Hamas and Putin represent different threats, but they share this in common. They both want to completely annihilate a neighboring democracy, completely annihilate it. Hamas' stated purpose for existing is the destruction of the state of Israel and the murder of Jewish people. Hamas does not represent the Palestinian people. Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields, and innocent Palestinian families are suffering greatly because of them. Meanwhile, Putin denies Ukraine has or ever had real statehood. He claims the Soviet Union created

Ukraine. I know these conflicts can seem far away, and it's natural to ask, why does this matter to America? So let me share with you why making sure Israel and Ukraine succeed is vital for America's national security. You know, history has taught us that when terrorists don't pay a price for their terror, when dictators don't pay a price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and death and more destruction. They keep going. And the cost and the threats to America and the world keep rising. And if we walk away and let Putin erase Ukraine's independence, would-be aggressors around the world be emboldened to try the same? The risk of conflict and chaos could spread in other parts of the world, in the Indo-Pacific, in the Middle East, especially in the Middle East. Iran is supporting Russia in Ukraine, and it's supporting Hamas and other terrorist groups in the Middle East. Iran is supporting Russia in Ukraine and it's supporting Hamas and other

terrorist groups in the region and will continue to hold them accountable, I might add. Tonight, there are innocent people all over the world who hope because of us, who believe in a better life because of us, who are desperate not to be forgotten by us and are waiting for us. But time is of the essence. I know we have our divisions at home. We have to get past them. We can't let petty, partisan, angry politics get in the way of our responsibilities as a great nation. We cannot and will not let terrorists like Hamas and tyrants like Putin win. I refuse to let that happen. Let's bring in the host of way too early White House bureau chief at Politico,

Jonathan Lemire and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass. You know, Richard, as I was saying, surprised by the scope of this speech, the importance of this speech, the importance of this speech. You really had a Democrat, a Democratic president going out there actually, well, sounding a lot like Ronald Reagan in the middle of the Cold War, saying we cannot let tyranny win. And it it sets up a real battle for Republicans between the Reagan wing of the party and the Josh Hawley slash Charles Lindbergh wing of the Republican Party. And last night, Joe Biden was quite forceful and said the dots, whether you like it or not, the dots do connect from Hamas to Iran, to Russia, to China, to North Korea, across the world. What will be the impact, Richard?

Look, as you would expect, given my DNA, I like the full-throated support of internationalism, the rejection of the word isolationism, even though I don't think he explicitly used that word, Joe. I wonder how many minds it would really change. I don't think that many exactly to those wings of the parties you talk about. What about, though, Richard, on the world stage? Because, again, the world stage right now is looking at a Republican Congress that seriously couldn't make a bowl of oatmeal and wondering where the United States is. They see the president of the United States speaking again in such a full throated way and commentators on Fox News praising him for the senior commentators praising

him for that. I mean, the audience, the contrast, the audience is not just the Neville Chamberlains and the Charles Lindberghs of this Republican Party. It is also an international audience watching this, is it not? Especially people who consider America their enemies. It is the only thing that doesn't reassure people internationally is when people look at us. And I get this about three times a day. People around the world, particularly our friends, no longer know what's the normal and what's the aberration. So they hear Joe Biden. And this is exactly what they want to hear from the United States. And what they don't know is if they're only going to be hearing it for 12 more months. So they did. So there's a there's no doubts about him given Ukraine and Israel. What there are doubts about is exactly what you're pointing to. To what extent does he still represent America?

To what extent can our friends in the world bank that what he talked about will still be U.S. policy come 2025? And that's the only reason it doesn't have the reassuring effect that you suggest. Let me say two other things, Joe. One argument I wish the president had introduced into the speech was the idea that not only we should do what he was talking about, but we can afford it. The biggest criticism I run into all the time, it's kind of the old

guns versus butter. If we spend all this money on Ukraine or Israel, look at all the domestic needs that are going unmet. And what the president could have done was explain how historically we've been able to do both, how during the Cold War, we spent a far, far higher percentage of our GDP on national security. And the last I checked, the economy and the society did pretty well during those decades. So I wish he had connected that to take on that argument. And then second of all, he talked about how the United States has to make sure that both Israel and Ukraine succeed. What for a lot of people, though, was still left uncertain is what is his definition of success? Yes, Ukraine must be independent. But does that mean Ukraine and the United States should be funding Ukraine to regain every square inch of its territory? And yes, Israel must be safe from terrorist attack. But exactly what does that mean vis-a-vis what we support in Gaza?

So in that sense, I'm not sure the president will settle the conversation. Well, Willie, I mean, a president can only get so specific. That would have been a lot. A president can only get so specific. And he did. I thought the president actually framed it well when he talked about Ukraine by saying Vladimir Putin thought he was going to march into Kiev and take over the entire country in three days. He has failed for us. That's a definition of success.

Even holding Putin where he is keeps him from his main objective, keeps him from all of his objectives, really. And it seems to me that's what the United States has to do. We cannot allow a Russian tyrant to march into neighboring capitals. And he made the point connected that you can't allow a terrorist organization, organization Hamas, to go unchecked in a moment like this. And, John, it's a critical case to make because today the president is going to request up to one hundred billion dollars in aid for Ukraine and Israel combined package. By the way, doing that in front of a Congress that is in complete chaos

right now as Republicans try to find a speaker of the House for starters. Do you think he made that case now when he goes and asks for that much money for two foreign conflicts? Do you think he'll come up with the cash? Yeah, this was a tricky speech to deliver, to try to sell Americans on these two distant wars, why it matters so much to their national security here at home. To that point about letting terrorists or dictators go unchecked, he said if they do, they cause more chaos, more death and destruction. They keep going and the costs and threats to America continue to go up, too. That was a key line here, trying to suggest that this matters on our shores, even though these conflicts feel so far away. The president,

you know, aides had said, obviously, he'd spent a lot of time on the speech the last couple of days. You could tell he he sort of warmed to it as it went along. He got more personal when he talked about Americans and Arab Americans and Palestinians and how the U.S. feels their plight. He certainly rallied. I thought the speech got better as it went. But now there's the great unknown about what happens on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, Joe and Mika. Like $100 billion is an extraordinary amount of money.

The president made a forceful case to sell it. And it's obviously not just Ukraine and Israel. There's border security, Taiwan, domestic programs in there as well. But it can't go anywhere without a House of Representatives. And the president didn't make that point. He didn't try to score any political points last night. He definitely took the high road. He was global statesman. But none of this goes anywhere until Republicans can put their own house in order in the Capitol. Well, the question really is, Mika, are the Republicans willing? I know some are to let Vladimir Putin win in Ukraine. I know some are. Yeah. So literally with them, literally are with him. But you listen to what they say. It could be coming out of out

of Russian television in prime time. Do they want Israelis to fail in their effort to push back against the Hamas terrorist group? Well, we'll see. Maybe they do. Do they want fentanyl to flood in over the border when Joe Biden wants to spend a lot of money to protect the border from that. Also, they've asked for border security. We're talking about 14 billion dollars in border security, security in the southern border. I mean, do they want to vote against that as well? I mean, maybe they do. Like I said, and maybe I overestimated them. Maybe maybe not only can they not make a bowl of oatmeal, but they would have an instant. They would hurt themselves trying. Yeah. Oh, they're definitely get burned. For God's sake, keep the blender away from them.

This is a group of people that that I've never seen such incompetence and confusion. That's why Richard does make a good point, which is the world is watching. They want to know, are we going to bow down to Vladimir Putin? Are we going to bow down to Hamas? Are we going to retreat from the world? It's a very, very important question to be answered. And right now it is the Republican House of Representatives that's not answering that question because they can't even elect a speaker. For most of them, their guy just got another really bad piece of legal news out of Georgia, which we'll get to in just one minute. We've got full coverage of the breakdown of cracking lady.

Yes, she she cracked. She cracked big time, ripping Capitol Hill. Republicans have twenty two hundred and twenty one members in the House and they cannot pick a single one of them to lead their party. Not one. The very latest on the failing efforts to choose a House speaker when we come back in 60 seconds. This is historic incompetence. I think it may be remembered as one of the best, if not the best speeches of his presidency. He was firm. He was unequivocal. He was strong, as he has been particularly in recent days when he was before he went to Israel. And while he was over there, I was struck by the fact that he spent as much time as he did on Ukraine.

And I think it was a good thing that he did. Some surprising, chaotic developments. Come on, man. There is another, a new House vote for Speaker scheduled at 10 o'clock this morning. So that guy's supporters, by the way, let's just stop right here. Election denier Jay Sixer. Let's just stop right there. That guy. Yeah.

Right there. His people are calling the wives, texting the wives of Republican members and threatening them. Ken Buck got a report that Ken Buck's lease in his local office got canceled because he didn't support Jim Jordan. Pressure is mounting from all over from right wing freaks. Let me say it again. Right wing freaks who are threatening, threatening Republican members if they don't support speaking out. I'm not really good at politics, Willie. That's not really a good way to win friends and influence fellow members of Congress. In fact, in the words of Aristotle, be ye careful, ye may piss them off, which, of course, I had no idea.

Ye was used in ancient Greek. But in this case, Aristotle did. And you know what? I think he was right. Harassing people's wives as a political tactic, as a way to twist arms to get their vote. That's a good one. Which is who would have thought it's backfiring spectacularly on Jim Jordan. All these members are going public with these stories and saying there are people from his office or people working on his behalf, at least threatening us. We've had to have extra security because I won't vote for Jim Jordan, an insurrectionist, a guy who won't admit that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

I don't know what he thinks his path is. He's not giving up the game, though. He's going to go up for another vote today, a few hours from now. Actually, he thinks somehow this vote total is going to go up when, in fact, every time they go to a vote, he gets fewer votes. And it might be because of the harassment of members, loved ones. OK, the move comes nearly 24 hours after the Ohio congressman said he would support temporarily empowering interim interim speaker Patrick McHenry of North Carolina to take on the speaker's role until January, allowing legislative business to continue in the face of two wars and a looming government shutdown.

But Jonathan Lemire, within a couple of hours, Republicans got together and this portion of the Republican caucus being stupid as they are politically so stupid. We're like saying that would be like turning the floor over to the Democrats. That would be another one like waving his constitution, said it would be unconstitutional. I didn't know what is is North Carolina like a breakaway republic? Is regular order unconstitutional? Why would it be turning the floor over to Democrats if you gave the speakership temporarily to a Republican from North Carolina so things could run effectively,

they could pass appropriation bills, and the Republican Party would not get further battered by all of this. And America could speak with one voice on terror attacks. Yeah, McHenry, not from Cambridge or Brooklyn. He's from North Carolina. And there is a real sense of whiplash of what happened yesterday in the House of Representatives, where Jordan didn't have the votes, decided he would throw his support behind the McHenry maneuver to temporarily increase his powers. Jordan himself talking to reporters saying this is what we're going to do. Then behind closed doors, as you just alluded to,

a lot of dissent about this. Also, a lot of anger at the eight Republicans who ousted Kevin McCarthy in the first place. In fact, screaming at Matt Gates, one member threatened to take a swing at him while they were behind closed doors. Then they realized they don't have the support for McHenry. Jordan comes back out, says, well, we'll try it again. Word then leaks that McHenry might quit, that he's not going to do this role any longer if it doesn't go through certain procedures. And we end up worse than where we started. And there is no path. There's no one suspects, Willie, that that Jordan will have the votes to get through it today. And then it becomes, well, how many more rounds of voting does he want to put up with? How many more rounds of voting

do his fellow Republicans allow him? What happens this weekend? Does anyone else step forward? Does McHenry get convinced to try it again? It's chaos. It's chaos. And it comes against the backdrop. The president of the United States last night addressing the nation, saying we need to help our allies and we can't. Asking for $100 billion. Unclear who he's asking at this point. There's nobody in charge. Let's bring in congressional investigations reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alimany, who's been all over this story. Jackie, this is truly wild at this point that Jim Jordan, in a few hours, is going to go up again for another vote and try somehow to change the dynamics that have been going

away from him, not toward him in the last couple of days. In fact, when he called that meeting yesterday with his detractors, I guess to try to convince him, those members came out of the meeting, it was reported, and said, no, no, we wanted to have the meeting to tell him to get out of the way, that there's no path to 217 for you. So what gives here? Are they going to have the vote at 10? And does he have any way to get to 217? Yeah, Willie, I think this is what Mitch McConnell might call mutually assured destruction. We are now counting down the minutes until an 8 a.m. press conference with Jim Jordan after, as John accurately described, a day of whiplash where the crippling dysfunction of the speakerless House that has not had a speaker now ahead of these must pass deadlines for over two weeks, I believe it is. And Jim Jordan is going to come out and say whether or not he's going to go ahead with this vote, this third vote at 10 a.m., which he is all but certain to lose.

His his support has eroded. It's going to continue to erode. And again, as we've said all week, the opposition to Jordan is profound. It is out of principle. It's not out of a negotiation tactic. There is a faction of never Jordan moderates, institutionalists, lawmakers across the board, appropriators, people of all stripes and ideologies who are against Jordan and are not going to be able to turn by him. And as you said in this meeting yesterday after Jordan reversed course, after agreeing to this plan to empower Patrick McHenry and then came out of this House GOP conference meeting and said, actually, wait, never mind, we're going full steam ahead,

that he's not going to be able to pick up the votes here. So we'll see what happens. There's not many people who want this job. The few people who do want the job, the few people who could get the job don't want the job. So we'll see. So, Jackie, to that point, exactly. We saw Patrick McHenry there in that video alongside Jim Jordan. The backup plan in all of this is to make the speaker pro tem Patrick McHenry of North Carolina the temporary speaker of the House through the end of the year. But now even he's saying, well, I don't want that job. I don't want the short term job. I don't want it without some assurances that I'll actually have power to do things. So is even that plan in peril here? Yeah, there is this basically the House Freedom Caucus and some other hard hard liners who don't want to kick the can down the road have basically said that they are not going to even consider this resolution anymore that was introduced by House GOP

moderate Dave Joyce and has some quiet buy-in from House Democrats who want to get back to regular order. And again, this plan would go until January 3rd. But there are some sort of constitutional questions that are being raised, although I heard from a former House counsel under Tip O'Neill yesterday who said that he did not see any issues constitutionally or with the House rules in empowering Patrick McHenry. But I do think this is a matter of sort of these underlying relationships and complications in the House dynamics. Patrick McHenry not wanting to step on Jim Jordan's toes. Kevin McCarthy quietly lurking

in the background. Some talk about him maybe swooping in and trying this go at speakership again if these eight people who voted against him to begin with finally apologize. There's so much going on right now. And I think that Patrick McHenry just doesn't want the job or think that it could function in the way that I think people think it could. You know, Jackie, thank you, as always. Washington Post, Jackie Elliman. Thank you. You know, we really I talked about how we had back. You don't know this. They don't usually tell people this. But I think in this case, I really need to. Willie, are you there?

Really? There you are. He's right there. So I think I need to tell you this. It was a different time in my life. It was before I got on TV. Yeah. But I was once in Congress.

I was in Congress. Come on. OK. No, it was the early But I was once in Congress. I was in Congress. Here we go. Come on. Okay. No, I'm kidding. It was the early. It was like aught. It was 94 to aught one. Yeah.

But. Right in the grunge era. It was. Hacky sack. I wore. I got a waiver to be able to wear flannel on the house floor. And you played hacky sack in the hall. Doc Martens and flannel. Yeah house floor. And you played hacky sack in the hall. And Doc Martens and flannel.

Yeah. Exactly. I had headphones. I had my Walkman on. And yes, I played Smells Like Teen Spirit on a loop. A little bit of Soundgarden mixed in there.

A little Pearl Jam. So I was in Congress then. That's what I was doing. But we were always considered reckless, crazy, because we voted. We didn't vote. He never got to the vote. But Newt Gingrich got out of town because a group of us said we no longer supported him as Speaker. What's important to realize is that happened the day after the election. We made the call. We said, this is what we're going to do.

There was sort of some chaos for about three, four days while Congressman was in recess. And when we got back, we elected a new leadership team. And so I guess I just bring that up to say it would be unimaginable. For us to blow up the House of Representatives and the speakership in the middle of a session and keep the speaker's chair vacant for this long? Unimaginable. Until now. Not in a million years would any of the 12 or 13 of us

that were considered radicals, freaks, all this other stuff, we would never, ever even contemplate doing that, which tells you how nihilistic this group of Republican holdouts are. They are not conservative. There's nothing conservative about them. They're radicals. And they are actually the antithesis of everything that Edmund Burke or Russell Kirk or William F. Buckley or Ronald Reagan would ever define as a conservative. Yeah, and it's radical, of course, to get rid of the Speaker of the House in the first place, Kevin McCarthy. But it's reckless to have no plan after you get rid of the Speaker of the House.

But to your point, though, that small group of of radical Republicans doesn't think about that. They're just there to blow things up politically and get attention for themselves. But, I mean, we're not even talking about the business of being a congressman or a congresswoman and getting legislation passed and getting money approved for wars and things like that. We're just talking about getting a leader in position so that you can begin to do those things. And they can't even do that. And, by the way, as Jackie said, it's not clear how this gets resolved. I mean, we're sitting here two weeks later. Jim Jordan doesn't have the votes. Patrick McHenry doesn't want the job necessarily or that small group of radicals doesn't want him to have that job temporarily.

Where does that leave them? I honestly don't know. I don't think anybody does on Capitol Hill. Well, you know, yeah, we will. Other concern is, again, there's really no ideology here. No, it's not about ideology. As Willie said, it's about about owning not the libs here, owning the Republicans, being able to put up TikTok videos, being able to raise money by saying, hey, I'm going up against the man, the Republican man. And it's it's all gesture. It's not about legislation. I will say again, contrasting with what we did to now, our singular focus, that group was balancing the budget and making Washington responsible fiscally. That was our singular focus.

And it worked. There is no singular focus here. None. It is. It is just chaos. And I still don't understand how Jim Jordan even would think that an election denier, Jay Sixer, as Speaker of the House, is good for this country. Well, and also threatening someone who's done nothing, threatening people's wives to win votes. And doesn't work. Let's talk about the guy who inspired a lot of these folks coming up on Morning Joe.

Sidney Powell vowed to release the Kraken to help former President Trump. But now she could end up testifying against him instead in court. She cracked it looks like. Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg joins the conversation to discuss what Powell pleading guilty in the Georgia election interference case might mean for her former boss. Can we just take a minute just to listen to my theme song in Congress? Yeah, I know. I like that. Kind of bring of the best.

One of former President Trump's staunchest allies has pleaded guilty in the Georgia election interference case. We always said Georgia was going to be a bit different. Sidney Powell, who was a member of Trump's legal team in his quest to overturn the 2020 election, pleaded guilty yesterday to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit intentional interference with performance of election duties. Those charges are mostly related to Powell's part in breaching voting equipment in a rural Georgia county in January of 2021. As part of a plea deal, she was sentenced to six years of probation and will have to pay

$6,000 in fines and nearly $3,000 in restitution to the state of Georgia. Powell will have to turn over all documents related to the case and write an apology to the state's citizens. She has also agreed to testify against the remaining co-defendants in the case, including Trump and his former lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Powell's sentence is significantly less severe than what she could have faced if found guilty during trial, which was set to begin next week. Powell, who appeared in news conferences

and spread mass election misinformation, was a frequent White House visitor after the 2020 election. So keep in mind, she was in there. She dealt directly with Trump and Giuliani, with Trump at one point considering naming her as special counsel to investigate alleged voter fraud. Let's bring in former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg. Chuck, many people believe it was a light sentence given given everything. But does that suggest that she actually has information that the Georgia prosecutors really need?

You know, quite possibly. I mean, to that point, Joe, she avoided a felony and she's going to avoid jail time. So, you know, I think in some ways it is a light sentence. Does she have information that's going to be helpful to prosecutors? Well, there's a couple of hurdles here, right? First, it has to be information that's admissible. I imagine it certainly does. Second, they have to make a determination that she's credible to put on the stand. And she's said a lot of crazy things, and she's done a lot of crazy things. So putting her on the stand means that the jury will believe her and that she could withstand what would be logically a pretty difficult cross-examination. And then third, and I think this is a really important caveat, there is still a pending indictment in federal court in the District of Columbia. She is an

unindicted co-conspirator in that indictment. And so, even if she wants to cooperate, she still has a Fifth Amendment issue. Things that she says in Georgia, if she testifies against others, including Mr. Trump or Mr. Giuliani, could theoretically be used against her if federal prosecutors decide to charge her. I don't think that's insurmountable. I think that can be resolved. But prosecutors would have to address all of those things, relevant and admissible information, credible enough to put on the stand at trial and to withstand cross-examination. And then they would have to address her lingering Fifth Amendment

privilege against self-incrimination. But yeah, she could be a very important witness, sure. So Chuck, as you read through these plea documents, Sidney Powell basically just comes clean on everything. Says, yes, I took all those actions after the 2020 election with the purpose of willfully tampering with machines that were tabulating votes. She tells the whole story effectively, which tells you what kind of witness she could be.

Remind our viewers a bit about what she could say about Donald Trump, potentially, given how close she was in those crazy couple of months after the election. Yeah, excuse me, Willie. Mika alluded to this, and she's exactly right. There was a raucous meeting in the White House on December 18th. Sidney Powell attended. And at that meeting, and reports are that it got fairly heated between normal lawyers and abnormal lawyers, a couple of ideas were floated, including whether or not, as Mika said, to name Sidney Powell as a special counsel to investigate election fraud. Thank goodness that didn't happen. Also, to talk about whether the National Guard should be deployed, in part to help seize voting machines, whether the election really ought to be

rerun. And so, you know, why does that matter? Because President Trump was there. And the most important witnesses in any criminal case are those who have sat next to, talked with, heard from the defendant. And Mr. Trump is the defendant. So again, could she have important information? Absolutely. You still have to resolve that lingering Fifth Amendment issue. But I think Mika nailed it in her opening. She has proximity to Mr. Trump, so she could be a very important witness about Mr. Trump. And I mean, she's flipping. So, Chuck, the question that sort of hangs over this or maybe the reality, clearly she would have faced some pretty difficult consequences if she was found guilty.

And clearly, I mean, can you make the assumption, given that she was right in there from the ground up on election denying and election interference, just from what we know so far and the amount of face time that she had with Donald Trump, how she was brought in like that, that she knew that there were not a lot of options for her, that she has a lot to offer. Is there an assumption that can be approached there that she has good information to offer to prosecutors? Maybe. And I'm sure they think, Mika, hopefully. I mean, it's not unusual for people who have been charged with crimes to plead guilty. Overwhelmingly, that happens. And if they are lucky enough to have information that prosecutors think is valuable, then perhaps they can, you know, that's part of the bargain. That's part

of the offer. That's what they can give prosecutors in response for here the ability to plead to misdemeanors rather than felonies and the ability to avoid jail time. Two big things that Sidney Powell gets out of this deal, assuming that it all survives and goes through cleanly, looks like it has. That's pretty remarkable. If I can, though, Mika, it brings me to one thing that troubles me about what is happening in Georgia. And maybe it's only because our practice in federal court is very different. Mika, if you and Joe robbed a bank and we charged you each with a felony and you wanted to plead guilty, then you would have to plead guilty to a felony. We don't engage, by and large, in the federal system in what is called charge bargaining, dropping a charge from a felony to a misdemeanor to induce a plea. Georgia apparently does that. And maybe

it's just my discomfort with that state system or the fact that I'm used to the federal system, which that does not occur. But that is a big benefit to defendants who want to come forward and resolve their cases. I'm sure it's not lost on 17 other co-defendants who might realize I can get rid of a felony and get a misdemeanor. I could stay out of jail if I do what she did. We may see more of that happening. Wow. Well, that is something. Former U.S. Attorney Chuck Rosenberg, thank you very much. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we turn back to the Israel-Hamas war, the latest on the possible ground invasion of Gaza.

We'll talk with a spokesperson for the Israeli Defense Forces about what's happening on the ground right now. We're also going to be talking about Joe Biden's speech last night, considered by people on both sides of the aisle to be extraordinarily important. We'll talk about what it means across the world and what the political fallout may be here at home. You're watching Morning Jail. We'll be right back. For Israel to operate by the laws of war. That means protecting civilians in combat as best as they can. The people of Gaza urgently need food, water, and medicine. As I said in Israel,

as hard as it is, we cannot give up on peace. We cannot give up on a two-state solution. Israel and Palestinians equally deserve to live in safety, dignity and peace. All right. Richard Haass, again, as I said, a speech that drew widespread praise. I did note, as you did, that the president of the United States, a fulsome supporter of Israel, still laid down three markers for Israel's leaders last night. Talk about that. Absolutely. The first was on what Israel's doing. And he basically said, don't make the same mistake we did after 9-11. Essentially, be smart. Don't make foreign policy just with your heart. Make it with your head. And that to me, essentially, was a marker, don't go in too big and don't stay for too long. Then it was how Israel

did it. And that was the reference to the laws of war, that you have to take all sorts of steps to make sure that civilians are not injured against the siege and so forth. And then lastly, whenever the dust settles, he put down a marker about the two-state solution, that ultimately there needs to be a political track, that absent the political track, the only game in town is terrorism. So if we don't want Hamas to have a monopoly on promoting what they describe as Palestinian interests, we have to empower other Palestinians with the hope that their legitimate political aspirations can be satisfied. So three specific markers, what Israel does, how it does it and

what comes after. Quite interesting. Let's bring in now spokesperson for the Israeli Defense Forces, Major Libby Weiss. Major Weiss, thank you for being with us this morning. We've seen pictures even this morning, live pictures of tanks massed at the border with Gaza. I don't expect you to reveal your war plans on national television here, but are you fully expecting to go across the border sometime soon? Well, we are awaiting the government's decision, but of course, in the meantime, we are increasing our preparedness, both in terms of troop training and operational planning. But we, of course,

will be ready whenever the government makes their decision. Are you confident, Major, that the civilians in northern Gaza that you've now given several days to move south to clear out the area, especially around Gaza City, are you confident that those civilians have moved out of there to the extent that you're comfortable now to go in? Well, first of all, we encourage those who have not left to do so. We know that Hamas is making it quite difficult for them to do that. And of course, this message to them has been out for several days because it is our hope that as many as possible are able to move to areas that will be safer that we have designated. But of course, we understand that Hamas is making it very, very difficult for them to do that, horrifically so,

in fact. Major, good morning. Can you give us an update, please, on where things stand with the corridor that's supposed to be opened up with Egypt? I know there's a real security situation there. You guys are watching carefully. At least as of a short time ago, it had not opened. Have you received, has your government received any updates as to when it might? So this is, of course, something that on the diplomatic level would have to be would have to be addressed. I don't know to give you the specifics on that. Of course, we will facilitate whatever decision will be made by the government in terms of that corridor. Major Richard Haass, if you were to go in, if the Israeli Defense Forces were to go in,

what is your understanding of your definition of success? And if it's to eliminate Hamas, who would then administer Gaza? Who would have the political authority of running day-to-day Gaza? Well, I'm speaking, of course, from the military perspective. So I'm limited in the scope of a sort of larger long term plan that I could provide you simply because I don't know that that's a military issue. But from the military perspective, the goal here is to make sure that Hamas no longer has any capacity to do what we saw that they did on October 7th and what they continue to do since that massacre just about two weeks ago. So, of course, that means making sure that they no longer have the military capacity that we saw and that they don't have the administrative capacity to do that either. And that's certainly what we will do and what the military focus is at this stage. So one element of your security situation is obviously to degrade Hamas. What is Israel doing to reconstitute its defenses in the south

and west of the country? Obviously, they were much weaker than people thought. They were overrun. Can you say something about what's going on inside Israel to reduce Israel's vulnerability to something like this ever happening again? Well, there's no doubt that there'll be some long-term lessons that will be learned. And of course, I think those will be addressed at a later stage. Right now, there's been a very active call-up of more than 300,000 reservists who are, of course, very much monitoring the situation along not only the southern border, but elsewhere. We are monitoring the situation closely as well in our northern border. And this is what the focus is really at this stage. Major, there are fears that when this ground invasion happens, if it indeed does, the attacks from the north will begin from Hezbollah, another, of course, Iran-backed group.

Are you prepared for that circumstance and to defend Israel to the north as well? Well, we're monitoring the situation very, very closely. Of course, we will be prepared to defend the country. But we do send a message and a question, perhaps, is a better way to say it, to Lebanon, which is to say, you know, is it in their interest to join Hamas and what is taking place and to pay some price that will inevitably come as a result of that? I would hope that their answer would be no, but of course we will defend ourselves as needed wherever we need to. Finally, Major, the explosion at the hospital inside Gaza a couple of days ago, Hamas blamed Israel.

Our own reporting and that of the United States government shows that it was not in fact an Israeli rocket, that it was likely an explosion from a Hamas rocket. Can you say definitively that that explosion at the hospital did not come from the Israeli Defense Forces? Correct. It did not come from us. Of course, the research that was done and the vetting that was done on the U.S. side and by others clearly confirms that. And I think the rush to assume that it was us and to somehow take Hamas's word is, of course, very concerning and unfortunate. And I don't know how we can

trust the words of people who kidnapped babies and the elderly. And of course, Hamas will lie and has no issue to continue lying about this. But as was stated again as well by the U.S., it was not Israeli fire in any capacity that led to that. Spokesperson for the Israeli Defense Forces, Major Libby Weiss, thank you for your time this morning. We appreciate it.