Morning Joe - Morning Joe 2/22/23

Episode Date: February 22, 2023

Biden promises continued support for Ukraine

A dictator, then I'm rebuilding an empire, will never be able to ease the people's love of liberty. Brutality will never grind down the will of the free. And Ukraine, Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never. President Joe Biden marks one year of war in Eastern Europe with an impassioned speech promising continued support for Ukraine and laying out the stakes of the conflict. Meanwhile, we're learning more about the special grand jury that investigated potential 2020 election interference by former President Donald Trump and his allies. We'll play for you the new comments from a key juror in the case. It comes as some Republicans are still trying to figure out their messaging on Donald Trump and his third presidential campaign. Also ahead, the latest on the efforts to clean up an

environmental disaster in Ohio as federal and state officials take action against the rail company at the center of it. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, February 22nd. Along with Joe in Washington, we have former CIA officer now an NBC News security and intelligence analyst, Mark Polymeropoulos. And here in New York with Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House bureau chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, author of The Big Lie, former Supreme Allied commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy admiral James Tavridis. He is chief international analyst for NBC News and president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass, author of the new book entitled The Bill of Obligations, The Ten Habits of Good Citizens. Joe, a great set, a great cast this morning between New York and Washington.

It is a great cast. Yeah, it is a great cast. I also have to say yesterday, what an inspiring day. What an inspiring few days. You know, Willie, when you you saw Joe Biden, when I saw Joe Biden walking through Kiev, I was left and I'm sure our panelists will agree with us. JFK in Berlin, Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate saying Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall. Of course, the danger was far greater for Joe Biden because he's the first president since Abraham Lincoln in the Civil War to go go to go to basically a front line without American troops supporting and dominating that area. And then yesterday, the speech in Warsaw. And it was it it was just remarkable. It was Western democracy versus Russian tyranny, individual freedom versus ty tyrants totalitarianism um it was i must say for this former republican and old cold warrior uh this was this was just about as good as it gets we for those of us that believe that western democracy and that that Jeffersonian democracy and that that the freedoms that that we believe in in this country and that we strive to to live up to, even when we fall short.

This is. This was the good stuff. This is the bedrock of of of our beliefs. And I want to say ours. I'm talking about, again, a former from from people who for some reason decide that they don't love an American president actually risking his life to promote freedom across Europe if that president's not in their own party. A truly, truly bizarre worldview and one I will never understand as long as I live. It is a bizarre worldview, but good to keep in mind that it's become the minority view, even within the Republican Party of the group yesterday, a Republican congressman and women inside of Ukraine following the lead of President Biden there. And you had the extraordinary symbolism on Monday

of an American president walking through the streets of a war zone. And then the extraordinary substance yesterday. Rarely do we get to see in full view the contrast. In the morning, Vladimir Putin made a speech defending his invasion, defending authoritarianism. And then a few hours later, President Biden made the exact opposite speech defending freedom, defending democracy and openness in the West as Polish and Ukrainian and American flags were waved during his speech in front of about 30,000 people in front of a castle there in Warsaw. And Admiral Stavridis, as we walked in this morning, we saw you briefly in the hallway and we were just talking about that it was a good day for NATO, a good day for the West.

What did you think, number one, as a military leader, a leader, supreme commander of NATO, but also as an American about these last couple of days? It was terrific. And if you stop and think about the real risk that the president took, and that is real. And as the Supreme Allied Commander, you kind of put yourself in that role and you say, boy, would I have advised the president to go in there? I'm not sure I would have. That's why he gets paid the big bucks, as we say. But he made a powerful choice for democracy and defiant. And then the other thing that really struck me is complicated

speech. I've been a speechwriter, really. And to do a speech like that, you're really addressing four audiences, right? You've got to convey to the American people the stakes. Why is this important? You've got to convey to the Europeans a sense of real unity. You've got to convey to the American people the stakes. Why is this important? You've got to convey to the Europeans a sense of real unity. You've got to convey to the Ukrainians resolve. We will be with you. And above all, you've got to convey to the Russians defiance. Yeah, we're not. That's a pretty good day, Joe. Yeah, I've got to say also, I wanted to follow up with what what Willie said, and I'm so glad he pointed that out. I think that image we had up early was Michael McCaul in in in Ukraine. And he is there. He is. And he's not he's not a backbencher.

I mean, that guy's he I believe he's the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. And he went in. And so for every person we hear yammering and pro Putin talking points in the House GOP, you got you got Mike McCaul over there, along with I see Daryl Issa and other Republicans who are supporting freedom. He's the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. And you have Republicans over there and actually you have Chairman McCall actually pushing for more missiles and F-16s going over to Ukraine. So as Willie pointed out, Mika, this is a Republican House that is divided right now, while Republican Senate, for the most part, stood shoulder to shoulder with the president.

One other thing, I saw somebody else yesterday, a Brzezinski, another Brzezinski in Poland. Who would imagine that? I saw Mark, Mark speaking yesterday. And, you know, I visited Poland a few weeks back. And it's remarkable the conversation that we had with leaders in Poland and in Warsaw, Mark understands, the ambassador understands, and all those around him understand that the center of gravity for Europe, the center of gravity for the fight for freedom in Europe has moved from Germany to Warsaw. And it is a remarkable thing that Joe Biden and the rest of the administration now is focusing on in this war against Russian tyranny. Well, you know, it is kind of gave me chills to see him speaking before the president yesterday and during all of these events, just because my father's life and Richard, we can talk more about this and you can speak much more eloquently about it. You knew my father very well, but it was devoted to fighting

tyranny, to assessing and strategizing the Soviet threat and trying to figure out. I mean, he was prophetic as well as unbelievably skilled in his geostrategic relations. And seeing Mark there sort of full circle, it was a lot. It was a lot. And it's sending, I think his presence there is an incredible message in itself and very proud personally as his sister. But here's more of the president on the world stage speaking directly to everybody involved in the fight against tyranny and especially to Vladimir Putin about what will and will not fly. One year ago, the world was bracing for the fall of Kiev. Well, I just come from a visit to Kiev and I can report Kiev stands strong. Kiev stands proud. It stands tall. And most important, it stands free. One year into this war, Putin no longer doubts the strength of our coalition,

but he still doubts our conviction. He doubts our staying power. He doubts our continued support for Ukraine. He doubts whether NATO can remain unified. But there should be no doubt. Our support for Ukraine will not waver. NATO will not be divided, and we will not tire. The United States and the nations of Europe do not seek to control or destroy Russia. The West was not plotting to attack Russia, as Putin said today. And millions of Russian citizens who only want to live in peace with their neighbors are not the enemy. This war is never a necessity. It's a tragedy. President Putin chose this war. Every day the war continues is his choice. He could end the war with a word. It's simple. If Russia stopped invading Ukraine,

it would end the war. If Ukraine stopped defending itself against Russia, it would end the war. If Ukraine stopped defending itself against Russia, it would be the end of Ukraine. Richard Haass, you wrote a book about wars of choice. I thought it was a brilliant line from the president saying this is a war of choice. It's Vladimir Putin's choice and he could end this war with one word. And then this line, we will not tire. It is it is a message repeated from what he said in Kiev. We will stay here until the job gets done. What was your takeaway from the Warsaw speech and the visit to Kiev? I thought the president framed it exactly right there, Joe. It's a war of choice for Putin. It's a war of necessity for the West. And I think

that's the distinction. I think the principal task for the president, and he alluded to it several times, was to persuade Putin that time is not on his side. That is Russian strategy right now. Clearly, the last year is not the year that Vladimir Putin bargained for. Every one of his assumptions proved faulty. So the question is, can he regroup? And can, over the next couple of years, can splits emerge within Ukraine, obviously, in the West, in the United States? And Putin is banking on that. And I think the other thing he's perhaps hoping for is he gets more help from China, since the Chinese don't want to see him lose. They've made an enormous investment with him. But I thought Woody Allen's line about 80 percent of life showing up, I thought the fact

that the president showed up in Kiev and then in Warsaw was incredibly important. I thought that was one of the best speeches of his presidency, really also forcefully delivered. And the only thing I'd say, and he can't accomplish it in the speech, Joe, is the proof will be in the pudding. The real question is over the next couple of years, do we demonstrate to the Russians that we actually have the staying power to provide the arms, to provide the economic support for Ukraine? And the only other sad thing about that is we're talking about years. I don't see anything in the last couple of days to suggest that this war is poised to end. I think we have got to essentially prepare ourselves for a long war, hopefully at a lower level of intensity, maybe not, but certainly for a long war in Europe. The pieces are not aligned for diplomacy here.

Nothing in Putin's speech certainly yesterday indicated any step backward. John, how is the White House feeling about these last couple of days? The president's still in Poland today. He'll be coming back later this afternoon. But the secret visit to Kiev, which they pulled off, and then this speech, which is being well received around the world, especially in Europe and back here at home. Yeah, the White House feels they couldn't have scripted the last two days better. They were the secret trip to Kiev, pulled off safely and providing powerful images. And then this speech yesterday, which they feel like, to the Admiral's point, was delivered effectively to a number of different audiences. And I think it's worth taking a second, just reflecting how far this war has come in a year. The president gave a speech in that exact same spot nearly a year ago.

And for that speech, the first one, he had just met with a group of Ukrainian refugees. It was a very somber feeling. You know, Kiev still stood, but there was really concerns that whether the Ukrainian would be able to fight back against Russia. He was really imploring the allies to say, hey, this is worth it. We need to be able to do this. But it was a really somber feel a year ago. Yesterday, as it felt like a NATO pep rally. There were flags everywhere, blue lights. There was a soundtrack of Beyonce and Springsteen before the president took the stage. And it came to a sense of accomplishment that this had been a successful year. But in the president's own words, Joe, hard days are ahead. And to Richard's point, though, as Ukraine has succeeded all expectations a year into this

conflict, there's no sign it's going to end anytime soon. And that's why there's this push from the president to all these different audiences to keep it going, to keep funds going, to keep arms going, because Putin shows no signs of stopping. We just really don't know. And we don't know whether this war is going to last another six months or whether it's going to last several years. And and so it remains an open question. But as a CIA guy, you you you had to make assessments. I'm going to ask you to go back and this is going to be pretty obvious assessment about what would have happened. What would have happened if Donald Trump had been elected president?

What would have happened to Ukraine? You wrote about this in The Washington Times. So it's pretty extraordinary because if Donald Trump had actually won the election, think about Ukraine would be part of Russia. The NATO alliance would have been shattered. So elections really do matter. And so I think, you know, with Biden's trip to Europe, you know, he is he is welcomed as not only the frankly the savior of Ukraine, but also the savior of Europe as a whole. And Joe, watching that speech yesterday, all I could think of was someone that I think both of us admire.

That's Ronald Reagan. Right. That was a Reagan esque speech for the ages. And so I think this is really going to define Biden's legacy. Yeah. And also, as we look at the success in the one year, something that I keep bringing up is the fact after the debacle in 2014, the United States doubled down on training the Ukrainians. So much of what you're seeing right now, a bottom up military training about within CES, that started a long time ago. You can say the same thing about the intel community. A lot of incredible things happening over the past year regarding U.S. intelligence to Ukraine. That didn't just that just didn't happen two weeks before the war.

That was a long time coming as well. Right, Joe, I call this, you know, putting in the plumbing. And, you know, what does that mean? It's talking about bilateral intelligence relationships. And so, you know, you build this over time. This is not kind of necessarily the sexy part of of the intelligence world. But what is it? It's training, it's assistance and it's building one thing. It's personal relationships and trust. So don't think on February 22nd of last year, you know, there was a phone call made to Langley, you know, come right now. No, these are relationships that were that were, you know, built over years and years of being with our Ukrainian partners. And that is absolutely indispensable. That's what we do overseas. You know, Admiral Svitas, I think now if we can't take a step back one year and I don't know when we can. So that's my way of saying we're going to

take a step back for a second. I remember a year ago when we were talking about you and I were talking about and other, I think, right thinking people were talking about the importance of not letting Putin's aggression in Ukraine stand because the message it would send to China. I will tell you, I was personally mocked and ridiculed, called a warmonger, called a neocon, called all these other things. You know, it broke my heart. I almost considered quitting. I'm joking. And so we look a year later.

You can't talk to anybody in foreign policy. You can't talk to anybody in the intel community. You can't talk to anybody that knows a damn thing about about global politics that doesn't say China has been frozen by America's response. And they understand that suddenly the idea of walking into Taiwan is going to be a bloody, messy, ugly deal. And they don't have a single Chinese general that has ever gone into battle with one bullet shot their direction. Yeah. Let's let's put yourself in President Xi's shoes right about now. You're looking at this debacle that your best friend forever signed you up for right before the Olympics last year. Remember,

that feels like a million years ago. And you're President Xi, and you are asking yourself three questions. Number one, are my generals as bad as those Russian generals appear to be? And the answer is, you don't know. And you made the point. China hasn't been in major war in 70, 80 years. So the generals have been trained in that same old, broken Soviet style of war. So question one, are my generals that bad? Question two. And by the way, Admiral, really quickly, before you get to two, let's talk about the United States experience over the past 20 years. Things have been ugly. We have tragically lost over 4,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time. We've been fighting for 20 years. We have learned things about warfare, about urban conflict that no other military on the planet knows. And that is, again, in marked contrast to China.

It is. And in particular, recall, it's 20 years of war. We are a highly blooded army, as we say, but so are our European colleagues. They came to Afghanistan. They fought alongside us. So when you look at the capabilities of the entire coalition, they are profound. And then when you add, as Mark just did, the intelligence alongside it, you put it all together. Yes, we have a great deal of capability.

And no, Russia doesn't. And China, it's a big question mark for Xi. And very quickly, the other two questions are, question two is, hey, I wonder if those Taiwanese will fight like hell the way the Ukrainians have. And again, the answer is, I don't know. I've been to Taiwan. I've met with Madam Tsai. I've met with her national security team.

I think they will fight and I think they will fight effectively. And then third, if you're China, you're looking at the economics. You're saying, hmm, my economy, it's too big to sanction, right? Well, let's wait and see. And could we do precision guided sanctions, increase what we have? Perhaps. So it's a lot of uncertainty. And I'll close with this. President Xi is a patient person. He is someone who spent seven years on a collective farm shoveling manure. He is not going to lunge at the ball, as we say in American English. So I think there is more deterrence at work today than there was a year ago. That's a good thing. And China's struggling a little bit here as it tries to

walk this line. China's top diplomat Wang Yi was in Moscow yesterday where he met with the secretary of Russia's Security Council. Reuters reports the secretary told Yi Moscow backs China's position on Taiwan and Hong Kong. China's diplomat in exchange called Beijing's relationship with Moscow rock solid and added it would withstand any test. So Richard Haass, this diplomat from China, wasn't just in Moscow. He's on a tour of Europe, essentially trying to strengthen ties there. They need Europe, obviously, for their economy. On the other hand, though, trying to keep Russia in its pocket as well. How does it walk that line? Well, it's walking it and it continues to buy energy from Russia. My guess is they're giving all sorts of non-lethal military support for Russia.

I think the only real question is whether they're prepared to give lethal military support. My hunch is they'll do it in extremists. Xi Jinping has cast his lot with Vladimir Putin. He cannot afford for Putin to lose. I think Xi Jinping doesn't mind the idea of a long war. It decreases American readiness over time. I also think the Chinese, Willie, they look at us and they go, there's a competition going on between Republicans and Democrats. Who can be harder and tougher on China? I don't think they believe anymore there's any upside in U.S.-Chinese relations.

Even if they do show some restraint, they think there's zero reward. And what more are we going to penalize them on? They actually, they're quite arrogant on this. They think that the West needs them too much economically. For example, the big recent German car deals to export, you know, to build things in China and export to China. So they believe that if they can somehow separate themselves a little bit, so they're more self-reliant, but maintain our dependence on access to their markets, they think they can manage this relationship. So my view is China's not going to help us here. All this talk of a Chinese peace plan, I believe, is pretty empty.

The idea that they're going to be a significant help here. So we have to be careful in this. And by the way, John, the United States has accused China of supplying Russia with weapons, with ammunition and things like that. Yeah, I mean, the U.S.'s rhetoric towards China has gotten tougher in recent days. We heard from Secretary of State Blinken warning China that they fear that lethal weapons may be heading from Beijing to Moscow. They feel like Beijing has already picked up the pace of non-lethal assistance. And of course, this comes against the backdrop of the spy balloon and the sort of tense

meeting with the Secretary of State Blinken and his Chinese counterpart last week, in which Blinken made clear, Joe, no apology was offered. China was unrepentant to the spy and seemingly unwilling to change its relationship, despite all the economic consequences that may come, change the relationship with Moscow. China can continue, Mark, to be as arrogant as they want to be. They've had a series of cell phones over the past four or five years. They're driving out some of their best entrepreneurs. Their economy is slowing down.

They've made one mistake after another. And so, I mean, they can be as arrogant as they want. The fact is, they need the West more than the West needs them. And so that's one of the reasons why you saw China's top diplomat in Europe trying to strike a balance there. One of the reasons why China decided they wanted to meet, why she was going to meet with our secretary of state, which is unusual. You know, I understand what Richard's saying, but I also understand that that things, you know, China has a growing middle class. They've got a lot of other things going badly for them. And and at some point, a country that spends more money on holding their own people down than they do on on on

on national security, they understand there's going to be a reckoning if they can't grow this economy faster than it's growing right now. So, Joe, I think there's something that's really interesting here, because you see almost the conventional wisdom in Washington foreign policy circles now that China is either preparing for or is going to attack Taiwan. And I wonder if we should actually question that exactly for the reasons that you laid out. There is no real impetus to do that because of the internal struggles that are going on with the Chinese, with the economy. Right. And so I think we have to be careful. And what we really have to do is talk to them. And that's

why the Chinese balloon incident, you know, a good old spy scandal kind of screwed up the bilateral relationship for a little bit. We're back to it again. And that's really important because that messaging that comes from the United States, not only from our embassy in Beijing, but from leading U.S. national security figures in dialogue with the Chinese is going to help us in a variety of issues, including what? Including in Ukraine. The Chinese have influence over Russia and Vladimir Putin. And when we have these discussions on escalation, would Russian President Vladimir Putin use a when we have these discussions on escalation, would Russian President Vladimir Putin use a tactical nuclear weapon?

There's no better individual to put pressure on the Chinese, I'm sorry, on the Russians than President Xi. Right. And, you know, Mika, when I spoke with John Huntsman, when he was ambassador to China, I said, what does the Chinese Communist Party want? He said nine percent growth. And I laugh here. What do you mean? He goes nine percent growth because their belief is that when it becomes five percent growth, four percent growth, three percent growth, they can't keep their middle class down. And that's why China can, again, I don't know, Richard, maybe we'll have this debate later. China can be as arrogant as they want to be, but they need Europe. They need the West. They need at least 6%, 7%, 8% growth, or they've got internal problems.

Actually, Joe, two things. I think they understand they're never going back to six, seven, eight percent growth. They've been at three. They'll probably go up to five coming out of COVID. I don't think that's sustainable. Lots of issues from the demographic to the economic. But again, their entire strategy is based on the idea, almost like Russia did with energy in Europe. We'll see how this plays out, that they can make not just Europe, but also Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and others so economically dependent on them that serious sanctions are not in the offing. And that's the goal. But Richard, that supports my position. That supports my position. Putin tried to use energy and it backfired on him. All you do

when you cut off Europe's energy supply, if you're Russia, is all you do is make Europe go, OK, well, let's figure out a better place to get energy. And then Russia has. Go ahead. No, I just think this is much more profound in terms of both the scale and how comprehensive it is. Take a take a place like Taiwan, something like 40 percent of Taiwan's GDP is dependent on exports to the mainland. And that's the way the mainland's thinking, that they can basically make these countries, these Taiwan and the other countries so dependent. They don't make them think twice about economic sanctions. Again, they're trying to make themselves selectively more self-reliant. I'm not arguing your basic point. China has real difficulties. I don't think, by the way, a move against Taiwan is

at all imminent. On the other hand, I'm not sanguine here about saying we might not see something, not an all-out invasion, but say a blockade or other type of sanctions over the next five years. I think you'd have to be a real optimist to think that won't happen. Well, former CIA officer Mark Polymeropoulos and retired Admiral James Tavridis, thank you both very much for being on this morning. The Greek coalition. Yes, yes, absolutely.

And still ahead on Morning Joe, potential new trouble for former President Trump. But the forewoman of the special grand jury investigating 2020 election interference in Georgia is saying about possible indictments. Plus, a look at the different strategies some Republican White House hopefuls are using when it comes to dealing with Donald Trump. Also ahead, a live report from Ohio, where the company behind that toxic train derailment is facing new legal action. And a look at the morning papers, including a new effort in one state to offer firearm safety training in schools. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Oh, look at that beautiful shot of Capitol Hill on this. Is it Wednesday morning? Someone help me out here.

Yes, it is. Can you confirm? Thank you. Yes. Good to know. We're almost there, guys. Joining us now, member of the New York Times editorial board, Mara Gay and attorney and contributing columnist for The Washington Post, George Conway joins us. And we have some news to report this morning.

The foreperson of the Fulton County special grand jury that investigated potential 2020 election interference by former President Donald Trump is speaking out. Emily Kors says she can't say too much because of the judge's order. But she did reveal the grand jury recommended indicting more than a dozen people. That sounds like a lot being revealed and that many of the names are recognizable. She gave her first television interview to NBC's Blaine Alexander. Watch. How many people was this a long list? It's not a short list. I'm trying really hard to be careful with that because Judge McBurney had a hearing on the report, as I'm sure you know, and chose specifically to not release the list of people and to only release the certain portions of the report. And I do not want to imply in any way that my judgment is better than the judge. So I've been trying to be really careful with that. I will tell you, it's not a short list.

I mean, we saw 75 people, and there are six pages of the report cut out, I think, if you look at the page numbers. So it's not... So we're talking about more than a dozen people? I would say that, yes. Did the grand jury recommend an indictment of former President Trump? I'm not going to speak on exact indictments. Would we be surprised?

Are there bombshells of who is being recommended for indictment? I don't think that there are any giant plot twists coming. I don't think that there are any giant plot twists coming. I don't think that there are any, like, giant... That's not the way I expected this to go at all. I don't think that's in store for anyone. So nothing that would surprise people who have been following this? Probably not. I wouldn't want to characterize anyone else's reaction, of course, but so that was when we heard a lot in testimony. But probably not. It probably wouldn't shock you. I would not

expect you to be too shocked, no that includes of the former president potentially it might oh my god joe i'm just take it away i i don't even know i'm so confused well i mean willie the judge says she don't talk why yeah i mean, that's some talking going on right there. I mean, she didn't get specific. What? Yeah, you know, didn't get specific. We have George Conway here. But, yeah, what did you think, Willie?

What did you think? How dare you punt to me? Just punt it on third down, Joe. It's second down, and I'm like, I don't want this. I'm going to shank this one to you, baby. Well, here's what I'll say, and we'll get George Conway in for another punt. It wasn't just our interview with Blaine Alexander, who did a great job eliciting some information there. It was also kind of a media tour for the four person. Corr is also interviewed by a number of print outlets,

including the hometown Atlanta Journal-Constitution. According to the AJC, Corr's rolled her eyes and laughed when told former President Trump called the partial release of their report, quote, a total exoneration. The paper writes, did he really say that, she asked. Oh, that's fantastic. That's phenomenal. I love it. That's a quote from Coors. Fulton County District Attorney Fonny Willis convened the grand jury in May of last year. It ended last month. The grand jury's full report will be made public when Willis concludes her investigation. Mara Gay, George Conway. George, I'll start with you. Just from a legal point of view, helpful or unhelpful to have the foreperson of the grand jury out doing a media tour? We have

not heard, by the way, from Donald Trump yet, who we expect to have a field day with us. Well, first of all, I kind of wish the reporter would ask, are any of the defendants more orange than a tangerine? It's not helpful. It absolutely isn't helpful. It's going to give the defendants something to shoot at and something to complain about. But at the end of the day, I think this is just comic relief. Because, first of all, the evidence is the evidence. This isn't even the grand jury that is going to

pass on the indictments. This is just this was a grand jury that was designed to prepare a report. It did prepare a report. And what she told us, there are a few little interesting tidbits and hints there. It wasn't all that much in the grand scheme of things. I mean, we could have surmised that there were a number of people who were being indicted. She said there were no major plot twists. Well, okay. I don't expect there to have been any major plot twists. And at the end of the day, when these cases, when grand jury secrecy gets violated, it usually doesn't affect the trial because the trial at the end of the day is whether or not you prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in before pedigree, not the grand jury. So, Joe, in the interview with the AJC cores, the grand jury for four women said we heard

a lot of recordings of President Trump on the phone is amazing how many hours of footage you can find of that man on the phone. So alluding, of course, to that infamous phone call with Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger when he specifically asked Raffensperger to find the more than eleven thousand seven hundred votes he needed to flip the state of Georgia. Right. And we've all said that that seems fairly obvious, that that's what the grand jury would be focusing on, because obviously you have the president of the United States, at least in the opinion of the secretary of state of Georgia, a Republican who supported Donald Trump previously, saying that it was obvious the president wanted him to rig the election.

But George Conway, just talking about how this grand jury works in Georgia, they don't make the actual indictment. They make recommendations and then it'll be Fannie Willis who will make the decision whether to make an indictment or not. So while I don't think this was a good thing that the foreperson came out and started talking like it, the legal impact of that at the end of the day on whether an indictment comes or not is minimal because you've got Fannie Willis who's going to be making that decision herself and nobody else. That's right. And not only that, she has to present it to another grand jury. The

other grand jury has to vote on it. And I don't think there's going to be any argument that the defendants will have that they were prejudiced by this interview. I mean, if she didn't release that much information, the fact of the matter is we, most of the evidence, 99% of the evidence that we know about, we knew about already from the release of the Raffensperger tape and then the January 6th hearings. So there's going to be no argument that the Pettit jury, the ultimate decider of fact, is prejudiced in any way. There's just no, there's just nothing, it's not going to help is prejudiced in any way. There's just nothing. It's not going to

help the defendants in any way. A timeline, though, on this moving to the next phase, what are we looking at? You know, I'm going to take Fannie Willis at her word that it's imminent. Imminent doesn't, I mean, some people would say imminent means tomorrow, but I think the next couple of months. And I think she has to do it in the next couple of months. I mean, some people would say it means tomorrow, but I think I think the next couple of months, I think. And I think she has to do it in the next couple of months. I mean, it's clear that she has amassed the evidence that she needs. Yeah. And there's no reason to wait. It's been two years already. Yeah. All right. The Supreme Court heard roughly three hours of oral arguments yesterday on whether YouTube should be held responsible

for the videos it suggests and promotes through its algorithm. The case concerns the killing of Noemi Gonzalez, an American college student who was studying abroad in Paris in 2015 when she was killed in an attack carried out by ISIS. Plaintiffs in the case argue that YouTube is partially responsible for enabling the attack that killed Gonzalez by recommending ISIS videos and others promoting violent ideology. The question at hand surrounds the legal shield known as Section 230, which protects Internet companies from legal action over content that is published on their platforms. Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Elena Kagan and Katonji Brown Jackson yesterday called into question

whether Section 230 also shields companies when they recommend content, suggesting social media companies may be interpreting the rule too broadly. However, a majority of the justices seemed inclined to side with YouTube's parent company, Google, in the case, with some arguing that if the court sides with the plaintiffs, it would open a floodgate of lawsuits. The court will hear arguments in a similar case regarding Twitter later this morning, with decisions in both cases likely to come in June. George, I'm curious, saying that a floodgate of lawsuits would open up, why does that matter?

I mean, if something is right or wrong, are you making a decision based on, oh boy, this would be messy? Oh boy, this would prompt lawsuits. Well, of course it would. Yes. I mean, I think when judges go about deciding things, they do look at the consequences, but I think the justices were looking first and foremost at the language of the statute. The statute is pretty, at least the one sentence that matters is pretty broad. I mean, basically it says if you get content from somewhere else, it's not yours, it's someone else's.

That's right. And the fact that they may recommend some things or put some things higher than others, well that's the only way you can function. All websites have to do that or else you'd never be able to find anything. They wouldn't be usable. And I think the justices, for all the disclaimers that they made about not really understanding the internet because they're old people, they got that point. And I think that's the point that was made in Google's briefs quite well. So, Joe, this might be a job for Congress, but is there an appetite to deal with it?

No, this is John Roberts court. This is the same John Roberts that said, don't ask me to change Obamacare and get rid of Obamacare from the court this year when you can do the same thing in the voting booth next year. And I think that's what they're going to do with Section 230 as well. The Roberts court will say, don't ask us to step in and do Congress's job for them. If you want to amend it, if you want to change it, that's fine. I will say the one part that is fascinating is is this algorithm question. If if social media companies are pushing people to violent content, that's that does seem to go beyond the scope of what 230 intended. And we've seen it time and again. We saw it during the Black Lives Matter protests. I believe

the guy in Oakland that saw something online, if I'm not mistaken, he went to a hate group and then went to an Oakland courthouse and shot a guard. We saw it happening there. We saw it on January the 6th, where people that were going on to certain areas, certain chat rooms, and then they were pushed to whether it was white supremacy sites or whether it was was neo-Nazi sites. That seems to be, again, going well beyond the scope of 230 so it'll be fascinating to see how the court addresses that i i do want to ask you though uh more about something that's always bothered me about section 230 and i i guess i i have to admit here that i voted for it like back like in the ice age i think it was 1996, because you didn't want little internet companies

that had comments down at the bottom getting in trouble if somebody put a comment at the end of a blog post and wiped that. So obviously things have exploded, though, and you've got these multibillion-dollar corporations that make money off of hate speech, that make money off of allowing people to spread lies to millions and millions of people and do the sort of things that if The New York Times did it, they would the Times would be put out of business. The idea that this is 1996 and we're talking about you've got mail or comp you serve

is completely asinine. Isn't it time for Congress to start holding Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk and other owners of these these corporations just to the same standard that everybody else is held to? Why do we carve things out for? And I would have said Jack Dorsey. And I did say that a couple of years ago. This is it's just insanity that we're allowing these billion dollar corporations to have an exemption that nobody else has. You know, Joe, you're making a powerful case here that the law just maybe it just is out of date. I mean, listening to you talk about the way you were thinking about it when it was enacted is reason enough. You're

right. The internet has changed. The world has changed. But this is one of those areas of American exceptionalism, too, where other democracies look at us and say, well, why can't you figure this out? And one of the reasons is we actually have a very broad First Amendment statute. And of course, as a journalist, that's a wonderful thing. The problem here is that the world has changed. And so to your point, Joe, now you have companies that are actually not journalistic organizations that are disseminating information, some of it factual, some of it dangerous, some of it hate speech, and they essentially have no responsibility for the consequences of that. So we have this central tension, and it's easy to get wonky. We all know what Section 230 is here at the table. But for the Americans sitting at home,

the question is, well, what responsibility should YouTube or Google or Facebook have if they're promoting hate speech on their platforms? I think the average American would say they should have some. But legally, that's a harder case to make. And I don't have an answer for it. But it's just to say that I don't think we can allow it to go on as it has, where there's no consequences and people can make money, in fact, to your point, while disseminating this information that is tearing the country apart. And by the way, providing disinformation and in some cases has made us very, very endangered, like with January 6th.

So there's real consequences to this. And I hope the court realizes that. And by the way, I say this is a free market conservative. Corporations should be able to do what corporations should want to do. But they have to live by the law. And if they are negligent or if they do things that harm other people, they can be taken into court. They shouldn't be shielded from this. Like, Maura, let me ask you, what if the New York Times just started printing after Paul Pelosi got attacked, that Paul Pelosi got attacked because it was his gay lover or a gay prostitute that he had been, you know, entangled with for years and that it was all a scam and that that the police were in on it and that Nancy Pelosi, all of this garbage that, by the way, a lot of people were putting on Facebook. A lot of people were putting out on social media.

What would happen to The New York Times? I mean, our lawyer would be very busy. Nothing good would happen to The New York Times. We wouldn't do that, number one, because journalism organizations do hold themselves to a higher standard. But also, we don't have those same legal protections because it is our content and the law considers it to be our content. And that is the difference here, the distinction legally. But I think given the world we live in, it's not entirely clear, and I'm not a lawyer, that that distinction is meaningful when you have the kind of large-scale hate speech that you do. And you also have consumers who,

they don't necessarily know, they're not aware that, oh, this isn't YouTube's content. They're not making those distinctions. So how is this actually functioning in the real world? Right. And George Conway, really quickly, something again, very personal to us. I don't bring it up because I'm bothered by it. I bring it up because just to let our viewers know, OK, well, this guy, you know, he's lying to me. He's got 60 million followers. And this is being spread around to hundreds of millions of followers. You know it's a lie and I know it's a lie. You're making money off of the traffic that it's generating. Take it down. No, we can't take it down. And so, as Mika knows, I mean, that went on over and over again, 12 times. So this idea, again, you take that, where this multinational corporation is making billions and billions of dollars. Even though I thought it was funny, Elon Musk said he purchased the, what did he say?

He said, I spent $44 billion purchasing the biggest nonprofit ever. It's kind of a funny line. I almost liked that one. But they're making billions and billions of dollars, like Jack Dorsey was. They let this guy lie 12 times because they're afraid to cross him. And they were terrified to cross him. And that is so far away from how what we voted on in 1996, where we didn't want a little blog post about airport traffic like being sued because somebody put a comment at the bottom. I mean,

come on. Congress needs to change this law, doesn't it? Oh, absolutely. And it has to be Congress. I mean, judges, when judges get into trying to figure out the right policy to fix something that Congress didn't completely fix, the judges get, they get lost and they don't really have a mandate to do it. And it's Congress's job to do it. Although, you know, I know confidence in Congress is at all times low. It's got its problems.

But there is some middle ground here to be had. I mean, you know, there's some middle ground between the CompuServe comments at the bottom of the page and Dominion's lawsuit against Fox, where they're going to be held liable. And that's absolutely it's like that New York Times hypothetical that we were just talking about. And and like the what if Twitter were a news organization, that's that's what it would have been the same case with the accusations made against you. So, George, let me ask you, do you think do you think Fox, you brought up Fox and Dominion, we saw the article and we saw the brief released a couple days ago. Everybody's asking me, I don't know the answer.

Do you think at the end of the day, Fox does get held liable? They are probably going to have to settle this. How strong of a case does Dominion have against Fox? I've litigated all sorts of cases. I litigated a libel case once, the Philip Morris ABC libel case in the 90s. And we thought we had some good stuff. And the case ultimately settled with a primetime apology on World News Tonight and Monday Night Football to Philip Morris. And they paid our legal fees. And we had decent evidence, but nothing like this.

Nothing where they were just writing out and saying, well, this is false. Where the CEO or the owner, like Rupert Murdoch, was basically saying, this is not good. I took Ruan Arlund's deposition in that case, and he didn't know anything about it. We just didn't have that kind of evidence. It was more, you know, saying that the reporter went out over his skis, the producer went out over his skis than anything else. It was just a different kind of case. Interesting.

So, all right, we'll just see what happens. George Conway and Mara Gay, thank you very much for being on this morning.