Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/19/23

Episode Date: April 19, 2023

Fox News and Dominion reach $787.5 million settlement in defamation lawsuit

The truth matters. Lies have consequences. Over two years ago, a torrent of lies swept Dominion and election officials across America into an alternative universe of conspiracy theories, causing grievous harm to Dominion and the country. Today's settlement of $787,500,000 represents vindication and accountability. Lies have consequences. Fox News avoids what could have been weeks more of embarrassing coverage by settling at the last minute with Dominion. We're going to break down the terms of this historic deal and explain the other legal issues looming for the network. Let me just say, though, the obvious right here.

It was the worst of all worlds for Fox News. I know a lot of people wanted to see all the dirty laundry put out. A lot, it was the worst of all worlds for Fox News. I know a lot of people wanted to see all the dirty laundry put out. A lot of it was out. Well, it was already out. And there's going to be more because there are more of these lawsuits. I mean, coming is Michelle Goldberg wrote this morning, The New York Times, part of Fox's sinister on their brilliance was weighed in cases, its audience and a comprehensive alternative reality. But now, for once, the network would be forced to account for itself outside the right wing bubble. How it would possibly do that was a matter of great suspense.

But they settled. But as she said, a smartmatic is suing Fox for twenty two point seven billion. Reality is not done with Murdoch and the rest of them. And I've just got to say, and just really quickly, I just want to jump to you really quickly, Danny, because I was having this conversation with somebody yesterday. The news broke. They go, oh, my God, this is so horrible. And how could I did it? I said, no, it's horrible. We're not going to get this trial. There is no justice done. I said, no. And I I just got to be blunt. I hate to say it. This is what happens when you've got a 93 year old man running a company and everybody's just a yes man to him, because I can't believe Murdoch 20 years ago wouldn't have settled this months ago.

And when I say this is the worst of all worlds, you settle these things early if you're Fox or if you're another business, so you don't humiliate everybody at the network. Oh, they did that. They said, we're going to be stubborn. We're going to humiliate all of our anchors. We're going to humiliate all of our executives. We're going to humiliate everybody that works at this network. And we're going to fight a case that we know we're going to lose because we're stubborn and we think we can get away with it. And then at the last second, they pay $800 billion, $800 million, $800 million. So they have the worst of both worlds now and they get another suit coming. Yeah, this case was always going to settle. And a lot of folks said, well, is it surprising that

we're even talking settlement now that we've gotten a trial? It's completely not surprising that happens all the time in civil cases. And in fact, insurance companies and defendants are known for waiting until the courthouse steps, till the day of trial, till jury selection, to finally come to the table and settle. But that's in the ordinary, let's say a motor vehicle accident case where the whole world isn't watching. And that makes some economic sense because those insurance companies, they hold on to that money as long as they can, they invest in whatever the case may be. This is not that case. This is a case where the bloodletting happened for Fox all along the way. They should have raced early and often to the plaintiffs to settle the case. Now, in reality, probably it's the case that the plaintiffs knew that and maybe there were overtures early on.

And the plaintiff said, you know what? We feel really good about our chances. We're going to trial. And by the way, that is a negotiation strategy for plaintiffs. I do it myself. Right. You wait until trial to raise the stakes. And I promise you that whatever Fox ended up settling for, I bet that was already offered. It's something they may have rejected earlier on and it cost them more money later. There was no way murdoch was ever going to take the stand we knew this case legally was a slam dunk the judge had basically already said and by the way for people who don't know this is one of the hardest cases civil cases to prove this is this is almost unprecedented you have to prove actual malice and clearly fox thought

that that's where this was headed. You don't settle for almost a billion dollars if you think you have a shot at winning the case. And it raises the question, Danny, what Joe mentioned, this next lawsuit, Smartmatic suing for a billion dollars more than Dominion was suing, two point seven billion dollars. So if, as the judge in this Dominion case said, it is crystal clear because of the evidence we've all seen that Fox hosts lied knowingly about this conspiracy theory. What does Fox do with this next lawsuit? Are they smarter this time? Do they go ahead and just settle before all the dirty laundry is out again? Yeah, you have some really compelling language from a judge. And you mentioned

the elements of defamation in this case. one of those elements was already deemed satisfied by the judge. That's something that almost never happens. Plaintiffs don't normally win on summary judgment. And in this case, there are really two major elements of defamation. Was it false? And what did the defendant do? Did they ignore it? Did they know it? Were they reckless? That first element, the falsity, was established going into trial. Now, does that help? Can you underline really quickly? And this is a personal note for me. For 20 years, I've called different lawyers. I said, this person's accusing me of being a murderer. That person has been there for a lot of it. I want to sue them. Oh, no. What do you mean? I can't sue them. They go, you've got to prove actual malice. I said, well, it's obviously

no, I didn't. Oh, but you don't know what's in there. So I've learned, unfortunately, the hard way over 20 years, defamation almost impossible to prove. And yet Fox, what they did after the election, so egregious that this was a slam dunk in a type of case. I just want to underline for everybody at home. It's almost impossible. I found out the hard way to take to court and win. Yeah. Most defamation cases are almost impossible to win for a number of reasons. Number one, they're expensive to prove. You have to prove economically that you were harmed by this statement. And secondly, normally the people who say this don't have any money to pay a judgment. Normally someone who's saying awful things about you online or wherever, they live in their mom's

basement. They don't have any assets to satisfy a judgment. This is the rare case where you have some strong evidence of falsity, strong evidence that people knew it was false, and massively deep pockets in order to pay a judgment. But I'll tell you what, Joe, because you didn't call me about these defamation cases. I would have told you most lawyers try to dissuade people from taking on defamation cases. Right. I would have told you most lawyers try to dissuade people from taking on defamation cases. They all they really do. And I'll give you the inside. They usually do that because lawyers don't want to take on the risk of having to pay in a contingency arrangement where they have to front the costs. They don't want to have to pay to try and prove a defamation case because the risk is too high. They like the sure thing. And so I'm not surprised most lawyers

end up dissuading people from bringing defamation. And by the way, I would be I would I would call people say, who's the best defamation lawyer in America? I call the best defamation lawyer in America who won these big. Oh, no, it's too hard to. I'm like, you're a defamation lawyer. Why don't you do? Because they're waiting for the fall. They're waiting for the perfect case. And this is that perfect. Everyone's been waiting. But this was for lawyers, the perfect defamation case. Yes, it was. I mean, and they had thousands upon thousands of pages of documents that they could point to of this.

They were seemingly the actual malice. They felt fairly confident in that. And I know, yes, there were a lot of people, to Joe's point, who were disappointed that we didn't get a trial, that Fox News did not have to deliver on-air apologies, that anchors haven't had to say, you know, we look, we misled you because of X or Y. But there could be a chilling fact going forward. So tell us a little more about, if you would, the Smartmatic, which is the other case. Give us a sense. It's in New York. It's a little maybe perhaps a little more difficult than Delaware, I believe experts have said to do. Give us the timeline. What should we expect there? New York law doesn't provide for a newsworthy type newsworthiness type defense.

And of course, Smartmatic is bringing a very similar claim against Fox News. And now they're only emboldened by the settlement. I mean, yes, nothing in the settlement is preclusive. In other words, none of the facts will really apply to Smartmatic, but it signals to Smartmatic that, hey, this is a defendant who's willing to settle a case and not just settle it, settle it for a lot of money. Keep in mind also that the reason we know about $700 million in settlement, believe me, that was a point that was negotiated. And I bet it actually cost money. In other words, the plaintiff said, we want to publicize this. You know, frankly, if I'm the plaintiff's lawyers, I don't really care about an admission of liability. I care about the money and the money.

If I'm able to publicize that settlement amount, that is a tremendous trophy to put on your wall. It speaks volumes. And I bet it costs the money. So Fox lawyers did not talk to reporters yesterday, but the network did put out a statement. And here is what it says. We acknowledge the court's rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects Fox's continued commitment to the highest. Hold on, hold on, hold on. That ambiguity. Go back to that ambiguity and that line.

Because I had two people read it to me. One said I was on plane at the time. And one said, oh, you know, the statement they admit. And then the other one. Oh, no, they. Yeah. But this cost them. We acknowledge the court's rulings, finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. Willie, come on. That's legalese. Is that the term, Danny? They basically acknowledge that the judge said something in an opinion that is the only thing they did with that statement they say this settlement reflects fox's continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards

we are hopeful that our decision to resolve this right now from the courthouse in delaware writer at large for the new y Times. Go gaslight somebody else. And Sunday Magazine, Jim Rutenberg, also with his professor at Princeton University, Eddie Glaude Jr. And you're a special correspondent for BBC News, Katty Kay. I just got to say,

nothing gleeful here, by the way. I saw some people on TV yesterday, nothing gleeful. This is an American tragedy. This is an American tragedy that's been unfolding now for over three years. A lie that is cut at the very heart of American democracy. A lie that led people to January 6th that have good Americans who were good law-abiding Americans turn into criminals, turn into rioters, turn into convicts who are in prison now suffering for the sins of millionaires and billionaires. That is the reality. And while that was going on, and this is a little personal, I swear to God,

I know people are going to think I'm over the top here. I just got back from Poland. They're talking about the 80th anniversary of the Warsaw uprising. I talked to a 97 year old Auschwitz survivor who said, I saw what you did in America on January the 6th. What you did is push back on what was happening in our country in the early 1930s. You were fighting for the very soul of your democracy right now and the future of your people. And at the heart of that fight, he said, is the truth. I'm going to play you some of that interview later on today. But the truth, the truth that has been slayed every day and every night cynically by people who lied on the air and off the air, mocked the very people they were lying to. So no glee here. No glee, nothing to be happy about. This is an American tragedy for anybody who gives a damn

about this democracy and who gives a damn about universal freedoms and human rights and Western values. Yeah, I said it. Western values. And that's that. Now let's go to Jim Rutenberg at the courthouse. I don't want anybody to think I'm gleeful. Jim, I will say I was gleeful about one thing. Your reporting from inside the courthouse read like a Grisham novel. You were talking about people sweltering, the courtroom packed. I could almost see Matthew McConaughey sweating inside. Judge, I gotta take a recess.

I gotta wash all this sweat off my face. No AC in those courtrooms. That was the 90s. It was the 90s. And did you see Ashley Judge? I was like, come on, they're going to have to revive her. But Jim, it really was an extraordinary scene inside that courthouse. Take us there and tell us what you know.

Well, first of all, I heard mention of the courthouse steps. That's the cliche, the settlement's courthouse steps. The jury was impaneled. The lawyers are raring to go. As my colleague Jeremy Peters wrote in the paper today, the lapel mics were on. I mean, these lawyers were ready for combat. So when that stops out of the blue and we're sitting there for hours. I mean, the rumors were, was there bad sushi with the lunch from the jury? So it was just this crazy moment. The other lawyers in the room, the other lawyers in the room had not really seen anything like that happen before. So a wild moment. And there you have it, settlement, which so many people have predicted all along. But people here on the ground in Delaware,

you know, their job was to litigate. And these lawyers were prepped. There were 40 boxes brought into this building. This was going to be a huge trial. So just a crazy moment. Jim, you've been covering this case for a long time now. Are you surprised at the way that Fox handled or mishandled this, which is to say all the stuff got out, all the discovery was out there for the world to see, all the texts and the emails.

We saw the truth. The whole world saw it. And then they still settled in hindsight. Or have you heard from some people internally at Fox who said, yeah, we should have settled several months ago if that was where this was headed. Well, there's still a lot more that we want to know about that, because I am, of course, I'm surprised. I mean, this was an inordinate amount of discovery. Now, I do know that Fox was surprised that this much discovery was allowed to be seen publicly initially. That wasn't a given. The judge allowed some of that to happen.

So I think some things were unforeseen by them. Maybe they should have been foreseen. I don't know. But I am really surprised that it got this far before it settled. And by the way, I want to say one thing about this settlement amount. So it's almost $800 million, their net income in the last fiscal year was $1.2 billion. So this is like a huge amount of annual net income. That's an amazing number. So, Jim, we heard from the head of Dominion yesterday suggesting that, though obviously pleased with this, that there were other people who needed to be held to account, that they sensed that there would be others that they would seek damages from. Who are they? Well, first of all, Dominion has several other cases going. There's Mike Lindell, Newsmax.

And then you have separately these smartmatic suits. I don't see how Newsmax can gut through a case the way that Fox just did. I mean, look at the resources that Rupert Murdoch has. But, you know, they're also a smaller company. They don't have the money to settle the way that Rupert Murdoch did. I mean, again, almost $800 million. So there's going to be a lot more coming forward here. Can I ask about that, though, Jim, really quickly about Newsmax? We had that moment where you had an anchor, when Mike Lindell,

Mr. Pillow came on and started lying, the anchor literally got out of his chair. And basically, in the words of Eric Cartman, he basically said, screw you guys, I'm going home. He got up and walked off the set. Doesn't that show that Newsmax at least tried to move beyond and they made their apologies and tried to mitigate any possible damages? Well, that was certainly a moment. And yeah, but the thing that surprises me, Joe, is that we see those moments and then I don't know, it never seems to be lasting across this part of the media sphere. So we'll see, right? I mean, Fox News, even during this trial, Tucker Carlson had been airing, he did special reports about January 6th, disputing what happened on January 6th. So,

you know, we'll see how much this, now there's a settlement, people always seem ready to move on with today's attention spans, to say the least. So, Jim, we read earlier the statement from Fox News and the slightly ambiguous comment about they accept the court's findings that there may have been some things wrong about what was said about Dominion. Is there anything in this settlement that will impact in a legal way, possibly, or any other way, how Fox covers the 2024 election and the outcome of that election? Again, that remains to be seen. You're seeing a lot of punditry already overnight that this is not going to change anything, that Fox will go forward the way they always go forward. And maybe there's a

repeat here. I do want to say there is no planet on which Fox enjoyed this process. There is no way, as Joe pointed out earlier, that this was good for them to have all these internal communications out in the in the public. And there's no way that Wall Street's going to sit by if there's 800 million dollar settlement after 800 million dollar settlement. So there are various disincentives. But are they trumped by the ratings incentives, the competitive incentives and what the audience wants, which is kind of the holy grail in the media sphere right now. So, Jim, let me ask you really quickly on this, just an economics question at Fox News. I mean, they've been number one since like 1999 force on and on and off. But 90 percent of the time they've been number one. They're a cash cow for Murdoch's empire, a cash

cow. But I read something that like four billion, they got like four billion in cash, right? Eight hundred million is a lot. They do. You look at Smartmatic, you got another maybe eight hundred million. Maybe they don't settle with Smartmatic. Maybe that becomes a billion. I mean, suddenly that shakes any organization, any corporation to its core. And the board says, OK, you're going to have to put somebody in charge at Fox News that actually puts up guardrails. Because I know and Jim, you'll probably agree with me here. No matter what you thought of Roger Ailes, there were guardrails up there. When Glenn Beck went through the guardrails, he fired him.

If O'Reilly said something on a night that he had problems with, he called him in. He goes, you went past the line. And again, I know a lot of people hated him. But but there were guardrails on. You couldn't like. Accuse American democracy of being rigged. And this has cost them $800 million. Do you think that this impact, the impact of maybe another $800 billion, finally gets them to move and put somebody in charge at Fox News that actually puts guardrails up?

Well, there was talk even before this trial that there was a new kind of added layer of some editorial oversight. Again, you just said this past week, Tucker Carlson is lying about January the 6th. While this trial is going on for the love of God. I mean, is there nobody on the board? And again, I'm not this is not about politics. For the love of God. I mean, is there nobody on the board? And again, I'm not this is not about politics. This is just about business. Is there's no there's nobody on the board that says, you know, maybe we should stop exposing ourselves to billion dollar lawsuits.

Well, Paul Ryan, in fact, is a member of that board. He had been voicing some of that. Do they let him talk? And the other thing is... No, it's a serious question. The other thing is we don't know about... It's a serious question. You know what? Not to quote Logan Roy, I love some of these people, but they're not serious people.

Really not. Like, I mean, how does any board? I talked to one CEO after another CEO after another CEO that runs big companies. They don't know how this is allowed to happen at a company. An $800 billion exposure. They've got another $800 million. $800 million. $800 million.

And they've humiliated all of their hosts. They could have protected their hosts from this humiliation. So they've humiliated them. It's the worst of all worlds. They're exposed. They and so my point is they print money. They don't print that much money. At what point is there a reckoning over there?

And they put somebody in charge that puts guardrails up editorially. Well, you know, there's another thing that we haven't mentioned is that there could also be some shareholder lawsuits. Depending on how much of this $800 million is covered, by the way, they have libel insurance. It's always really hard to figure out how much, to find out how much that will cover. But there could be some shareholder lawsuits that would be added pressure on the on the network. So, Eddie, to Joe's earlier point about this being an American tragedy, and it is, there was a man a couple of days ago from Connecticut sentenced to seven and a half years in prison

for attacking the Capitol. He said his attorney said he followed a lie. He believed something that wasn't true. He knows that now and he's going to go pay the price for that. And he's just one of many to do that. The catch here, as we talk about all of this, is that the audience that watches Fox News and is a big audience will not hear the truth. You're not going to hear the correction of this. They don't have to apologize on the air. They may not bore in deeper specifically on this dominion piece of it because they're smart enough at this point to know they cost them almost a million dollars, a billion dollars. But they're not going to hear the true story and the lies will continue. And those people who watch will again follow some of those lies. that really i know 787 million dollars i understand it's important it's significance but there's no apology no public apology howard kurtz came on said something really quickly about

it but that audience which were were inundated with the lie not the false claims with the lying over and over again will not hear over and over again that they were in fact lying. And so what does that mean for democracy itself? What does that mean in terms of correcting what Fox did? I mean, they may see it in the Wall Street Journal front page, you know, New York Times, of course. And I mean, that's fascinating, too, that the Wall Street Journal, owned also by Murdoch, one of the great news gathering operations in the world. There's a reporter right now in jail in Russia because he was so dogged in his determination

to get to the truth of what was going on there. It's a house divided right now, isn't it? I think so. I'm getting to that question, to that passionate commentary you offered earlier, Joe, and that I wonder what will this verdict, what does this settlement mean for the issue of democracy that that's so animated? I want to go back a couple of years and when it seemed and we said. Are there no consequences or all the laws of gravity in America? Have they all been removed?

And then what did we see? We saw the United States Supreme Court run by Federalist Society judges. Strike down one bullshit claim after another that Donald Trump put to try to subvert American democracy. One bullshit claim after another. And the Roberts Court Federalist Society judges said no, no, no. Every ridiculous claim that they made on presidential privilege. No, they would have said it to Mike Pence, too, if Mike Pence gave him a chance to say no.

You look at the people and I feel so much empathy for these people. Willie talked about it a minute ago that are in jail right now because Donald Trump, a billionaire that flies around on 757s, that golfs at the greatest resorts in the world, resorts, some of which he built. That lives in a swank country club in Palm Beach. He he got them to follow a lie. And send them twenty five dollars at the same time. And they're in jail now for seven years, their lives destroyed because of Donald Trump and the lies fed to them on television. His lies every night, every night. And what are we seeing? Donald Trump, he's indicted. People say it doesn't matter. It does. He's going to get indicted in Georgia.

People say it doesn't matter. It does. He'll going to get indicted in Georgia. People will say it doesn't matter. It does. He'll get indicted for obstruction in the documents case. People will say it doesn't matter. It does. Gravity returns. They are feeling gravity's pull. Our institutions are holding.

And it is usually the jury. The fear of going to the jury. And Fox News hosts can lie all they want to tonight. It wasn't left wingers they were afraid of. It wasn't MSNBC primetime hosts they were afraid of. It wasn't woke trans athlete swimmers they were afraid of. They were afraid to take their lies in front of the jury of their peers, their own text, a jury of their peers, just like the jury of American citizens who indicted Donald Trump. Not a woke, not a woke DA funded by a Jewish international banker. No, no. It was a jury of American citizens. That's what Fox lawyers feared. Gravity returns in the form of the American people who have the power still to right wrongs. Now, just a final note here, Danny, feel free to talk about whatever you want to talk about, because God knows I have. I'm wondering,

what's the impact of the discovery in this case? Is Smartmatic, who's now suing Fox for 2.7, are they going to be able to vacuum all that up and they start with all of that damning evidence as they move forward in their case against Fox? They could, but the factual issues determined there mostly go to Dominion. If there's anything juicy in there for Smartmatic, they'll mine it if they can. If nothing else, it gives them a blueprint about where to look for discovery. I mean, imagine what a gift that is, that they've already had someone essentially litigate the same issues. You don't have to go through all the complications and discovery of, hey, where are these records kept? Where can we look for this? What should we be looking for? And not only do

they know that, don't forget there was a special master appointed because Fox presumably or allegedly was playing discovery games. So Smartmatic knows already that this is a defendant that might have trouble finding all of its records. And in fact, there is a special master still technically appointed, although 24 hours, 48 hours ago, there is a special master still technically appointed, although 24 hours, 48 hours ago, that mattered a lot more. It doesn't matter as much now to this case, but it matters to Smartmatic because they are going to go forward and use what they learned from sitting in the stands and watching this litigation go on. And they know where to go. If nothing else, they are emboldened. This case, because it's settled, may not have any precedential effect, but it certainly has a factual and a strategic effect

on Smartmatic. And you mentioned I could ask about just about anything. I am going to ask the question that every lawyer in America wants to ask the lawyer for Dominion when you have him on. Was this a straight one-third contingency fee? In other words, are they just taking a straight third of this recovery? Every lawyer, I promise you, in America wants to know the answer to that question. Well, we have him on. That is huge. What a recovery. We'll ask.

Sorry to turn it into dollars and cents, but unfortunately. You're curious. Quickly, Danny, before I let you go, if you're an attorney for Smartmatic, are you licking your chops this morning? Is there blood in the water saying, all right, 2.7 is what we're suing for. Hey, Fox, we'll settle for a billion and a half or this gets ugly again. Yeah, the message for Smartmatic is Fox may litigate and litigate and litigate until the very end. But they will come forward and settle.

They blinked. That's really what this was. At the end of the day, yesterday and the day before, this was not about defamation law, the elements, all that went out the window. This was straight negotiation. This was game theory at this point. This was more like poker, like Texas Hold'em, because each side knew where they stood. They didn't agree. And it was about who blinked first. I suspect Fox blinked some time ago. But Dominion, with that much leverage, had the ability to say, you know what, we're going to trial. And I would bet we may never know that on Monday when there were

settlement talks that Dominion knew they could hold out. And even just by Tuesday, I bet that boosted their settlement value by several million dollars alone by just saying no and saying we're going to trial. You know what I just don't get is so Ari Emanuel was over in Warsaw for the 80th anniversary of the Warsaw ghetto uprising. And and we were we were talking before an event and we're talking about the case. And I said, where do you think that's going to go? And he said, oh, they're going to settle. I know, yeah, they are. He goes, he goes, he goes, the lawyers are going to let it go right until the last second. Fox is going to play tough and then they're going to blink. He said they will never let Murdoch get on the stand.

I only bring this up to say this was obvious to Ari. It was obvious to me. It was obvious to every lawyer I talked to. I just, again, how did Fox, and again, I'm not talking ideology here. I'm just talking pure business. That's all it is. Right. That's what it is. It's good that America knows these things.

And by the way, freaks at home, don't go like, and when you mean it's our business, it's American democracy. I already what it is. It's good that America knows these things. By the way, freaks at home, don't go like, and when you mean it's our business, it's American democracy. I already said it was. I'm just talking about the business side of this. How, really, were they asleep at the switch? We all knew where this was going to end. And I'll bet you there are a lot of hosts over there really pissed off going, we knew you were going to settle before the boss got on the

stand, but you exposed all of our dirty laundry and then still paid $800 million. Yeah. Humiliating text messages, emails, frankly, admissions of guilt in many cases. And as you said earlier, it continued on the air while this litigation was pending to which which the lawyers said, hey, guys, please stop. So Jim Rutenberg is still with us from outside the courthouse. Bring him back. He went out, had a breakfast sandwich and came back. Now he's with us again. So, Jim, just look ahead for us now into this Smartmatic case and how the posture perhaps has changed for Fox News now or

how their strategy has changed now, given what they just had to surrender, $800 million. I just I'm always afraid of predictions, especially as we saw in this case. But I just don't see the same thing happening. I don't see this case getting into like re-upping the discovery. They want to walk away from that discovery as quickly as possible. So logic would say we would expect a quick settlement. But I also think that the company's not going to want to set up a buffet table for every comer. Right. So that's a that's a term you hear. So I just you know, they're going to have to walk a line. And it's a it's an eight hundred million dollar line at this point. So

it's not an easy one. You know, Jim Rutenberg, we thank you so much for being with us today. We greatly appreciate incredible reporting from inside the courtroom. I just got to say right now, OK, if I know everybody over there at Fox is saying, I wonder what MSNBC's morning host thinks about our our legal strategy. Settle now. Settle early. Pay them the money and make sure they can't go out and report how much money you paid. And then set up guardrails to make sure this never happens again. That's what any business person would do. I'm shocked they can't let I think they can't let this continue to go. Danny, you agree? Admit no, because they can't admit wrong, Danny, too much, because then I mean, you could have viewers suing, right? That can be negotiated. The admission of liability. And I'm sure that

was what Fox said. Look, we simply cannot openly admit that we were wrong. We'll admit that a judge wrote something in an opinion. That's one thing. But if you do that, that could have what's called preclusive effect. Smartmatic could take that admission and use it or any of the other would be defendants. You can imagine anyone who was touched. You talked earlier about all the people settle, have a nondisclosure and walk away. And pull it together. This was an old, there's an old school way of thinking for defendants, which is wait, wait, wait until the very end. Maybe something magical will happen. But that works in a non-high profile case that nobody cares about. That's not what this was.

The stakes were too high. They should have gone early to settle if Dominion was willing to entertain. Okay, we're going to come back. I just got to say one more thing about gravity returning. Okay. Chris Sale, last night, pitched well. Now, of course, today he's going to get on a bike, fall off, and be out for the next two seasons, but at last

night... Chris Sale, he's a pro. Everything I've done has been building so I can talk about the solid. Chris Sale was terrific last night, and if this is the return of vintage Chris Sale, that could change things for a otherwise 500 Red Sox team and a nice comeback win for the Sox. One more note, though, on this, if I may, is just that I do think that that's the sound legal strategy. But the Fox News audience expects the lies.

And any Fox News audience will walk away, potentially, if they don't get the lies. We saw after the election, they did for a time when Newsmax and One America, OAN, suddenly had a lift because Fox wasn't supporting Trump enough. And we know right now,

Donald Trump, who is the favorite by far at this moment for the Republican nomination, is still spouting these lies and is also returning to Fox News and suddenly starting to appear again. I kept writing as we were talking, I kept writing all that piece of paper. They're still lying. Yeah. They're still lying. Gravity's return. They're still lying. Gravity's return. $787 million settlement. Complicated. They're still, they're still lying. What does that mean? Well, what it means is that you can be falling toward Earth and you can either pull the parachute or you can keep falling toward Earth.

And if you choose to keep falling toward Earth, bad things happen. We're Americans. We're in America. They can continue to lie if they choose to do it. They will continue to pay. But Joe, just I know we got to move that analogy if it's a big ass asteroid that's fallen to Earth okay you're changing analogies hold on I'm trying to say this. The scale.

I mean, you said you pull a parachute. Right. But the scale of what's falling in terms of our democracy, what it's done. Jan 6. I know. I know. This is what I'm trying. I understand.

We can live with those concerns. We look at a step in the right direction. It's not it's not it's not a bad analogy. It's just that's an analogy I would have made in 2020. Yeah, it's not an analogy I'd make in 2023 after this settlement. Got it. After January the 6th with what's come after Alex Jones, as Mika reminded me, had to pay what he had to pay for his lies about Sandy Hook. Lies are having consequences. They will have consequences not only for Donald Trump in Georgia, but for a lot of people around him. So I think it is a war of ideas.

It's a war between truth and lies. That's why when we screw up here, it is so important that we correct the record when we make mistakes here and everybody that wants to promote and protect American democracy does that. But yeah, it's a war. And it's not really even a war of attrition because I think the good guys may be winning. The people who actually support and try to get at the truth may just be winning right now. We'll continue this conversation. MSNBC legal analyst Danny Savellas. Danny will ask my question. OK, so much to get to. Still ahead on Morning Joe, Ron DeSantis on Capitol Hill yesterday,

hoping to build support for his potential presidential campaign. It appears the trip did little to sway lawmakers. He's got the look of like a pitcher with like an 8.9 ERA. Not Christian. It's tough. By the way, by the way, Iger. Yeah. He's crossed the wrong guy. Yeah, you don't do that.

Iger is like, it's just running circles around him. I mean, I never understood Disney can nationalize don't do that. Iger is like, I mean, I never understood circles around that. But Iger is talking about building prisons next to Disney World. Come on. Does this guy ever lived in the state of Florida? OK, moving on. In fact, Donald Trump actually picked up an endorsement from a lawmaker who met with Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor. And speaking of the former president, he got back on Instagram. And here's what he's doing with his first post. Yep. It's those, what is it, MFTs?

He's hogging his digital trading cards. My God. My God almighty. Now, now, hold on. Let's, let's, oh, no, can we just breathe that in? No, I don't want to breathe that in. I'm going to do breathing exercises today. I'm going to, I'm just going to become.

Okay, eight seconds in. Ready? No, no, and no. You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. It's so calming. And everything looks worse in black and white. Oh, the chrome that gives us the night's bright colors. It gives us the dreams of summers.

Makes you think all the world's a sunny day. Oh, yeah. I got a knuckle. Forty six past the hour. Let's bring David Rubenstein into the discussion. He's also he's co-founder and co-CEO of the Carlisle Group, a private investment firm based out of Washington, D.C. He's the host and executive producer of the new PBS series entitled Iconic America, Our Symbols and Stories. And in a way, this all connects. David, thank you so much for being with us. Before we get to this extraordinary work, I just want to ask you about the settlement yesterday.

You actually knew the people that started up Dominion. Tell me about it. Well, not the people that started Dominion, but the people that bought it, Staple Street, they're two former Carlisle employees, and they set up their own firm and they bought this, I think, for roughly $38 million. And they thought it was a pretty good investment. And now it turns out it'll be a spectacular investment because with this settlement, even if the lawyers are paid, they'll get a great return for their investors. And you actually think that at the end that for Rupert and for Fox, ultimately, because this one's out of the way, at least, stock will go up.

I do think so in time because it gets it out of the way. So I think the market was hoping this would get settled. The people care about the stock of Fox. So I do think it will go up. It went down a little bit last night, I think, on the shock of the size of the settlement. But I do think it will go up in the next couple of days or so. Are you surprised, David, as a smart businessman that Fox let it get this far, that they didn't settle much, much earlier? My impression is that some people at Fox wanted to settle it sooner. But I think the other side wasn't that interested in settling it unless they got something as significant as this is a very large settlement by any standard.

But in the end, I think Fox probably has insurance or cover some of it. And Fox has a three or four billion dollars on its balance sheet. So it's not as if this is going to bankrupt the company. So. So, David, let me start start for a field where I always start. I remember I remember watching Ridley Scott's extraordinary movie like 20, 25 years ago, Gladiator and his his his how he envisioned the Roman Colosseum. And he brought it to life. And you really did get the understanding that this was that this was at the heart of Rome. And when I read when I read about your your series and I look at it, you're doing the same thing. It's the heartbeat of Boston is Fenway. Correct. Talk about how these extraordinary structures are at the heart of who we are as a people and

represent us as a people. Well, the theory behind the whole series is that an informed citizenry makes a better democracy. So letting people know more about our history should theoretically make a better democracy. That's what Jefferson said. The foundation of our democracy is an informed citizenry. So what this series does is take some symbols of our country, eight of them, and lets people know more about them. Take Fenway. Fenway was started and built in 1912. And now it's such an important symbol to Boston and our country about baseball that when you go to Boston, it says, come to Fenway. It doesn't say, come see the Red Sox, because Fenway is the draw as much as the Red

Sox. And what we try to do is to find eight symbols around the country that are different parts of the country that represent America. Yeah. So let's take a look at a clip about Fenway Park. Take a look. When John I. Taylor, owner of the ball club, decided that the Red Sox needed a new ballpark, he selected James McLaughlin, who was a young architect. McLaughlin's buildings were also scattered all over the city, so that when Fenway was first built, particularly that facade, it looked like the rest of the city looked. So it fit right in from the very beginning.

So it opened in 1912, and why does it have such a weird shape? I mean, there's a short left field and a long right field. Why didn't they just make it equal? Yes. So the ballpark actually fits within to the city blocks. You've got Lansdowne and Van Ness and Brookline Ave and Jersey Street that creates this odd and unique geometry of Fenway Park. I think it's one of the things that makes it so special, these very, very unique dimensions. Beautiful. Fascinating. So we've all heard of the curse of the Bambino,

which is the curse because the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth from my hometown of Baltimore to the Yankees for $100,000. It was said that they were stupid to do so, and they didn't win a World Series for 86 years. Now, it turns out the reason they probably didn't win a World Series for 86 years is they were unwilling to integrate. Tom Bialke would not hire any black players. So they gave a tryout to Jackie Robinson, said he wasn't good enough. They gave a tryout to a guy named Willie Mays. They said he wasn't good enough.

Come on. So had they had a black or several black players, they probably would have been a better team over that 86 years. Probably. Yeah. It's Boston. That's what Bill Russell said. I don't play for the city of Boston. I play for the Celtics. Yeah, they they've done pretty well in recent years with that change of philosophy. This is a great list. You've got the Hollywood sign. You've got the Statue of Liberty. I wanted to jump to one that you said was maybe stood out to you the most, which is Stone Mountain in Georgia. I lived down in Atlanta for a long time. You go into that, see that facade and you go, well, there's Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee and a monument to the Confederacy. Let me explain. Stone Mountain, for those who don't know, is the largest

piece of granite that extrudes from the surface of the earth. It's gigantic. It's been there for obviously millions of years. And during the early part of the 20th century, it was used for Ku Klux Klan rallies. During the part of the 20th century, it was decided that because of the lost cause, we lost the Civil War, we should memorialize the people that were the leaders. So Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, their images be carved in there. And ultimately that happened. And it was dedicated by the vice president of the United States in 1972. Spiro Agnew went there and dedicated this monument to the Confederacy. It tells you how the world has changed today. It's a amusement park there. But the images are still on carve there. And the debate is, should we get rid of the images or keep the images?

And that debate is going on for quite some time. Right. I remember as an undergraduate at Morehouse, just seeing that and being unsettled. Now, juxtapose that monument, the Stone Mountain, which for me represents the underbelly of the country and the Statue of Liberty, which is also the Statue of Liberty is a symbol of the welcome our country. But actually, it was created for a different purpose. It was created by the French to improve Franco-American relationships and to thank the Americans for ending slavery. And that's what it was. Then later, when Emma Lazarus's poem was put at the foot of it and immigrants came into the harbor going to Ellis Island,

it became a symbol of immigration welcoming. But actually, it wasn't designed for that. It was really to memorialize the fact that we ended slavery in this country, which the French thought was a good thing to do. So the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast, tell us what the Golden Gate Bridge means on the West Coast, that iconic landmark. The Golden Gate Bridge is one of the most beautiful bridges in the world, but it was opposed when people wanted to have it because people thought it would be a disaster and it would hurt San Francisco, hurt Marin County. It took 4,000 lawsuits before it was actually built, but it was built in only four years. Today, I suspect that if for some reason it had to be rebuilt, it was crumbled or something,

it would take a lot of time to get it built, more than four years. But it was really, it's become a symbol of our architectural genius in our country to build this beautiful bridge. And I walked up and down the bridge, and it sways 27 feet either way. And sadly, about 125 people a year try to jump off of it. Now there are net there's netting there that tries to keep you from doing that. But still, so about 20 some people a year do jump off. Iconic America, our symbols and stories premieres next Wednesday at 10 p.m. on PBS. David Rubenstein, thank you so much.