Morning Joe - Morning Joe 4/19/24

Episode Date: April 19, 2024

Israel carries out retaliatory strike inside Iran

It is just before the top of the hour. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It's Friday, April 19th. Let's get right to the breaking news out of the Middle East. Israel has carried out a limited strike against Iran. That's according to a person familiar with the situation who tells NBC News officials are now assessing the damage caused. The attack was carried out overnight. Iranian state media reports explosions were heard in one city near the site of the country's largest nuclear research complex. But the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms there has been no damage to any nuclear facilities. The New York Times reports three Iranian officials believe the attack was carried out by small drones possibly launched from inside the country. The officials

say the strike hit a military airbase. Another group of drones were reportedly shot down. Now, a source familiar with the situation tells NBC News the U.S. was not involved in the strike. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had spoken with his Israeli counterpart yesterday afternoon, but it was not known if he was told about Israel's plan to attack Iran. Israeli officials have not yet commented on the strike. The move comes less than a week after Iran launched more than 300 missiles and drones toward Israel. That was done in retaliation for a deadly strike earlier this month on Iranian diplomatic building in Syria. Iran's attack, however, was mostly thwarted with help from the U.S. and several Arab and Western allies.

Now, yesterday, before Israel's attack, Iran's foreign affairs minister reiterated a warning that his country would respond to any use of force by Israel. what the country will do, but the U.S. embassy in Jerusalem has issued a security alert asking employees and their families to restrict their travel out and out of an abundance of cost caution, Willie. Let's go straight to Jerusalem, where we find NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel. Richard, so what more do we know about the extent of this strike, about what Iran might do in retaliation in this back and forth that's been going on since April 1st since that Israeli strike that killed two generals in Damascus? The United States says it was briefed that there would be an attack last night, did not participate, though. So what else do we know this morning? We know that this attack appears to have been quite limited. The Iranians are telling their

people through state media that this was no big deal to stay calm, that life is continuing as normal here in in Jerusalem. Things are very much proceeding as normal. People are out. The buses are running. People are on the streets. Shops are open. There have been no air raid sirens. Same in Tel Aviv, all across the country. The military has not given any guidance here telling people to seek shelters or to listen for upcoming radio announcements. The attack, according to Iranian media, took place in the city of Isfahan on a military base. There were some air defenses in action in the city. You could see flashes in the sky.

But then Iranian media shortly afterwards have been showing pictures of life going on as normal in Isfahan. They showed pictures of the area around the nuclear facility. Also, calm, no damage there. So the message coming out of Iran officially to the public is that there was an attack, that it was largely unsuccessful, thwarted, and that people should continue to go about their business. Here in Israel, they are not talking about it publicly at all. An official telling NBC News that, yes, Israel did carry out this strike, but not providing any details and that they are conducting a battle damage assessment. Now, I've been speaking with officials in the region and they describe this attack as not symbolic, but marginal was a word that was used. And they do not know if Iran plans to carry out some sort of counterstrike or leave it, leave it here and move on to a task of de-escalation,

allow the shadow war that has been going on between Iran and Israel for decades to recede back into the shadows and not tip this region into a regional war. Richard, as you say, these strikes by both sides over the last week or so have been limited relative to the damage and casualties both Israel and Iran are capable of inflicting on each other. So is there a concern now that whatever comes next could be larger, that a population center could be attacked? Or do they feel like they've settled what they need to settle here with this back and forth? I think it's too early to tell, but an indication is probably the messaging that both governments

are telling their people. If Israel expected that there would be a massive counterstrike, I'm quite sure that they would be informing the public to take precautions. When Israel was anticipating the strike over the weekend from Iran, the Israeli military went into overdrive. They were doing hourly briefings telling people to take it seriously, to go into the shelters, to stay there for 10 minutes or more. This country, for the last six months, has been on war footing. So when the air raid sirens go off, often people are now shrugging them off, not paying attention, not rushing to their shelters because it has been going on for six months. The fact that they didn't issue any new guidance, it seems to be a sign that Israel at least hopes that this phase is over. It doesn't mean the conflict is over. There is the ongoing

war in Gaza. There is the potentially pending military operation against Rafah. It seems that Iran and Israel will continue to carry out attacks against each other. There are almost daily attacks between Israel and Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. But the overt open war between Iran and Israel at this stage, we're not sure if these were last licks or if a new round is coming. But looking at the messaging on both sides, it seems that both sides may be trying to pull it back from the brink. Right. NBC's Richard Engel reporting from Jerusalem. Thank you very much. Let's bring in now former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Tavridis. He's chief international analyst for NBC News

and president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Richard Haassi is author of the weekly our Navy Admiral James Tavridis. He's chief international analyst for NBC News. And President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haassi, is author of the weekly newsletter Home and Away, available on Substack. Also with us, former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department, Elise Jordan, and former chairman of the Republican National Committee and co-host of MSNBC's The Weekend, Michael Steele, and Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, is with us this morning. Thank you all for joining us this morning. Admiral Stravitas, what's your best read on what happened last night and what's been

happening over the last 12 to 24 hours? I think it was indeed a muted strike, a limited strike. Clearly, Israel, as we talked about earlier in the week, Joe, had a basket of options here. They could have gone big. There were certainly voices in Israel calling for that. They could have simply left it as cyber, non-kinetic kind of operation. They chose, as you and I talked about a few days ago, kind of in the middle. And I think what they sought to do and they accomplished was to show that they can penetrate Iranian air defenses. We'll know a bit more here over the next 24, 48 hours as battle damage assessments come out. But I, for one, believe that we're now in a 90% probability that this will settle down,

go back into the shadows, follow a path of de-escalation. I think there's still a 10% chance it could flare up in a bigger way. And I'll close by giving you a couple indicators to watch over the next few days. Richard Engel mentioned one of them, which are the public statements coming out from Tehran and Jerusalem. Those are reassuring at the moment. Number two is activity from Hezbollah to the north. Are they going to ramp up, be unleashed by Tehran? They've got 100,000 plus missiles. That's the threat I think our Israeli friends are watching for this morning. And then third and finally, you know, the admiral is going to say it. Watch what happens at sea. If Iran really wants to retaliate and go largely back against Jerusalem, they could do it at sea against

Israeli shipping or they could close the Strait of Hormuz. Final thought, those are small probabilities at this point. I think we're probably in a position to see things settle down. Let's hope so. Richard Haass, was this just the latest and final round of shadowboxing between Israel and Iran trying to prove something to each other, to their constituencies, to regional friends and enemies, or do you expect more? No, I think we're all in violent or even nonviolent agreement this morning. This was carefully calibrated. The Israelis felt compelled to respond to show that they could reach Iran if need be. They could hurt them if need be, but they didn't hurt them this time.

The fact that the Iranians are downplaying it at home suggests to me they don't feel compelled to retaliate against the retaliation. I think this has showed that Bibi Netanyahu were often critical. I think in this case, he resisted what he was getting pressure to do from his right. He did less rather than more. I think the Biden administration should feel pretty good in terms of calming down the reactions. And I think this is also a realization on the Israelis. They've got their hands full. They've still got Gaza, and they'll have to make some big decisions about

Rafah and occupation. They face, as the Admiral was talking about, a massive threat from Hezbollah still, and it got active a few days ago. It's possible the West Bank will get more militarized. They got problems there. So I think this is really an interesting case. You see it sometimes, you saw it during the Cold War, Joe, that adversaries figure out how to signal. There's nothing formal. There's nothing explicit. But I think what we saw here was some actually sophisticated signaling and messaging by Israel and Iran. And, you know, Mika, Iran has been careful not to escalate too much in this situation. Also, people throughout the region that I spoke to after the Soleimani assassination, said Iran was very quick to launch some missiles to send a message to their people, but just as quick to call intermediaries and say, tell the United States

that's it. Right. We're not doing anything else. We just needed to do that. This is you have in both the case of Israel, as was just said, and in the case of Iran, two countries that have enough on their hands right now, do not want to get into a regional war with each other. And so that's the question, Admiral, do you feel that, you know, as Richard pointed out, Israel has its hands full and it has its friends in the U.S. and also in the region who have really come to Israel's defense in recent weeks. Do you think that they did just enough to send a message, but not enough to look like they're not responding to the urging of friends in the region and by the U.S. to not make this worse and not to have it escalate into a wider war. Yes, I do. And in particular, you're right to put your finger on the coalition aspect of this.

That's what knocked down 350 drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles. That was an all hands on deck effort, including U.S., U.K., Britain, Jordan. As we've said, I think quietly Saudis were cooperating, providing some intelligence, shall we say. This was a wonderful example of coming together in this case to defend Israel. The Israelis don't want to knock that off course. And then second and final point, now the attention kind of shifts to Capitol Hill to look at the aid package for Israel. As Israel shot down 350, they probably used up close to a thousand interceptors to do that. They need to replenish those stocks. That's in the aid bill. I'm hoping to see that get done this weekend alongside the as critical, certainly a bill for Ukraine. Well, Admiral, it's on track because last night House Democrats saved those packages of foreign

aid bills proposed by Speaker Mike Johnson, which contain aid to Israel and Ukraine. In a rare move, all four Democrats on the House Rules Committee joined the five Republicans in passing a procedural vote that allows the bills to advance to the House floor for a vote. Usually, it is the majority party alone that passes these rules in committee and on the floor. The Democratic votes were needed because three Republicans on that committee voted against the bills in protests that aid for Ukraine was not paired with border security measures. In an interview last night, Speaker Johnson acknowledged the rebellion within his own party from a small faction and admitted he will need those Democrats to get his aid packages passed this weekend.

We have continued to work every single day. We've passed resolutions. But again, remember what we said at the outset. We only control one chamber and I barely have control of that. I can't. The Senate won't advance our legislation and the president won't sign it. He won't fulfill his obligations. So why is the border not in this package? Because, Greta, we didn't have the votes to do it. I have a handful of my Republicans, at least, who will not advance a rule to bring that to the floor to combine it with the Ukraine and Israel funding. They won't do it. And so if I don't have Republican votes, that means we have to have Democrat votes. So, Michael Steele, kind of an explosive scene on Capitol Hill yesterday when that small group of Republicans who don't want any aid going out the door, some of them at all, others saying we don't want it

without border security measures. Although, remember, let's say for the, I don't know, thousandth time that there was a comprehensive bipartisan border package sent over from the Senate. We'll put that to the side for a moment. What do you make of Speaker Johnson just in these last couple of days, really sort of standing up to the hard right MAGA members of his caucus and saying we're going to get this money to Ukraine and he wants this vote to happen by Saturday. Well, it says to me a number of interesting things. But I think the top line is that he's he's come to the conclusion that, yeah, he may have to sacrifice his speakership to get something done.

He recognizes the importance of this moment, that all of the loud noise from his right flank still does not solve the problem that's in front of him and the country. And that is, what do we do about aid to Ukraine? What do we do about assistance to Israel? What do we do in a number of these other hot spots, most importantly, of course, Ukraine. And so that reality is set in. The other part of it is I think he recognizes that he has been the dog that has been wagged by the Marjorie Taylor Greene tail. And she's the one who's driven a large part of this. There's I was talking to some folks just this earlier this week, there is a frustration with the way that she has sort of manhandled the speaker in this matter, giving him very little room to negotiate,

making it so much harder to get the peace that they really wanted, which is the connection of border security to Ukraine, even though, as we noted, we've been here before and they had the deal. The fact of the matter is a lot of folks were a little bit tired of that. And I think if he saw that opening and the speakers decided to move into it, he went to the leadership on the other side, to Hakeem Jeffries, talked to the Democrats on the committee, and has now finally been able to carve out that space to move this initiative forward. And we'll see the votes this weekend. So bravo to the speaker. He recognized that his speakership was worth sacrificing for the country. Yeah, you know, it's an interesting dynamic.

And Michael still was talking about it, where you have people that are pushing back against the speaker. It's an interesting dynamic. You can get away with that for only so long. And I know because we were constantly pushing against Newt Gingrich to get more, get more, get more when we were trying to get the budget balanced. And you can push to a certain degree. And at some point, you blow up the legislative process enough to get what you want and everybody turns against you. And I think that's what we're seeing here, that there are a lot of people that have just had enough at a couple of backbenchers that are controlling what they do when it comes to Ukraine funding. And it looks like the speaker, who certainly should be applauded, I will say,

for what he's now saying about Ukraine, what he's now saying about the United States role in the world, something that Joe Biden's been saying for a really long time. I'm glad he's saying it. Also glad that we're getting to a point where a lot of these backbenchers, what they're doing is going to amount to sound and fury signifying nothing because they're going to get rolled and because far as this lie goes about oh well we can't pass ukraine funding until we take care of our own

border oh come on we took care of our own border yeah you had james langford joe biden you you had you had republicans in the senate all coming together for the strongest bill they would have gotten. Strongest bill ever. And yesterday, Fox News host Neil Cavuto called out Donald Trump and those Republicans who killed the strongest bipartisan bill ever on border security. Here's part of the exchange yesterday with the author of that legislation, conservative Republican Senator James Langford of Oklahoma. You're a real gentleman about this, and I know you're not trying to zing your colleagues, but it's your colleagues in your party, sir, who torpedoed this, who didn't get the facts right on what you just outlined was in that measure. They killed it. Ironically, not Democrats. Right. It was and it was painful to be able to watch it got stirred up in all the presidential politics. And several

of my colleagues started looking for ways after President Trump said, don't fix anything during the presidential election. It's a single biggest issue during the election. Don't resolve this. We'll resolve it next year. Quite a few of my colleagues backed up, looked for a reason to be able to shoot against it and then walked away. I get that. That's a decision everybody makes in it. My issue is, if we're pursuing everything, we very often end up with nothing. If we're pursuing someone coming later to fix it, later seems to never come. When we have a moment to fix things, we should fix as many things as we can then, then come back later and fix the rest. That's on Donald Trump, Senator.

Again, he's got an office that he's running for. He's got a campaign that he's running. I'm already in office. I've got a responsibility to be able to carry on this. I think everybody cares about the future of the country. President Trump has a bigger picture of a lot of other issues he's looking for. If we have a President Biden again, this never gets any better. And I think President Trump sees this as a moment that if this gets fixed, then maybe a few people don't vote. And then we have a whole host of other issues in the future. I have no idea what he said at the end, but he did admit that once again, Elise, you have Republicans that have stepped in the way of getting anything done. And

the strongest words to use against the Republican House, Elise, right now come from Republicans in the House. Chip Roy's quote sometime back saying that the House Republicans have done absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing, name anything that they've done. You've got James Lankford saying that Donald Trump and Republicans killed the toughest border security bill ever. And then you've got the head of the Republican Intel Committee in the House saying that Republicans in the House are spewing Vladimir Putin and Russian talking points. I mean, it's it's their own words are devastating against them. Joe, when you were in the House and you and

your colleagues in the 90s were fighting, you were fighting for a balanced budget. You had a policy goal. Here we just see chaos. We don't necessarily see what the policy goal is. Are the Republicans who are opposing the aid doing it to force the Ukrainians to come up with a strategy to come up to define the end state. It's really unclear. It's just swirling around and it's just noise for the sake of political noise. And there are real questions to be answered right now, Richard. We have a finite stock of munitions. We're giving Israel a lot. We're giving the Ukrainians a lot. Israel is obviously heated up. And last Saturday, we used a ton of our own stock and we have to make sure that America is still secure. Also, how are they

going to evaluate these hard choices when it comes to keeping our arms supply up to what it needs to be to be prepared for any possibilities of war and America? The short answer is we don't have enough to go around. We have in some ways demobilized what we used to call the defense industrial base to defense manufacturing base. So we face a world. We've got three geographies. Look at this legislation. You've got the Middle East aid for Israel. You've got Europe aid for Ukraine. And you've got aid for Taiwan in this third geography. And we have ourselves. We simply don't produce enough in the way of arms and certainly ammunition. And one of the things I'm hoping come out of this beyond the immediate, it's going to be arbitrary. We'll send some to Israel, we'll send some to Ukraine. It won't be

enough for either, but it'll be better than what we've got now. But one of the things we actually need is a serious conversation in this country about our ability to produce sufficient arms. We're moving into an incredibly dangerous world. And look at the lessons here. Look what the Israelis and the Iranians, and it's happening also with Ukraine, the use of drones, the use of this new generation of missiles and so forth. We have got to, in some ways, catch up to the changing technology

and build the industrial base to produce adequate stuff. We are not there. And it would be nice to put aside the politics once we get through this bill, or hopefully over the weekend, and have a serious conversation about our ability to produce enough. You know, Richard just uttered words that seem so like last century, serious conversations. We don't seem to have serious conversations in this country anymore. I do have a question for Admiral Stavridis, though. When we look, OK, so we had the Israeli response last night to Iran.

Proportionality, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. I have, you know, an Iranian-American friend who has relatives in Isfahan. She's really wondering how proportional this was. But nonetheless, in the larger scheme, obviously, Israel could have done more there and could have wreaked more damage. But let's look to the other side of that small country now. And there's still the question of Rafah. And what do you think is going to happen in the next weeks about Rafah? Do you think the Israelis are indeed going to invade, or do you think not? I would say that the unblinking eye of the media will shift back pretty quickly as events hopefully settle down in terms of interstate warfare between Israel and Iran. So, Eugene, you're right to put your focus in particular on Rafah. I think the thing to watch here is the network of tunnels underneath

all of Gaza, about 400 miles of tunnels. This is where Hamas trains, equips, organizes, directs, launches attacks. Israel knows those tunnels are the military center of gravity here. So they're going to work their way through that tunnel complex, already doing it in the northern part of Gaza. They are going to get after those tunnel systems, incredibly complex, under the area in the south, under and around Rafah. The problem for them, quite obviously, 1.1 million Gazans displaced into that area. So the Israeli military will need to come up with a reasonable plan to move as many of that civilian population as can be moved out of the area of the objective, they will, to answer directly the question, will they attack Rafah?

I think eventually they will. They're going to have to go after the tunnel complex and probably 8000-ish Hamas fighters who are still extant there to do that effectively and in compliance with the laws of war. They've got to move a million people. I can't think of a harder military problem. Let's get back to the politics of this on Capitol Hill. Let's bring in NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitale. Ali, what do you expect to be playing out next on Capitol Hill in terms of getting aid passed, but also among the Republicans who want to put the speaker's job in peril? Well, look, I was listening to Richard Haass say that we should take the politics especially given the ways that this foreign aid package has played out, not just over the course of this week, guys, but over the course of the last month and a half or so. Because of the way we saw Speaker Johnson initially just sort of leave the Senate supplemental version of this languishing, waiting for the House to take it up. And now we're seeing him take it up in a different fashion, but the same substance of what the Senate was trying to push in the first instance. We're probably going to see today a lot more reaction

and hemming and hawing, but we're also going to see under suspension, which requires a two-third majority to pass it, a border bill go to the floor. The reason they're doing that is because they couldn't get it through the House Rules Committee last night. It's not something they were going to get Democrats to come along with. And we already know that three Republicans on the Rules Committee were voting against the speaker's plans. That was probably going to be true on the border. It's definitely what happened on the foreign aid package. And so the foreign aid package piece of this is likely on a glide path at this point. We know that Democrats are seriously entertaining and are likely going to vote for it. The fourth piece of this bill is the thing that's

sort of a little bit up in the air, though I think the way that they wrote the TikTok provision not just sweetens it on the House side of the building for Democrats, but also gives it a little bit of a softer landing pad on the Senate side of the building. Of course, they'll take that up at some point in the coming days after the House passes this on Saturday. But it's really the argument over what happens next for the speaker that many of us are watching closely. It's striking to watch the speaker on a conservative network say that he barely has control of the chamber and that he barely has control of his conference that has the majority in the House. Yes, it's the reality. But watching him admit that after the day that he had yesterday,

I thought was really telling, given the fact that we spent a good chunk of yesterday morning talking with Republican members who had just come out of a huddle with Speaker Johnson, wherein they were urging him not just to move more quickly on the foreign aid pieces of this, but also that he should not make any moves to try to change the rules around a one-member threshold on a motion to vacate. That conversation got very tense. There are more members now saying that they have diminished confidence in the speaker, but the person at the center of it, Marjorie Taylor Greene, isn't giving any timeline or if she'll ratchet up her threat for his job. So all of that is still very much up in the air. The politics still very present. And the speaker facing an actual physical confrontation and

insults from those MAGA members yesterday. Another busy day ahead for you on Capitol Hill. NBC's Ali Vitale. Thank you, Richard Haass, Admiral James DeVritas. Thank you very much as well. And guys, just to put a fine point on this, Ukraine may have moved off the front pages a lot of the newspapers recently, but it doesn't mean that the threat has gone away. Two days ago, a city in the north of Ukraine was attacked during rush hour, Russian missiles raining down, 18 people killed, dozens more injured. And right afterward, President Zelensky said, we just don't have the capability to stop this anymore. We don't have the Patriot air defense systems we need.

We don't have the ammunition we need pleading once again for the American Congress to send help. All right. And we'll continue to cover this. We have a lot more to get to this morning. Still ahead on Morning Joe, jury selection and Donald Trump's hush money trial is almost complete. We'll go over what happened in court yesterday and what to expect when proceedings pick up again in just a few hours. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 60 seconds. So jury selection and Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial is almost complete. The process resumes later this morning, a day after 12 jurors were selected and sworn in. The jury is made up of seven men and five women. One alternate was also chosen.

Five more alternates are still needed to complete the jury. The process appeared to move faster than expected yesterday after two jurors seated on Tuesday were excused at the start of the proceedings. One said she was not sure if she could remain impartial after identifying information about her was made public. Another was excused following concerns from prosecutors that one of his answers during questioning was not accurate. If no other jurors are excused and five more alternates are selected, jury selection should wrap up today. Judge Juan Merchan has said he is hopeful that opening arguments will then begin on Monday. Joining us now, former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Lisa, what stood out to you yesterday in terms of the jury selection process? It seems to be on track. This judge is really trying to keep things tight. I'm also curious your reaction to

Donald Trump's response to the day. You know, Mika, yesterday was a combination of the soporific and the stunning. And so one of the things that stood out to me was just sometimes these jury proceedings are ponderous, particularly when the jurors are reading the answers or the prospective jurors rather are reading their answers to the jury questionnaire. And yet at other times, as you noted, it can move with lightning speed. And particularly where the parties are exercising their both challenges for cause to particular jurors and what are called peremptory challenges, which are the challenges that allow them to strike jurors for whatever reason whatsoever. Watching them make those tactical decisions and then have to live with the consequences of those were really stunning to me. In particular, the defense ran out of their peremptory challenges earlier than expected,

in part because Judge Marchand was not generous with them in granting their challenges for cause. So, for example, one of the people who ended up on the jury is a woman who said, I don't have strong opinions of him, but I don't like his persona. And then she elaborated when he presents himself in public, he seems very selfish and self-serving. And I don't really appreciate that in a public servant. That's a woman who ended up on the jury yesterday, in part because there were other people who were offensive to the Trump team that they struck earlier. And then they ran out of the ability to challenge folks like that particular juror.

So fascinating, Lisa. Also yesterday, toward the end of yesterday's proceeding, Trump's legal team asked prosecutors to provide the names of the first three trial witnesses. Prosecutors refused, explaining while they typically would turn over that information, they did not want to in this case because Trump already has been posting online about potential witnesses. The judge said he could not blame prosecutors for that objection. Trump's attorneys offered to commit to the court that Trump would not post about any witnesses, but the judge responded, quote, I don't think you can make that representation. So let's start with to say the least. His attorney, Trump's attorney, say that, sure, we'll keep,

we'll control him this time. He won't tweet or true social about the jurors and the witnesses. So how unusual is this, first of all, in a typical trial that isn't, say, of John Gotti or another mobster? Would they protect the identities of the witnesses like this? No. And I can't underscore for you, Willie, how typical it is to provide the names of witnesses witnesses like this? No. And I can't underscore for you, Willie, how typical it is to provide the names of witnesses. Maybe you have some skirmishing about how soon you have to turn it over. Is it the night before? Is it three nights before, as it was in this case? But it is totally standard for each side to provide the other with a list of the witnesses that they're expecting so that they can prepare their cross-examinations. But here, as you noted, Josh Steinglass, one of the DA's lawyers said, look,

ordinarily I do this as a courtesy, but here I can't because the defendant is still tweeting about these witnesses. And that's when Merchant said, look, I can't fault them for that. And as you noted, Todd Blanch made two representations. The first was, I can promise you that he won't tweet, to which Merchant said, I don't think you can make that representation. Then Blanche offered, we'll treat it as attorney's eyes only information, meaning we won't even share it with our client. And at that point, Merchant said, I'm not going to direct them to do that either. So there is a level of distrust here, both of the defendant, but also sort of there's a level of distrust that they can't be independent from their client. I don't think Rashawn was angry with Blanche, if anything, sort of reminiscent of

a similar moment with Joe Takapina, who was the lawyer who litigated the first E. Jean Carroll trial that I watched, where he also tried to make a particular representation. Hey, if you give this information to me, I won't share with my client. My client won't do anything with it. And similarly, federal judge Lou Kaplan said something to Joe Takapina akin to, I don't think you can make that representation. It's less about the lawyer and more about the client. And of course, it exists against the backdrop of Trump continuing to tweet and the DA making an application to hold Trump in criminal contempt for 10 social media posts in the last, you know, several days that they say endangers those witnesses. So on one hand, you have Judge Marchand saying, I'm not going to order them to provide the names of those witnesses. And on the

other, you've got a trial, I'm sorry, a hearing coming Tuesday on whether to hold him in criminal contempt. If you're looking to read the tea leaves, a judge who says, I won't order your adversary to provide you with a list of their witnesses is probably somebody leaning toward granting some form of sanctions and holding Trump in criminal contempt because he sees that danger that the DA's office does. So, Lisa, it's been I was slightly amused because all the hype going into this voir dire of the jurors was, oh, my God, this could take weeks. We could be here for two, maybe three weeks. We we got this done in four days, five days. Talk a little bit about that process. What wasn't just because everyone ran out of their preemptory choices there, preventing certain jurors and getting others. What was it about

this process or this judge that allowed that to happen so quickly that we're now today, presumably, getting the remaining five alternate jurors? And what does that say about the process start, the trial starting on Monday? Because I don't think anyone thought we would be here. I thought, I mean, maybe we go another week and then you sort of ramp up into it. All of a sudden, bam, Monday, we could be full on. We could be. And I want to caveat that by saying each side gets two peremptory challenges per alternate juror, which means they have 10 again to select five alternate jurors. That means today could be not the end of this jury selection process. I expect that it will be, but who knows? That

even said, you asked me, Michael, what are the choices that Mershon made that allowed this to go so fast? And I think there are two. One is right off the top. He asked people, if you feel like you can't be fair or impartial, raise your hand and you're excused. No questions asked. Usually it doesn't happen like that. You have to justify yourself. He also asked people, if you feel like you're unable to serve for any other reason, raise your hand. And those people too were able to go. Usually those are people who are called to the bench and asked to justify that as well. I'm caregiving for a small child. I watch an elderly relative. I have a job that's so demanding that I can't be here. Those kinds of things. People were allowed to sort of on the honor system say I can't do that.

So that itself saved a lot of time. But the other thing that allowed it to go fast is Mershon has been stingy with challenges for cause. There have been several jurors that were offensive to the Trump side in particular that they said this person should go because they are biased. And in many instances, Mershon said, I don't agree with you. And that forced them to exercise their peremptory challenges to get rid of jurors they thought were unacceptable. And then, as we noted, you know, by the end of the day, they were sort of out of them. There were jurors in the box and they had to take what they were left with. Wow. And MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, thank you so much for your coverage. And of course, we'll be seeing more of you as this continues. Coming up, we'll continue to bring you updates from the Middle East after Israel strikes overnight in Iran. Also ahead,

we'll go through the large pro-Palestinian protest yesterday on the campus of Columbia University and the school's response to it by calling in the NYPD. Morning Joe is coming right back. Beautiful live picture of lower Manhattan at 645 on a Friday morning. More than 100 pro-Palestinian protesters were arrested on the campus of Columbia University yesterday. It came just one day after the school's president was questioned by lawmakers on Capitol Hill about incidents of anti-Semitism on school grounds. NBC News correspondent Antonia Hilton reports. Confrontation at Columbia police removing protesters from campus. Citing extraordinary circumstances, Columbia University President Manu Shafiq called in the NYPD to clear an encampment of pro-Palestinian student demonstrators. The encampment set up Wednesday morning, the same day Shafiq testified on Capitol

Hill about anti-Semitism on campus. We must uphold freedom of speech because it's essential to our academic mission, but we cannot and shouldn't tolerate abuse of this privilege to harass and discriminate. In a letter to the university community, Shafiq noted, protests have a storied history at Columbia, where anti-Vietnam demonstrators took over buildings on campus in 1968. But in asking for help from the police, she said, the encampment and related disruptions pose a clear and present danger to the substantial functioning of the university. We are risking our academic standing just to show the administrators that we are not okay with their decisions. Several demonstrators today stomping on an Israeli flag. Some students saying they feel unsafe on campus. I feel as though people are kind of weaponizing anti-Semitism.

Demonstrators telling us they plan to keep their protests going despite the police presence. Do you feel like this administration has clamped down on students and faculty members free speech? 100 percent, yes. I do believe that. New York City's mayor saying police made more than 100 arrests on a campus severely divided. NBC's Antonia Hilton reporting from Columbia University in New York. So, Joe, yesterday you saw another case in a several in recent weeks where heads of school, chancellors, administrators have said there is a line now between free speech. We've allowed you to protest. We've allowed you to go to certain places. We've opened up dialogues on our campus, giving you a place to have these debates.

But when it comes to harassment of debates. But when it comes to harassment of Jewish students, when it comes to interrupting the operations of, say, a class or a speaker or people moving through the campus, we're now saying you can't do that anymore. Yeah, exactly. I mean, whether you're talking about the interruption of the functioning of the Golden Gate Bridge or the normal functioning of Columbia University. You know, it's it it's too much. It's too much. You can have free speech without, again, stopping the normal functioning of these institutions. And it's really unfortunate that you'll have people stepping forward saying, well, this is we have to do this because Israel is so terrible. Israel is this, that, you know, and look what's happening to the Palestinian people, but I just didn't see these protests when 10,000, 30,000, 50,000,

100,000, 500,000 Arabs were killed in Syria in Assad's civil war. Did we see this when Saddam Hussein was killing a million Muslims? I didn't see the protests. And so protests have the time and the place. And nobody should trample on First Amendment rights of people who want to support the Palestinian cause or want to support Israel's cause. But that's not the way it's going on college campuses right now. It has been overwhelmingly one sided. And it's not just Jewish students are feeling the pressure. It's it's also other students that are feeling the pressure to take extreme positions, anti-Israel positions. And and so I'm I'm glad the president of Columbia University has stepped forward. You know, some people may call allowing students to take over president's offices at Columbia in the 1960s a storied tradition. I don't. I call that anarchy. you're president of a university and you're letting students take over your office,

maybe you should seek employment elsewhere. Because I guarantee you there are a lot of parents that send their children to schools who don't want students running the place. They're like grownups to run the place. And it looks like that's what's happening in Columbia. Yeah. And I'll speak for, you know, I went to Vanderbilt University. They've had a lot of this on their campus in recent weeks. And a group of students a couple of weeks ago pushed their way into Kirkland Hall where the chancellor's offices, they pushed aside an unarmed security guard. They sat there for 20 hours doing exactly, you're all suspended. And then one by one reviewed their cases and expelled three of the students and said, we've given you a place to have free speech. We've given you a place to protest. We've given you a place to voice your opinion. We've created symposiums where both sides of this discussion can be heard. You didn't participate in that, but you broke into our office and sat here. So three of you are now no longer students at Vanderbilt University. And that was one of the first schools actually to do that.

And I think you've seen more of it now since then. Jeremy Peters, the national reporter for The New York Times, is writing about this. He's got new reporting on how those administrators are now responding to a surge in anti-Israel protests on campus. Also with us, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, Jonathan Greenblatt. His group is out with new data on anti-Semitic incidents in the United States in the last year. Good morning to you both. Jeremy, I'll begin with you. It does seem to have been, just in the last couple of weeks even, a bit of a change in the approach that some, not all, that some leaders of campuses, of universities across the country are taking with these protests.

What did you find in your reporting? That's exactly right, Willie. Schools have had enough. And Vanderbilt issued what are believed to be the first expulsions of student protesters related to demonstrations stemming from the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel. And from Vanderbilt to NYU to Columbia to the University of Michigan to Pomona, schools are saying basically, look, this is not about free speech. You have a right to speak up. You have a right to demonstrate. What you don't have is a right to harass and disrupt. And that's what's really been impeding these universities'

core mission, which is to educate your students. And you can't have an environment that is constantly disrupted where students are subject to harassment, where they're spit upon, where they're yelled at, where graduation ceremonies or like the incident I wrote about my alma mater, the University of Michigan, this honors convocation that was supposed to be this kind of lovely celebratory moment where kids who were the highest achieving students are honored, their parents and grandparents are there. And what happened? It got disrupted and had to be shut down early because pro-Palestinian protesters were standing up and shouting down speakers and unfurling banners.

And this is something I think universities have been slow to acknowledge. I mean, remember during the Trump years, universities really became this cauldron of protest activity where this kind of overly censorious culture developed, where if there was a speaker who was, you know, conservative or aligned with Trump, instead of letting that person speak, a lot of times the speech would be canceled out of fear for the safety of that speaker or people would interrupt the speaker. And now, you know, I think universities are saying we didn't do enough to rein that in. But now they are. Well, you know, and the thing is, that's happened over the past couple of years. But this has been a problem for a long time.

I'll just say it. Brats who are protesting when, say, Christine Lagarde tries to speak at a graduation or Condi Rice tries to speak at a graduation. I think even Christine Todd Whitman one time was canceled from speaking at the graduation. I got to say, you're either the adult running the campus or you're the child that is uncapable of controlling students. The students are there to learn. That means all the students are there to learn that means all the students are there to learn not just students who decide this one issue is the most important issue to them and i certainly understand if gaza is the most important issue especially to palestinian students in america but it goes well beyond that you can't shut down an entire campus. Your right to free speech doesn't mean your right to impinge upon everybody else's free speech and their ability to function in a university setting.