Morning Joe - Morning Joe 5/10/23

Episode Date: May 10, 2023

Trump found liable for sexually abusing and defaming E. Jean Carroll in civil trial and is ordered to pay $5 million

I think the New York legal system is off the rails when it comes to Donald Trump. Do you have a response to President Trump being found liable for sexual abuse? I think it's good. Just a small sample of the Republican reaction to the verdict in Donald Trump's civil rape trial. A New York jury found him liable for sexual abuse, ordering him to pay $5 million to writer E. Jean Carroll. We have legal analysis on the case and more reaction from Capitol Hill straight ahead. Also ahead, a high stakes meeting on the debt ceiling lives up to the low expectations everyone predicted. We'll look at what could come next as both sides have a small window to hammer

out a deal. Plus, it appears George Santos's lies and questionable financial claims are finally catching up to him as he is now reportedly facing federal charges. And we'll get a live report from El Paso, Texas, on how the Biden administration is preparing for the end of a pandemic-related immigration restriction. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, May 10th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, White House Peer Chief at Politico, Jonathan Lemire, former White House Director of Communications to President Obama, Jen Palmieri. She's co-host of Showtime's The Circus. Attorney and contributing columnist for The Washington Post, George Conway is with us as well.

So it begins. Donald Trump is now the first former president to be found liable for sexual abuse. A New York City jury for the civil trial handed down that verdict yesterday, ordering Trump to pay $5 million in damages to writer E. Jean Carroll. She sued Trump for battery and defamation, saying that he raped her in a department store in the 90s and then lied about it. Trump has repeatedly denied the allegation. The jury ruled there was not enough evidence to prove Carroll was raped, but did agree she was sexually abused by Donald Trump. They also found Trump defamed the writer by calling her claims a hoax and a con job. The jury was required to reach a unanimous verdict and deliberated for just under three hours. In a statement, Carroll explains she filed the suit to clear her name, adding, quote, Today the world finally knows the truth. This victory is not just for me, but for every woman who has suffered because she was not believed.

Meanwhile, Trump went on a tirade after the jury's verdict yesterday, making a series of posts on his platform, Truth Social, claiming he has never met Carol. He also called the judge who presided over the case a, quote, terrible person who should have recused himself and vowed to fight the verdict. I don't even know who this woman is. I have no idea who she is, where she came from. This is another scam. It's a political witch hunt. And somehow we're going to have to fight this stuff. We cannot let our country go into this abyss. This is disgraceful.

Trump's lawyer echoed a similar statement. He was yelled at outside the courthouse. He's going to file an appeal. Liars are going to lie. Donald Trump's going to lie. There's no doubt about it. The thing is, Willie, what the jury found him guilty of

is what he admitted to doing in the Access Hollywood tapes and what he reconfirmed in these depositions. That if you're rich, if you're famous, if you're a, quote, star, then you're allowed to sexually assault people.

He said he did it in the Access Hollywood tape, said reconfirmed that that that it's happened for a million years. He said may have done it. I mean, so, again, it's not surprising they came to this verdict because the admissions were always out there and the deposition was there, which only reconfirmed it, of course. So I don't want to get too distracted because we know that they've been vacuous for such a long time. They've been shameful people who are anti-American and hate the hate, hate the rule of law. But you see Republican senators calling a jury of their peers jokes. Yeah. Saying that it's a sham. That's just that's somebody that is so in on Trumpism that they're they're they're undermining the bedrock, the bedrock of the American judicial system and Madisonian democracy. Let me say that again. When a Republican senator says this jury is a joke, the whole case is a joke. This jury is a joke. That's not a witch hunt. That's a jury of Donald Trump's peers.

They are the law. We've always believed they are the law. And yeah, there are a lot of times juries come back with verdicts that maybe we don't agree with. But it's the law. And we don't run around saying they're jokes. It just shows how debased people like Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, who's a lawyer, who knows better. Not that he shouldn't know better. He knows better. And it just continues them attacking a jury for doing what Donald Trump already admitted to doing.

Yeah, I'd love to follow up to Senator Rubio on that tweet. What does he mean? The jury is a joke. It was a jury of civilians who answered a notice, sat and listened to the evidence and decided that Donald Trump was liable for sexual assault and defamation. In what sense is the jury a joke? I'd love to know more. We've heard from Republican congressman who said jury of my peers, a Florida Republican jury of my peers and kind of laughed it off as if the entire concept of jury of our peers, as you say, Joe, which is foundational to our country and to our justice system, is somehow a joke. This is a big deal. Donald Trump has been accused by more than a dozen women of sexual abuse of some form. And this is the first time that a court, that a jury has affirmed those accusations. And it is above the fold in all the newspapers here this morning. New York Times picture of E. Jean Carroll, who, by the way, will be our guest shortly this morning.

The Wall Street Journal, The Daily News putting it very bluntly here, Joe, just calling Donald Trump a sex abuser. And finally, The New York Post says of the five million dollar judgment, grab him by the wallet. A reference, of course, to the Access Hollywood tape. Yeah. And George Conway, again, I don't want to focus too much on these people that have shown a hatred for Madisonian democracy, for the rule of law, for the vital role that a jury system plays. By the way, these are all things that we said before Donald Trump was in politics. And more damningly to them, these are things that they said before Donald Trump was in politics. But once Donald Trump gets into politics, suddenly they say the hell with the Constitution. He can

say terminate it. The hell with the jury system, the hell with federal judges, the hell with the rule of law. They're literally the these these lemmings are literally willing to follow him over the cliff in anti-American tirades. I'm curious your thoughts not only on that, but and also on the number of Republicans who said this is a bridge too far. There was quite a lot of those. And also what happened yesterday, why the jury came back so quickly? Well, I mean, the jury came back so quickly because the evidence was essentially overwhelming and unrebutted. I mean, Donald Trump refused to show up. Had he shown up, he would have been destroyed on cross-examination. The deposition testimony, as you pointed out, was absolutely devastating.

And essentially, he said, oh, women have been sexually abused for a million years, fortunately or unfortunately. I mean, basically, he's saying there are good people on both sides of sexual abuse. I mean, that's essentially Donald Trump's position. I mean, he's a complete sociopath in that regard. And he's pathologically lying about everything, but denying that he knew E. Jean Carroll. And I think the problem is, and you see it with Rubio and you see it with all these others, is they have been playing along with the con for too long. And you've got all these people out there, maybe, I don't know, 20 percent or 30 percent of the American public as a whole, certainly a good chunk of the Republican base, has basically bunkered itself in to exclude any information, any news, any thoughts that would imply or infer that Donald Trump is any in any way less than perfect or that he that he's a liar. They simply can't accept even the slightest impingement on that view, because if you do, you start realizing how bad he is.

It all falls apart. There are 20, 20 odd women who made these accusations against him. They're all lying. Every single one of them. You had to believe that the jury was faced with the question of, are we going to believe that that somebody 25 years ago or 30 years ago cooked up this scheme so that someday when Donald Trump became a right-wing Republican or pretended to become a right-wing Republican, they could spring this on him. I mean, it was just absolutely insane and absurd. But the problem is that you've got a large segment of the population that has locked itself into this insanity. You've got a television network that basically paid $787.5 million to coddle its viewers so that they don't have views that they don't want to hear.

And then you've got basically the Republican political establishment, still most of it, not wanting to touch any of this. And that's why we are where we are. And that's why Donald Trump is going to, even though he's now an adjudicated sexual abuser, he's going to get the nomination, even though he's been indicted in one jurisdiction. He's going to get the nomination. He's probably going to be indicted two more times, at least between now and November 2024. And he's still going to get the nomination. And that's the and that's going to ultimately end up hurting the Republican Party again for a couple more years. That's something you talked about that other network. That's something that on the other network. You had people like Andy McCarthy, a guy obviously very respected legal thinker, especially among conservatives, saying basically saying this is this is all too much for Trump. It's going to continue. And he pulled no punches

about the fact that this was a jury of of Trump's peers. It's the same thing that Geraldo said, that basically the jury jury had no choice given the evidence, given Donald Trump's admissions, given the fact he didn't show up in court, given the fact that his deposition, Mika, that you looked at, you saw the whole deposition, that he just by the time you're done with that deposition, it's pretty evident how the jury is sexually assaulted women because he was a star. And then he said in the deposition. And yes, they you know, it's maybe that's a good thing. So, again, this anybody else we always talk to anybody as anybody else would have found been found liable for sexual assault here. It's not not a surprise. What's a surprise, though, is that Republicans and especially evangelicals are all in with the guy who said he wanted to terminate the Constitution, are all in with the guy who tried to overthrow the results of an election, are all in for a guy who

sat and stared for hours at the television set, taking great, great joy and cops getting the hell beaten out of them in a January 6th riot. It was a guy calling on patriots. And there's a guy who's found guilty or found liable by a jury, unanimously found liable of sexual assault. And these evangels are going to stay with them and they're going to get what they deserve. Yeah. Here are some of the Republicans that you were talking about responding. Take a look. I think the New York legal system is off the rails when it comes to Donald Trump. What's happening in some of these courtrooms in Manhattan? I don't even know. I'm not going to get into it. It's a jury of his peers finding him. Come on, man. Serious? Don't say that stuff to me. That might work for somebody else.

That definitely don't work for me. Jury of my peers. Yeah, whatever. What else you got? That's pretty much it. This is a sexual abuse conviction, basically. It's an allegation from what, 25 years ago? Okay.

So this is the problem with these Republicans. This is the sickness that you're talking about, that Trump has coarsened through the veins of American society and our politics, especially our politics. for having the guts so many years later with so much against her to take this case on and to push it and to take that opportunity when the window opened in the law for her to file this civil lawsuit, because it wasn't ultimately about whether or not she was lying. It's often very hard with these cases when something happens behind closed doors with no witnesses so many years later, you really wonder, gosh, how could this, how could this get anywhere? But you know what? It took her bringing it to trial and bringing the other women who have had a bad situation with Donald Trump and they set it up. And if these Republicans would just watch the deposition, they would see in front of

their own eyes the sickness that Donald Trump has put on this country. But, Megan, they know that. No, hold on. No, the Republicans know that. You know what? I'm not going to assume that they're running all over Capitol Hill. On TV. I'm not going to assume they watch the deposition.

I'm asking. It's 42 minutes or it might be longer, but watch it because you will see it's not about whether or not these women lied. He says he did it. And you're OK with that. You're going after the jury, a jury of his peers, unanimous verdict. And you don't even look at the deposition where Donald Trump says he did it. This is what he does. You have to understand this is what he does. He normalizes things that are not normal. He normalizes things that are not okay. He normalizes things that are illegal. It is not okay. And no, it hasn't happened for millions of years. Celebrities don't go up to women and grab their genitals. OK, they don't just walk up and do it. And if they do, they should be charged and they should go to jail or they should be charged in a civil lawsuit and pay millions, which is happening here. And in the deposition, not only is he atrocious

and rude to the attorneys, but he says straight out that he did it, but he's normalizing it for you. And you can't see it because you're clinging ever so tightly to a losing proposition, which is what's so stupid. It's stupid politically. It's malpractice. This doesn't work. You have seen many times over people don't like insurrections. They love the Constitution and they don't like people who sexually assault women. No. And again, if they saw the deposition, they would see that, yes, during the Access Hollywood tape, Donald Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women. Says it happens.

And in this deposition, he said it happens and says maybe that's bad or maybe that's not bad. And so he again takes the Access Hollywood tape, brings it up to 2023, saying, you know, maybe that's not a bad thing that Donald Trump can sexually abuse women. And you have Republicans saying, what, the jury of my peers give me a break? Again, here's the crazy thing, Jim Palmieri. They didn't talk that way before Donald Trump. They didn't talk about terminating the Constitution before Donald Trump. They didn't talk about overthrowing governments before Donald Trump. They didn't talk about throwing out elections before Donald Trump. I say all this to say these people you talk about throwing pearls at swine. These people are willing to throw out Madisonian democracy for a five time loser who has already said the Constitution should be terminated and that election results should be thrown

out and that, yes, he still has the right because he's a star in his words to commit sexual abuse against women. It's the continued massive integrity downgrade of the Republican Party started in 2016, continue seven years later. I mean, there is one. There are some good things that came out of yesterday, though, Joe, that even though Republicans are ignoring them, we shouldn't bypass. I mean, it was an important, very delayed, but very important repudiation of Donald Trump's vile actions against women, the way he speaks about women. I know, you know, just the Access Hollywood tape, not just, you know, there was a dozen women that accused him of abuse, but then there's his words on tape and million and millions of American women were just devastated on election day in 2016 when too many Americans had heard that and said, that's okay. It's a pervasive sense to women in America that didn't support him. You're not worth the same as men. And to have to finally have a in a court to have our peers in the

form of a jury repudiate that is a really important validation, just as it matters and has an impact beyond politics when those Republicans continue to say, dismiss the charges, say it doesn't matter, say it's not important. And I think that it will have a political impact as well, though. I think, you know, it didn't end with Trump and his abuse of women. There's a war on women with the reverse of Roe. That continues as well. And women will, you know, they will hear these words from Republicans, see that kind of conviction that came out of New York. And, you know, it has an impact on us. I think it makes you just that more fired up. It makes you just that more skeptical of the

Republicans that continue to prop him up. So I think it will have an impact on Trump's chance of winning the Republican nomination. Probably not. Will it hurt these Republicans that continue to prop him up? I think that it will. Let's hear Donald Trump in his own words. This is the deposition Mika was just talking about when asked by attorneys back in October for E. Jean Carroll about the Access Hollywood. Here's what Donald Trump said. And you say, and again, this has become very famous in this video, I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss.

I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the ****, you can do anything. That's what you said, correct? Well, historically, that's true with stars. It's true with stars that they can grab women by the... Well, that's what...

If you look over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true. Not always, but largely true. Unfortunately or fortunately. And you consider yourself to be a star? I think you can say that, yeah. Here in front of you, black and white photograph that we've marked as DJT23. And I'm going to ask you, is this the photo that you were just referring to? I think so, yes.

And do you recall when you first saw this photo? At some point during the process, I saw it. That's, I guess, her husband, John Johnson, who was an anchor for ABC. Nice guy. I thought, I mean, I don't know him, but I thought he was pretty good at what he did. I don't even know who the woman. Let's see. I don't know who. It's Marla.

You're saying Marla's in this photo? That's Marla, yeah. That's my wife. Which woman are you pointing to? No. Here. The person you just pointed to was E.J. Carroll. Who is that? And the person, the woman on the right is your then-wife, Ivana?

I don't know. This was the picture. I assume that's John Johnson. Is that Carol? Because it's very blurry. She would not be my first choice, that I can tell you. Man. You don't know. That would not be my first choice. When you said in that video that Ms. Leeds would not be your first choice, you were referring to her physical looks, correct? Just the overall, not I look at her, I see her,

I hear what she says, whatever. You wouldn't be a choice of mine either, to be honest with you. I hope you're not insulted. I would not, under any circumstances, have any interest in you. I'm being I'm honest when I say it. OK, so there were a number of Republican lawmakers. We talked about the ones who were dismissive of this. There were some in the Senate who were critical of Donald Trump yesterday, expressing concern about the impact of the verdict, mostly on the 2024 election. Could you support somebody who has been found liable for sexual battery? I would have a difficult time doing so. He just is not suited to be president of the United States and to be the person who we hold up to our children and the world as a leader of the free

world. At some point when the people who work with you, your cabinet secretaries and juries conclude that you've done something severely wrong, it's time for us to recognize that the great majority of those who've worked with him are right and he's wrong. One of the things that's most important to me is which acceptable conservative candidate represents the best opportunity to beat Joe Biden. And on that measure, things like what we're experiencing today will certainly factor in. I do not think he can win the presidency. And so I think, regardless of what you think about him as an individual, to me, electability is the sole criterion. Should he just drop out of the race and have the money right now? I don't think he cares what I think. Senator Cornyn said that.

And I don't mean to be that cheeky. I'm just telling you. Senator Cornyn said that this is just another example of why he can't win in a general election. Do you agree with that? Yes. I think for a lot of voters, it's kind of baked in. And they think this, you know, everybody, all these prosecutors are out to get him. But it does, you know, like I said before, it has a cumulative effect.

And people have to decide whether or not they want to deal with all the drama that's going to surround him. If you're listening in the car, on the radio or at home, Mike Rounds, Mitt Romney, Kevin Cramer, John Cornyn, Bill Cass heard not only dismissing the charges, but dismissing the entire process of American jurisprudence and jury of your peers and everything else. What is the impact on this? Now there is a decision. Now there is a judgment. He's been held liable, Donald Trump, for sexual assault and defamation. Does this change anything about the dynamic inside the party? Well, it gives the Republicans yet another moment to face the question of how seriously do they want to win in November 2024? Because the general election and the primary are two very different things. We saw that when Donald Trump was indicted by the Manhattan D.A. a month or two back, that helped him in the polls in the Republican Party,

even as it raised concerns about his ability to win a general election. And the bifurcation there between the House members who largely were in lockstep with him, who still want to do his bidding and are supporting him, versus the Senate, who really hit upon the issue of electability. Now, Mitt Romney is often a Trump critic, so let's set him aside. But some of the other voices we heard in there are interesting because, yes, someone like a Thune or someone like a Kennedy, a Cassidy, they do occasionally, a Cornyn, who's a member of leadership, do occasionally criticize Trump, but often are in lockstep. But they say here, we don't think a candidate with this sort of baggage, more or less, can

win. That's what they're saying here. And the behavior in the video we just played, and obviously his response yesterday to the decision is reprehensible. And it's something that a decade ago Republicans would have rejected outright. Whether now that the anti-Trump forces can take a moment to try to coalesce around another candidate, whether it's a Governor DeSantis or someone else, remains to be seen. So far, no one has stepped to the forefront and he is still the dominant figure in the party. But I think there will be a moment, Willie, where there'll be some Republicans, donors and others who will take a hard look at this moment and say, you know, particularly with other indictments potentially

coming down the road, can we really support this guy if we want to win next fall? We're joined now here at the table by two of the attorneys representing E. Jean Carroll, Mike Farrar and Sean Crowley. Thank you both for being here. Sean, let me start with you. What was decisive yesterday for the jury? It was just such a sound victory that the jury, who had heard from Ms. Carroll, from E. Jean Carroll, for three days, she sat on the witness stand and answered question after question after question for three days, that they unanimously believed her. And it only took them a couple of hours to decide that. Yeah, it did come back very quickly. You were in the room taking some of the depositions. That was not your voice we heard on the tape there for Donald Trump last October. How important were those moments, for example, when he said she's not my type, but then thought she was his ex-wife,

Marla Maples, in a photograph? That was extremely important. I think I think that what was so striking at the deposition that was taken by Robbie Kaplan was not just that he continued to deny that he had sexually assaulted Miss Carroll, but that he doubled down. He doubled down with She's Not My Type. He doubled down. We played him the Access Hollywood video. He smiled through it as we played it for him. And then he said, you know, unfortunately or fortunately, this is just what stars do. We get to do these sorts of things. So I think it was really important that the jury actually heard him say those words from his old mouth. And then to point to your colleague and say, you're not my type either. Just a kind of a breathtaking moment. So, Mike, one of the questions that's been asked in these last 12 hours or so is, is this distinction between sexual abuse and rape. How do you explain

that to our viewers? The jury did not find for rape, but did for sexual abuse. What's the difference there? Yeah, the difference is, I mean, there are legal elements to sort of both of these ideas. I think at the end of the day, the takeaway is Donald Trump said, I wasn't there. I don't know her. It never happened. And so the jury's verdict was resounding in rejecting that. So I think that's sort of the takeaway there. So, I mean, on this idea, I mean, let's talk about the defamation part of it, too. What do you think was decisive there for this jury to come back with affirmative on that part of this as well? Right. So there the jury. So first, so the jury finds, OK, the sexual assault happened. OK, so now he's lied about it. Right. And then

they're asked, is it is he doing it like with ill will? Is it is it out of spite? Those sorts of questions. Actual malice is one of the terms. And so that's layered on to this idea. Not only is he denying it, not only is he lying, but he's lying in a way that the jury found was sort of spiteful and made out of ill will. Mika? So I'm curious, Sean, that first of all, what we're seeing here play out, which I think in the history of Donald Trump is historic, and it's probably the first time Donald Trump, the former president, the former financier or whatever he called himself, is being held accountable for his words. And it is his words that brought him down. And let's also make sure that we include not just sexual abuse, but defamation that was at play here. It was really the defamation

that he inflicted on E. Jean Carroll that actually prompted this whole thing. So tell us what the strategy is for his appeal. E. Jean Carroll is validated on so many levels here, but how does she get the money? So as you said, Mika, there will be an appeal process that will probably take a year or more to play out. I think we saw Donald Trump promising, even before there was a verdict yesterday, promising that he would appeal. You know, I think the trial was strong.

The judge was extremely strong. His rulings were sound. We don't expect there to be any actual issues on appeal. So we do expect that that EG will be paid at some point. It's just going to take a little a little bit of time to get through the courts. George Conway has a question next, George. Yeah. I mean, I mean, does he have anything in particular, given the lack of evidence that that he presented? I mean, is there any way he could win even if he could find some kind of legal error in the in the charge or in the or anything the judge did?

I doubt it. I don't think so, particularly because, as we know, while we saw his words on the deposition where he was legally compelled to be questioned. He didn't actually bother to show up at the trial himself and subject himself to the same sort of cross-examination that his attorney did of E.G. Carroll for two and a half days. So, Mike, let me ask you a question that even people I know are very sympathetic to E.G. Carroll who don't like Donald Trump were asking. Why now? Why did she come forward some 25 years, even more with this allegation in her book a couple of years ago and frankly put herself through this. I mean, to take on Donald Trump in a public forum is no small task. Why did she do it? Yeah. And she testified to this. So

she was going to write a book. What do we need men for? Which we heard a lot about at trial. And she was it was going to be a tour around the United States, eating at restaurants named for women in cities named after women. And basically, the day she was going to leave, the Harvey Weinstein allegations started coming out. The sort of Me Too movement was happening. And she said, how can I write a book about other women and their thoughts on men without including what's happened to me in my life and my encounters with men. And so part of her book was a list of men who had mistreated her. And some of them were obviously satirical and others were more serious. And the Donald Trump sort of portion was a very serious excerpt that she thought she had to include. And she felt like she had been silent for too long. And so, Sean, what were the early conversations like, not just

about making this public, which is a big deal for any woman who's gone through something like this, but to take on Donald Trump in a public forum, knowing what his reaction would be, knowing what the reaction of his supporters would be, knowing that prominent members of the United States Congress would dismiss her out of hand. Was there any doubt about bringing this case? There was no doubt about bringing this case. I think she had some big doubts about whether at first to go public with her allegations. She feared that he would do exactly what he ended up doing. But as someone who had been a advice columnist, a journalist for her whole life,

she felt like it was time instead of sort of giving advice to other women to talk about herself and things that had happened to her. So, Sean, you just said that he what he had been doing, he'd been attacking her throughout. He's still doing that. He did it yesterday on Truth Social. He's got a primetime town hall tonight. We know he's going to be on the campaign trail again in the coming days. He's going to keep doing it. How do you guys prepare your client, but also through the appeals process as those attacks continue? I think that Eugene is prepared for it. She has been withstanding his attacks for the last four years. I think she expects that there will be more. But the fact that a jury of her peers

and his peers unanimously agreed with her and believed her is buoying her up and is going to support her as he continues to make these outlandish claims. Jennifer Palmieri has a question for you guys. Jen? Obviously, E. Jean Carroll is your client. But when you're trying this case, did you think about a bigger principle that you were also arguing that was at stake? Mike, go ahead.

Sure. Yeah, I mean, absolutely. I think that this is, I hope, I think I speak for Sean as well and Robbie and Eugene when we say that we very much hope that this gives other women who, and anyone who has suffered sexual abuse or rape, we hope that they think to themselves, I can come my truth and I'm not going to be dismissed. I'm not going to be ridiculed. And it's not going to be this, you know, I'm not going to walk in a court and have my past necessarily, you know, dragged out. The people are going to believe me. And we hope that it gives courage, you know, to anyone who has been through something like this. So, Sean, I'm curious, moving forward, especially preparing for an appeal, are there any constraints as to what you can include as you prepare to defend yourself against an appeal,

defend E. Jean Carroll? Like in the Manhattan D.A. case, the judge is now saying he can't talk about evidence and things like that. If he continues to defame her in the public arena over and over and over again, can that be used in the appeal? It can't be used in the appeal in this case. This case, the appeal is contained in the record that is existing now. I will note we do have another case against him. He before his statement in October defaming her, he actually issued a series of statements back in June of 2019, right after she came forward in which he said, you know, more of the same. This is a hoax. She's a paid operative of the Democratic Party.

She's not my type. Those sorts of things. So E.G. brought her first lawsuit back in November of 2019. That's on a bit of a different track because Donald Trump is saying you can't sue me for something I did while I was president. That's making its way back through the court. And so that is still very much a live issue. It's going to be a little bit harder for him to fight it now that there is a jury that has found that he sexually abused her and then lied about it when he denied it. But that case is still very much alive. Oh, so it continues. Attorney is representing E. Jean Carroll, Mike Ferrara and Sean Crowley.

Thank you very much for being on the show this morning. We appreciate it. And ahead, E. Jean Carroll herself will be our guest this morning on the heels of yesterday's historic verdict. Plus, another big legal story. Sources tell NBC News DOJ prosecutors have charged Republican Congressman George Santos with federal offenses. What we're learning about that. Also this morning, there is still no solution in sight after President Biden held a meeting with congressional leaders on the debt ceiling yesterday. We'll take a look at where things stand. And the latest on the situation at the southern border as communities brace for a sharp rise in migrants once Title 42 ends tomorrow.

You're watching Morning Joe. We'll be right back. Beautiful shot of the New York City skyline as the sun is coming up over the Big Apple. It is 41 past the hour. Welcome back. Four sources tell NBC News Republican Congressman George Santos has been indicted on federal charges. The news comes as Santos faces mounting legal issues and is the subject of multiple congressional, federal and state investigations. NBC News reports in December, two federal law enforcement sources confirmed that federal prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York had opened an investigation into Santos and were examining his finances, including potential irregularities involving financial disclosures and loans he made to his congressional campaign. A source with direct knowledge tells NBC News Santos is expected to appear at the Long Island federal courthouse today. Santos and his lawyer did not respond to requests for comment. George Conway, what we don't know too much yet. How long do you think he knew about this? And I don't know any idea what this could be.

My guess is that he's known that he's been under investigation for a while, at least since all of all the information started coming out about him. There's just no way he hasn't had to have respond to subpoenas of his campaign finance information and so on and so forth. And there's so much to choose from here. I mean, we saw these disclosures where he was continually charging the cash maximum of $199.99 or something like that, continually charging that amount in cash for payments to a restaurant, a single restaurant. Every meal costs $199.99. I mean, that's clearly fraudulent. You've got this money where we don't know where the money came from. And you've got that sorry story about him ripping off the fund for the poor sick dog. I mean, there's so much here to choose from. It'll be interesting to see what the feds have on him. But there's going to be something. When you lie that much, you're going to sooner or later lie on a piece of paper

that actually matters something for something, or you're going to lie about something involving money and that's going to get you into state or federal trouble. And we, you know, some, for some people it takes longer, like our friend in Florida, but some people really get there faster. And I guess that's Mr. Santos. I'm just thinking about his office, like everyone in his office. How could he how could he operate with this hanging over him, having to provide all these disclosures? I would think that his office would know about this, too. His office. I don't know to what extent he's kept his office separate from his campaign operation or what his campaign operation is. I mean, we just don't know the inner workings of George Santos and how he has been able to function.

But it's just going to be untenable for him to function now. And we'll see if Mr. McCarthy has the gumption to actually do something at this point or if he's just going to continue being shameless and pretending that Santos is just a normal member of Congress. George Conway, thank you very much for being on this morning and coming up on Morning Joe, cities near the southern border bracing for the end of a pandemic era policy used to block migrants from entering the country. We're going to go live to El Paso, which has already seen a rise in crossings with more migrants expected to arrive when Title 42 expires tomorrow. Elsewhere in Texas, communities are still reeling after a pair of recent

mass shootings. We'll hear from a leading voice on gun reform in Congress when Senator Chris Murphy joins the conversation. Morning Joe will be right back. The pandemic policy known as Title 42 is set to expire at 1159 p.m. Eastern time tomorrow night. Cities on the southern border already are seeing an influx of migrants with El Paso reporting more than 3,300 camped out near shelters on Monday waiting to get into the country after tomorrow night. Joining us now from El Paso, NBC News Homeland Security correspondent Julia Ainsley. Julie, good morning. Tell us what it looks like there and what officials are expecting to see in the next several days. Well, Willie, I'm going to talk a little quietly because I want to be respectful of these people who are sleeping here right next to me. We're outside Sacred Heart Church in El Paso.

This has really become the epicenter of where a lot of migrants are sleeping on the streets after they cross the border, either after they evade border patrol or they are unable to get room inside the shelters. El Paso became quickly overcrowded. They had as many as 2,000 people sleeping on the streets just a few days ago. But actually, something happened yesterday that's pretty significant as border patrols started to move more of these people out of this area and onto their destinations further into the country in an effort to try to clear out these streets before that expected surge. As you mentioned, Title 42 will lift at 1159 Eastern. That'll be 959 here tomorrow night. And they're expecting to see numbers crossing the southern border get above

10,000. That's like nothing we've seen before. Right now, though, the numbers across the border, I'm told, are already averaging over 8,000 per day. And inside border patrol facilities, they're already well over capacity. It's something the administration is talking about now, and they're trying to put forward a really tough base, tough policies to show that the border will not be open when Title 42 lifts. And in fact, they're going to raise the bar on what it means to claim asylum. But border officials I've spoken to say that won't do anything about the processing time. Without Title 42, it will take them a lot longer to figure out who can stay in the country and who will be deported or expelled.

And that is going to lead to massive backlogs and potentially many more people like this sleeping on the streets, Willie. So as you say, Title 42 basically told migrants who had come in and said, you can be expelled without an asylum hearing. They could be kept out and that will expire just tomorrow night at midnight local time here on the East Coast. So what is the Biden administration doing to prepare for this? Obviously, they've been criticized in many quarters for their handling of the situation at the border, for the handling of Title 42. What is the plan from the administration? What is the

plan from Homeland Security? Well, in the short term, we know they've surged resources down here. There are more Border Patrol agents that have come to these areas. They're putting more money into ICE, into transportation. And they've also put down 1,500 active duty troops, although those people will just be supporting Border Patrol, not doing the actual apprehensions of migrants. But a lot of their policies and their planning has to do more in the long term. They want migrants to be able to apply for asylum or for appointments here from in-country. They're going to go ahead and set up processing centers in Guatemala and Colombia with more to follow. They want to raise the bar on asylum so that,

basically, if you haven't applied already for asylum in a country you pass through on your way here, then you'd be ineligible when you came to the United States unless you meet other criteria to show potentially you could be tortured, say, if you were sent back to your home country. There are a lot of ways that they're trying to make it in the long term so that it's harder to cross the border and easier to get protections from your home country. But look, staring down the clock, 9.59 here, local tomorrow night, those processing centers aren't open. A lot of people say that they have run out of all options. It is their last resort. They can no longer stay in

their home countries. A lot of people coming from places like Venezuela, Guatemala, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, you name it, places where people are in desperate situations, either because of the political climate or the economic climate. And they say that this is their time to come. And thousands are waiting just over the border here and Juarez waiting to come in. We're going to find out what happens just under 40 hours from now. NBC's Julia Ainsley down at the border in El Paso, Texas. Julia, thanks so much as always. We appreciate it. So, Jonathan Lemire, the question for the Biden administration is, are they ready for this? This is a Title 42 has been in place for just over three years now. There's no telling what's going to happen two days from now when the border opens in this way.

To this point, there are real concerns among Democrats. The White House hasn't been ready for this. Senior aides told me privately more than a year ago that this was one of their real vulnerabilities, that they hadn't gotten their handle really on what to do at the border. As titled, the first rumblings were coming with Title 42 expiring. A year later, I'm not sure much of that has changed. And there are people inside and outside administration who are deeply nervous as to what the next few days will hold. Certainly an influx of migrants is expected. We saw the president committed some troops to the border there. They said not to be enforcing

with the laws, but to rather provide some support and relief to the officers who are already there. But it is going to be a political firestorm. And we know, Jen Palmieri, that Republicans have already, since the moment President Biden took office, has made the border and immigration a real point of attack. And that's only going to escalate after what we assume the image is coming from those border states in the coming days. So what would your counsel be here for the White House, first of all? And secondly, how big of a vulnerability is this going to be as we do start thinking about a reelection campaign? I think that it's smart that they're talking more about the issue and what they're doing about it. Right. And I know

that I've had the same conversations you've had about that, that it's a really difficult problem. It's a huge logistical problem that the White House is facing. It's there without any sort of prospect for Congress to actually deal with the problem, which we need to know is their job. It is there are the administration is limited as to what they is their job. It is, there are, the administration is limited as to what they can do about it. So I think they, you know, Julia just did the same report about what they are doing. They have brought more resources down there. They have the National Guard standing by to assist. Secretary Blinken, OPEN, is doing more, they're doing more asylum processing in country, in Central America. So to try to limit the people

who do flow here. So I think they want us to know everything that America. So to try to limit the people who do to do flow here. So I think they want us to know everything that they are trying to do to stem like a very, but it's likely to be a difficult problem. And then you saw, you know, I was really struck with what the president said last night when he got a question about it. He said it's going to be really, you know, how's it going to go when Title 42 gets, ends. President? And he admitted it's like it's going to be difficult. It's going to be messy. We'll have to see in the next in those few days what occurs. I think they're trying to brace people for, yes, we're absent any absent action from Congress.

You're going to see a lot of chaos at the border. Title 42 ends the end of the day tomorrow. We'll have much more on this story coming up.