Morning Joe - Morning Joe 6/8/23

Episode Date: June 8, 2023

Classified documents probe: Trump lawyers told by DOJ he is the target of investigation

You know, on the day of January 6th, I issued a tweet demanding that people leave the Capitol and end the violence. And I said that those that fail to do that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. And I continue to believe that today. We cannot ever allow what happened on January 6th to happen again in the heart of our democracy. And I'll stand by the decisions and the due process of court in our laws. And I have no interest or no intention of pardoning those that assaulted police officers or vandalized our Capitol.

They need to be answerable to the law. Former Vice President Mike Pence with one of the ways he is differentiating himself from his former boss. We'll have more from his campaign launch just ahead. It comes as the Department of Justice confirms what we all suspected. Trump is the target of the classified documents investigation. We'll get expert analysis on what it means for an indictment moving forward. Plus, one of the PGA's top players blasts the organization for its deal with Live Golf. And parts of the Northeast, my Lord, looked like something out of an apocalyptic movie and still does, by the way. We'll get the latest timeline from when the wildfire smoke from Canada could finally clear out. But here in New York, crazy. You couldn't see a thing and you can taste it. It's just awful. Good morning and

welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, June 8th. Hello, Joe. Hi, Mika. How are you? I was going to ask you and Willie just to describe it going around because the pictures and the video you sent me, Mika, really did look apocalyptic. Yeah, that's the word. It looked and smelled and felt apocalyptic yesterday. The trend seems to me, John, you can confirm this or deny it. The mornings are OK. Right. And then as the day goes on, it gets worse. Excuse me. I went inside for a couple hours to do some work.

Came out yesterday afternoon and the sky was completely orange. You could hardly see across the street. It smells like a campfire everywhere you went. It was worse yesterday than the day before. And now you smell inside. Yeah. You know, it's like in the hallway of your apartment building or it's in the breezeway when you walk into a building. It's real. And it's had delays to flights, canceled tons of outdoor activities. It's not safe for kids or the elderly or people with

respiratory problems. This is very real. And honestly, these wildfires are expected to burn all summer. So we might get a break this weekend, but it's unclear if we're really going to see the end of this. Yeah. Yesterday afternoon was believed to be the worst of it. And you'd have trouble. You couldn't see across the street. I mean, there was this orange hue. The smoke has permeated the buildings of Blame Canada. Indeed, that's where the fires from the Yankee game had to get postponed last night.

My Lord. Today is supposed to not be great either. A little better. And then we're supposed to see steady improvement Friday, Saturday, Sunday. But this is also, first of all, what other parts of the country go through a lot. It's just news and new here in New York City and the Northeast. D.C. is going to be really bad today. But also, this is going to be a new reality where fires like this becoming more and more common. We're going to have to start getting used to this. Well, and it's not just us and how we feel. I mean,

the actual science of this is that at one point, New York City's air quality was the worst in the world. I believe that was at some point yesterday. World's worst air. And then I think, yeah. And then today or late last night, second worst in the world. It's not good. We'll be following this along with Joe, Willie and me. We have former U.S. senator now on NBC News and MSNBC political analyst Claire McCaskill here on set with us in New York. And, of course, the host of way too early, White House bureau chief of Politico, Jonathan Lemire, is here. How are you doing on a Thursday? I'm doing fine. I mean, I'm breathing in terrible smoke. So that aside, I'm in the apocalypse. All right. Also with us, Rogers, chair of the American presidency at Vanderbilt University.

John Meacham is with us this morning. So let's launch right in. We have a lot to get to. NBC News has learned former President Donald Trump's attorneys have been told that Trump is a target of the Justice Department's investigation into the former president's handling of classified documents after leaving the White House. Prosecutors told Trump's attorneys about their client being a target in the probe during their meeting Monday at the DOJ in Washington, D.C. That is according to two sources briefed on the meeting. That does not rule out the possibility that Trump's attorneys already understood or they were told Trump was a target prior to the meeting, a DOJ spokesperson declined to comment.

The Guardian reports federal prosecutors formally informed Trump's lawyers last week that Trump is a target of the documents investigation and possible obstruction of justice. That is, according to two people briefed on the matter. So, Joe, this slowly inches towards something for the former president. It does. And, John Meacham, I'm curious to get your thoughts, your perspective on where we are right now. Obviously, in so many ways, we are so far past where Nixon was in 74 in the depths of Watergate, 73 and 74, including a complete lack of respect for the judicial system, which, you know, Richard Nixon had when the Supreme Court unanimously said, turn the tapes over. Nixon didn't he didn't even think about, you know, having the Republicans attack the Supreme Court with with commercials or, you know,

try to intimidate them from doing their job. But of course, that's something that is just second nature for Donald Trump. Yeah. Well, the interesting thing about Nixon is that after he broke the law, he followed the law. And when when Al Haig called him, he was out at San Clemente, probably walking on the beach in his wingtips, which I've always thought he was unfairly attacked for. I think that's a good choice. You and I both do that all the time. Oh, dear.

Yeah, and you should see Geist out there. It's really remarkable. Legion, yeah. But so he called, Haig calls him. Ali was the White House chief of staff at that point. And Nixon says, is there any give in it? Is there any air in it? And it was unanimous.

And he said no. And then that set in motion the last 14 days or so of that tragedy. With Trump and this moment now, one of the questions we have, both legally and culturally, is because President Nixon was pardoned by President Ford in September of 1974, an act for which Ford was excoriated in real time, celebrated 25 years later or so before he died in 2004, I think. There's rethinking about this now because we have not held presidents and former presidents legally accountable in the way that arguably a democracy should. If no man is above the law, no man is above the law. And so the question we have now is,

what is the political effect of yet another potential indictment? And then what are the mechanics of going forward here? And to be fair, this is what Mitch McConnell and others alluded to when they when they declined to vote for that second impeachment, which would have barred Trump from retaking federal office. They said, let the legal process go forward. He wasn't directly alluding to the documents. But, of course, the Georgia case goes forward as well. A lot to live with here. I think the real question we all have to ask ourselves, and particularly those 14 voters who are in the middle in America, is do you want a do you want to reelect someone with this overt contempt for the laws that are supposed to apply

to all of us? So, Claire, let's have you put on your prosecutor's hat, if you would. When federal prosecutors tell attorneys for a potential defendant that he is a target, that tells you what about their investigation? Tells you they're going to indict him. I'm not aware of very many cases where someone has gotten a target letter before the feds had decided that they had sufficient evidence to go forward. And, you know, that's the thing about the federal government. They don't have to do anything until they're ready. It's not like state prosecutors who are doing violent criminals. Excuse me.

Right. Does that mean they're ready? I mean, is that the point of're ready? It means they're ready. It sounds it looks like to me they're doing something in Florida on a different track, having to do with venue, which may just be keeping pressure on witnesses that may be key to an indictment that I believe will come down in Washington. But it's going to be really interesting and it's going to be interesting politically. We don't know. So far, charging him with a crime

has calcified his support of about 30% of the Republican Party. And now we officially have the seven dwarfs that are in the race, along with DeSantis, who may turn out to be Snow White. He likes white boots. I think Snow White like white boots. So this is going to be, you know, Trump. This is this is Trump's dream that he would have this many Republican candidates in the primary that would siphon off all the anti-Trump

voters there are in the Republican Party and put him in the in the driver's seat. So we may have the first time in history, Sean Misham can speak to this, that we have a nominee for president with an ankle bracelet. Yeah, what we don't know is how this indictment were to come impact the race politically. We certainly, the one in New York only helped Trump, at least in the GOP field. This one might be different. That will play out in the weeks and months ahead. But certainly in Florida, one of his aides, Taylor Budovich, who used to work as a spokesperson for Trump and now helps run the Super PAC, he's the one who testified yesterday. Trump himself put out a statement saying, I have not been told I'm going to be indicted.

That's true. He hasn't yet. But he has now been told that he's a target. And people in the Trump world that I spoke to yesterday in the wake of this news, they're bracing themselves and they anticipate this could happen, could happen soon. They think even this week or next, it could be that fast for an indictment to come down in the classified documents. We'll talk more about the politics of this in a second with Mike Pence, Trump's former vice president in the race now officially. But first, let's bring in NBC News legal analyst Andrew Weissman. Andrew, do you agree with Claire that these target letter signals that an indictment is coming here? Absolutely. Particularly given that we're talking about a former president of the United States, it is legally permissible and possible to tell someone they were a target to issue a target letter and for them eventually not to be charged. But I think when you're talking about the former president,

this is something that is complying sort of with a pro forma DOJ rule. And it's just something that happens before you charge. And I think in many ways, it's not news. Everyone's known, including the defense camp, that Donald Trump has been the target of this investigation for quite some time. This is really a formality. And I think there's no question that he is going to get charged. I think it's just a question now of when and if it's going to be in Florida or D.C. I think there's a really sort of key open questions. Obviously, the nature of the specific nature of the charges, what the evidence is, is obviously also something that we're all looking for. To the point of jurisdiction, the Washington Post reports that the Justice Department prosecutors are planning to bring a, quote,

significant portion of any charges that may come out of the documents investigation in South Florida and not Washington, D.C. That's according to people familiar with the matter. The paper reports the legal basis for such a move is that the bulk of the conduct at issue in the investigation took place in the Southern District of Florida, specifically in and around Mar-a-Lago, which is in Palm Beach. that does not rule out the possibility of some charges being filed in the nation's capital. So, Andrew, I obviously will just wait and see. But it seems it seems to me that they are looking at this obstruction of justice, the movement of documents who drained the pool, things like that.

Absolutely. And this is one where legally the Department of Justice would be on safest grounds if it brought all of the potential charges in Florida, because there clearly is constitutional venue for all of the charges there, absent some unusual facts that we're not aware of. But the issue of bringing the case there is sort of obvious because the jury pool is potentially better for Donald Trump, obviously, in Florida than it would be in D.C. And also the judges in D.C. have far more experience dealing with classified documents, cases. That's very much their bread and butter, where it's going to be something much, much newer to the vast majority of judges sitting in Florida. So in terms of speed, you are likely to go to trial sooner if the case were brought in D.C. But as you said,

the reporting right now is that it's it's more likely that the Department of Justice is going to take the sort of legally more sound or less less risky route of bringing the charges in Florida. Andrew, you and Ryan Goodman have written a comprehensive piece in The Washington Post looking ahead to what we might expect if, in fact, the former president is indicted in a historic move. You've got 11 things to look for here, so I'll let you pick your most important couple. But what should we expect if it does come down even later this week, potentially next week? What will you be looking for? Well, one of the things that we've all been sort of speculating about is what exactly will they reveal about the nature of the documents? Will they include in the charging document what exactly the former president took? Just how

significant was this information? The other, obviously, is who is the judge that gets assigned to this, that, as we've seen already, can have a huge impact on the case, and particularly on the speed of the case. I mean, a lot of people are very focused on whether this will go to trial prior to the nomination process in the Republican Party. So the election is something where the American public knows what a jury has found. So the judge will be quite important there. I'm also going to be interested to see whether there are allegations that the former president disseminated the documents, whether he just was keeping them or whether, as there was reporting, he showed them

to aides and visitors. So that would also make the case much more serious if there are those allegations. Absolutely. All right. NBC News legal analyst Andrew Weissman, thanks so much. I really appreciate it. You know, Mika, it's fascinating seeing something over the last two days that we've yet to see. And that is Republicans running for office, actually starting to tell the truth or at least some of the truth about Donald Trump. We saw Chris Christie go there. And when I say go there, I mean, actually tell the truth about who Donald Trump is and the impact of of the last seven or eight years. I must say, I didn't even expect Mike Pence to be as aggressive as he was yesterday. And I think it may suggest that that a lot of these candidates know something's coming down the pike against Donald Trump

and that he's going to be in a four week in state after this indictment. Yeah. Chris Christie has been throwing some major truth bombs. He is extremely aggressive as he launches his campaign. Former Vice President Mike Pence launched his bid for the White House and made the announcement during a rally outside Des Moines, Iowa yesterday afternoon, and it happened on his 64th birthday. During his speech, Pence made his most aggressive attack against Donald Trump to date, saying his former boss does not deserve to be back in the White House. January 6th was a tragic day in the life of our nation. But thanks to the courage of law enforcement, the violence was quelled, and we reconvened to the Congress the very same day

to complete the work of the American people under the Constitution of the United States. As I've said many times, on that fateful day, President Trump's words were reckless. They endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol. But the American people deserve to know that on that day, President Trump also demanded that I choose between him and the Constitution. Now voters will be faced with the same choice. I chose the Constitution.

I believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be President of the United States. And anyone who asks someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again. You know, it is absolutely fascinating. And by the way, Meacham, I've just got to say, you and me, I'm a Baptist. You're a whiskey paleon. I mean, but we still come from that Protestant part of the faith where it's very interesting. Some people don't like converts. That's what our faith is built on. You know, John Wayne, John Wayne wants to convert to Christianity in his deathbed.

Amen. A bell rings in heaven. take them. Right. Take them. We'll take them. Right. Take it. It's one of the ducks are Joe. Exactly. And whether you get that duck early in the morning or late at night, you know, it just, but, but it is fascinating that the thing I've found about some people on the left, since I've been aligned with them in a fight against anti-democratic forces in America, fascist forces in America, they'll look back and say, well, you know, he did this or that or the other back in that, we want no part of him. No, we throw open the church doors and say, brothers, sisters, come in. We want you. Come on. That's why these people look at what Mike Pence did. Yeah, Mike Pence did a lot of stuff. We like knocked him around hard for.

But on January the 6th, he and Dan Quayle, they just may have helped save democracy. And yesterday he finally spoke truth to power. Is this something to celebrate or is this something like to attack? Because he's had a bad record in the past. I like the conversion myself, even if it's a conversion for a day. Absolutely. One of the great lines in American literature is Mark Twain has Tom Sawyer say an evangelist came to town who was so good that even Huck Finn was saved until Monday. You know, so you want to you want to keep you want to keep them till Monday. No, I don't think it's to be attacked. I think that what the vice vice president Pence is a really interesting example of the issues of the era.

Right. He absolutely and anyone who doubts the role of human agency in constitutional affairs, the story of Mike Pence is vital. Had he not done what he did on January 6th, chaos would have resulted. It is not implausible to argue that chaos would have unfolded over several days, possibly weeks, which would then have forced the Congress to send the election to the House of Representatives, which and the Republicans had in the unit rule a majority. And presumably then Donald Trump would have been elected president by the House of Representatives. That was the chaos theory. And if you think I'm making that up, that's what Peter Navarro and others laid out. Right. That's what they wanted to do. Mike Pence stood in the breach. He gave a good speech yesterday. But then and I think someone else did this. Maybe Haley did this.

Then he says, but if Trump's the he didn't say this, but if Trump's the nominee, he will support the nominee. Right. So there's the whole era in a in a in a news cycle. There's courage. There's an example of courage under fire. And anybody and there may be there may be center left folks who think that you shouldn't celebrate someone for doing their duty. It is just here's a human history, biographical fact check. A president of the United States bears down on you in the Oval Office at the highest levels, putting this choice to you, this Faustian choice to you. It's it's not easy to do your duty. I wish if it were easy, you wouldn't call it duty.

OK, so I do not believe on the conversion point with my Baptist colleague. I don't think you apply a character test for a conversion. If you applied a character test, you wouldn't need the conversion. Right. That said, that said, what the last thing he said about supporting the nominee no matter what contradicts his very eloquent statement earlier in the day. And I think that's that's the question that needs to be resolved. It's a trick question. So, Joe. So, yeah. Yeah. Let me synthesize that for for for everybody that rightly would look at that. And we hear this all the time. First of all,

if you were running for president in either party, you're going to be asked that question. And if you say no, you don't have a chance to win. Let me also say they now have that as a requirement of the debate. Exactly. I think everybody understands this is a phony question. They understand that Donald Trump will be asked this question. They understand that Donald Trump may lie about this question and say, well, yes, of course I will. But I'm going to win. And then after he answers that question and loses, of course, he will not support the person and will do everything he can to stop Ron DeSantis from being elected. So I understand people focusing on that process question, but it is a process question. You have to check the box. Then you can move forward and start your campaign.

I strongly suspect that many of these people that will answer that process. Oh, yeah, I have to check the box before I start my campaign. We'll check that box. And then when the time comes, I would not be surprised to see them backing off of that. And I just also want to say this, Mika, and I know I know that, again, this is another thing that people say, not just about Mike Pence, but Mitch McConnell, other people who on January the 6th stood up in ways behind the scenes and in front of cameras. You know. We would have all done the right thing. I know all of you and I know all of us in that position would have done the right thing. I know all of you and I know all of us in that position would have done the right thing. I also know we've spent the past seven years horrified that someone doing their duty. Well, that wasn't such an easy thing. James Mattis did his duty, but a lot of other people in the cabinet didn't do their duty. Mike Pence did his duty on January the 6th, but we can name a lot more people who did not do their duty.

So, yeah, doing your duty, that's not, you know, doing what you're supposed to do, being responsible. Not a big deal, really, except when nobody else around you is doing it. And then, well, you know, you may have just done something fairly significant. And I think meeting in the middle here about I get I get it. You'll take a conversion wherever you can find it at any moment at the gates of heaven. At the same time, I think, Willie, down the road, Mike Pence will have to answer some questions as to why now he has converted so strongly as opposed to the time when he was serving. And he will he will deal with those questions yeah as john suggests and it's not just mike pence chris christie's been asked these questions he's come out really tough against donald trump and he was asked in

new hampshire town hall okay given everything you just said so now would you take hillary clinton in 2016 over donald no no i mean i would still take trump over hillary clinton despite everything i just said that he undermined the Constitution and everything else. At a town hall last night in Iowa, former Vice President Pence was asked by CNN's Dana Bash about this very question. How can you say you would support a man who you say has so corrupted the country? You just spent a lot of time both here and earlier today explaining why you think that the former president did not uphold his oath to the Constitution. So then how can you say that you would support him if he's the nominee? Well, because I don't think Donald Trump's going to be the nominee.

What if he is? I don't think he's going to be the nominee. What if he is? I have great confidence in Republican primary voters. We have a we have a field of strong and experienced candidates that grew by one today. And I truly do believe that people here in Iowa are going to recognize the challenges that we're facing and understand that different times call for different leadership. Joe, so he's saying what he has to say there, because, as you referenced, there is a requirement that you say you'll support the nominee to get on the debate stage. I agree with you that you can check that box.

Yes, I will support the nominee. And then as you get down the road, just completely walk away from that. If you're doing well, the party is going to rally behind you. Right. You know, John Meacham, there are historical parallels. I don't want anybody to say I'm comparing anybody to Abraham Lincoln because I think Abraham Lincoln was a singular figure in American history. But Meacham will tell you, you know, on weekends, on cold Maine weekends, I like to get Let There Be Light by John Meacham. I like to get your book and I like to read it and think deep thoughts as I'm holding a cigar and trying to emulate you. So, yeah, but but this is what I want to explain. Yes. Yes, exactly. Please. But this is what I want to just sort of talk through with our friends that are watching right now that that that may may be disagreeing with what we're saying. Lincoln, for you know, from the time he got into the state legislature in 1834 until about 1864, he said some things that would shock most Americans if they

read them like alone by themselves. He was even after the emancipation talking about colonization, as you know. And it was I always think about the Horace Greeley letter where Greeley's pushing him, the editor, famous newspaper editor, pushing him to to move harder on emancipation and be more aggressive. Lincoln, of course, as we both know, Lincoln used that letter to say, hey, I don't care about slavery. I don't care about emancipation. I, you know, if he's doing this because he knew the country in the north was racist as well as the south, he said he said, my job is to unite the union. Now, if that is half slave, half free, you know what? That's fine with me. If that's all free, that's fine with me.

I don't really care. I just want to save the union because he knew that's what he had to say. And he had said a more horrible things over the preceding 20 years because he knew how far he could push the voters. And if he got too far ahead of him, he knew he would lose them and he would lose the battle to emancipate slaves. I love the letter and how you describe and please forgive me, everybody, for going on too long here. But it's important to understand. I love that when Lincoln was finally in a position to make a hard, fast decision. I love you talking about that letter that I think was hay sent to the Confederates.

And and it was about the possibility of settlement because the North was exhausted by war. Lincoln didn't think he could carry this battle on much longer because they were so exhausted. And Lincoln said, that's fine. Let's talk about peace in 1864. And he said, here are my three conditions. But as you know, he said, don't even think about not freeing the slaves. Don't even think about taking emancipation off the table, because if you do, well, we're going to fight to the bitter end. And when the South decided they were going to fight to the bitter end, till annihilation to protect the immoral institution of slavery, Lincoln and Grant and Sherman all understood.

We're going to have to destroy the Confederate Army. This is total war. There's no more compromising with him. We're going to win because in the end, he was in a position at that point to make that call and to stop sort of toggling back and forth. Right. He so the politic, if politics were perfect, it wouldn't be politics, right? And Reinhold Niebuhr said the sad duty of politics is to establish justice in a sinful world. It is a sad duty. Sometimes happy warriors undertake it.

Sometimes there are moments of enormous progress and the shedding of light and the realization of more perfection in the union. But most of the time it's not because most of the time we're fallen, frail, infallible people. Right. We screw up a hell of a lot more than we get right. I wish that weren't the case, but it is the case. And that was what the founders saw is what Lincoln saw. It's what FDR saw. FDR was being chided by a young socialist kind of student in the late 30s for not moving fast enough. And he looked at him and said, if a young man, if I move too fast, I'll look back and no one's there. And so that's the practical nature of what we do. That doesn't mean you don't call things by their name. And I think that's one of the great shifts in recent years.

The case I believe firmly we have to make, and I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a Republican. Right. I think the case we have to make is that the the Constitution, the capacity of this big, complicated, disputatious democracy to solve problems is more important than any singular partisan vote. And if you have a partisan brain and you think I'm going to vote for the person whose name is next to that letter, no matter what, I don't think that's in the spirit of the Constitution. Before we move on, we have to stop. We have to congratulate the one viewer who this morning took a long shot at and just made a ton of money. Ryan holds Niebuhr on the John

Meacham bingo card. I know. That was amazing. I'm really impressed. Somebody just got paid. Well done. Well done. It wasn't you, Willie, was it? No, I wish. I can see you choosing that.

OK, so we've looked at the historical perspective here. As an expert on politics and the law, Claire McCaskill. What's the political potential of if there is an indictment this week or in the coming weeks that, I mean, if we have a former president who is charged, but not convicted, not that, you know, because the process I believe takes well over a year, correct? Are we, are we talking talking about I mean, couldn't Trump actually have the ability to whip up his base if he was running as someone indicted twice? I have a very, very fearful feeling about the potential here. We have no question he's going to use it. You know, he loves playing, you know, the wronged victim by right. This would be the ultimate wrong. This would be the ultimate wrong. And his group,

that 30 percent of the Republican primary voters are going to buy in completely on that. Yeah. So the question is, will the I'm not sure that trial would be after. So, yeah, the election. How does that? I would think the trial would be typically a trial after a federal indictment is not a year in the future. It's not. OK, so what's it would be a little bit quicker. I mean, if Andrew were on, he would be more of an. But I think a lot of it depends. It depends on how quickly the judge wants to move. And Andrew mentioned that the judges in South Florida might take longer because they're not as familiar with the underlying law. So I think that's all a question. But, you know, I can't do John Meacham ever because he is so eloquent.

And so now I'm not even going to try. But I will want to. I have to say this. Yeah. Imagine how different our country would be today if all of the people who are saying the obvious today said it in real time. I know. And when you run for president, what you're asking the country to do is say, I'm the kind of leader. Right. That will speak out when it's hard to protect our precious democracy. Bill Barr. Right. Chris Christie. Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Asa Hutchison.

All of these people have been senators and governors and cabinet members. All of them, all of them were radio silent in real time when they saw what this man was doing. I know. They knew what he was going to do. They watched him do it. And none of them said a damn word. No one stood up. And none of them deserve to be president because of it. Well, and also you have different levels of bad, Joe. And I know you and I've debated this because we can get a lot lost

in the what were you doing when when you were in there? I get that. Right. But I mean, Nikki Haley, for example, can't even come out against things full-throatedly. She's like, January 6th was a bad day. It was a very bad day. No, it was more than a bad day. There was an insurrection at the Capitol. People were killed. Our democracy was pushed to the limit.

And yes, Mike Pence did his job. But I agree with Claire. Why didn't you do a press conference the next day and just call it all out and say what he said yesterday loudly and clearly for all of the country to hear it? I think this is a fair question. I think when we when we went to these extremes, Joe, it is a fair question. There are a lot of people who were hurt by the Trump presidency. A lot of people who died, they would and family members would claim at the hands of the Trump presidency, dealing with COVID and lying to the American people. So I feel that great if somebody is going to come around and actually

deal with the facts. But I think the why didn't you say something sooner question is a fair one. His brother meets him and I get to the 16th verse of just as I am now with all with all eyes closed and all heads bowed. Let me make a couple of points. First of all, that was the worst Nikki Haley imitation I've ever heard in my life. Secondly, we every day exhaustively, sometimes for four hours a day, have been saying the same thing that you and Claire just said. And nary have we wavered. And third, I am not talking about the general election. I am not talking about what happens when people get past Donald Trump, if they get past Donald Trump and whether Americans should vote for them or not. Then we have a completely new conversation. And then we ask those questions. I know all I am saying is for the purposes of a Republican primary, where the goal of everybody in that primary is knocking is to knock Donald Trump out.

This, I believe, is an important step forward, not a massive step forward, but a small step forward, understanding we are all fallen, frail, infallible people, as John Meacham said. But Claire, better late than never. I'm glad they're saying it, and I'm glad they're saying it in a Republican primary. I will have the same commentary as you do in a general election. But as you know, it's harder for them to say this in a primary season, which suggests there may be a bit of a change in at least some portions of the Republican Party.

Yeah, I mean, I'll give you that. I've seen a lot of conversions. I've seen a lot of conversions in jail. I've seen a lot of conversions when people are facing a judgment. All right. What about Mike Pence on January 6th? What about that? How significant do you think historians will look at what Mike Pence did on January the 6th? Now, listen, I've said, as you all have said over and over again, what Mike Pence did on January 6th was the right thing. I find it weird that that is the only thing we can say about Mike Pence as it relates to Donald Trump's illegal behavior and inappropriate behavior and abnormal behavior for year after year after year. Yes. So I agree. But if it's the only thing he's ever done right, you got to like say that guy's got pretty damn good timing because he did it on the day that American democracy was going up in flames.

I understand. And listen, yes, he did the right thing in the moment. That's great. But imagine how different it would have been if all of the people that did the impeachment and that voted on Trump's impeachment. I just think people discount the leadership that the country needed in the Republican Party. And, you know, Trump didn't have to be this strong right now. All they all had to do was stand up to him. No, no, no, no, nobody. Nobody's discounting that at all, Claire. Nobody's discounting it. I have said on this show for eight years that Republicans made a mistake by not standing up to a bully. Donald Trump is what Donald Trump is right now because nobody stood up to the bully.

I had private conversations with Paul Ryan. You name it, go down the list. Mark Meadows, you name it. I went to the Capitol specifically early on to say he will never respect you unless you punch back. You have got to be tough. He is a bully. No, we understand that. specifically early on to say he will never respect you unless you punch back. You have got to be tough. He is a bully. No, we understand that. Let me just ask anybody on this set. Does anybody on this set not understand that?

Well, I mean, look, I think we all go ahead and Mitchum. Senator, I think it's tricky, if not problematic, to somehow imply that if Trump and Trumpism were simply verbally attacked, people stand up and say something. I think that, as George W. Bush might say, misunderstands the issues that helped produce the moment and the stubborn nature of the illiberal tendency in the country, the frustration that has manifested itself in the worst possible American forces rising to the top. And that that's that's a big problem that I think is is beyond just talking about it. Yeah, you know, I'm here, John. I'm here, John, because I felt it in a way that nobody else on this set did what you're talking about. I was thought, sure, in a race that should I thought was going to be much closer than it was. I lost by seven points in a state that I'd won statewide time after time because of those tendencies. No question. Trump totally got the grievance.

He mainlined the grievance that so many Americans felt. And all of that is real and nothing the Republicans said or did were going to change that. But I do think they could have changed the trajectory of Donald Trump and his power that he has right now by being braver and having more courage. And that's the only point I'm trying to make. So, Jonathan Lemire, some of the conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump welcomes all this. It enhances his martyrdom with his base. But if we get to next year, let's say he's the nominee. We get into the summer and he's on trial for seditious conspiracy for an attempted coup against the United States government. It's hard to see how that helps him

in a general election. Or even the classified documents matter. Yeah, this might help him now. It's not going to help him next year. First of all, it might take him off the road for a while. But also it has become is going to be the storyline. It's going to hang over everything he does. And we talk on the show every day about how these elections, the last two in particular, are decided by those independent swing votes, often suburban votes, lately suburban women. It's hard to see how these moments, these legal cases help him at all with there. And I think as we've been saying recently, sometimes true Trump's true feelings get exposed in his after midnight posts on Truth Social. Well, he was at it again last night. All caps screeds calling the prosecutions done by fascists. He's using the word fascists. And he's also

calling his supporters to fight. We have heard that before. We have heard that before. This is not the rhetoric of someone who thinks this is going to help him politically next year. Joe. Yeah. And, you know, the thing is, again, I completely I completely agree with let me let me go all Harold Ford here. I completely agree with the senator. I agree. I agree with Claire McCaskill.

And I share her shock and outrage. I really do. This conversation has limited the purposes of the primary and getting Donald Trump off the playing field by Republicans. And it also goes to a Republican Party that's been so had so much cowardice in it over the past eight years that, yes, this is refreshing and this may be a change. But, you know, Mika, I go back to an Ann Applebaum column soon after January the 6th. And for some, they would think uncomfortably close to January the 6th, where she said, we've got to figure out how to get some of these people back into the mainstream of American politics. We've got to keep the door open to them. So my only point is to anybody out there, and we had Dan Ehrlich yesterday saying, don't isolate the conspiracy theorists like in your family. Bring them in. Let them talk.

Have polite conversations. We have to draw them in. They have to be deprogrammed. I just say our goal, maybe it may not be a bad thing to show grace whenever we have the opportunity to show that grace, because as we talk about on the show, this isn't going to happen overnight. It's going to happen one convert at a time. It's going to happen like zero point one percent of the electorate at a time. But over time, that adds up to one percent and two percent and four percent. And suddenly the states that matter the most start falling away from Donald Trump and Trumpists. I hear you on that. We're going to continue this conversation. John Meacham, thank you very much. Still a lot more to get to really quick. One note for John Meacham.

Yeah. Morning Joe trivia, please. Reinhold Niebuhr, the American theologian, wrote the serenity prayer. Oh, we could do that. The famous serenity prayer. Shall we? There you go. A little more in Joe trivia. Shall we do that right now? Yes. Alex is going to scream at me.

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. Okay. Does the director's cut? That's like DBT. Okay. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we'll play for you what Mike Pence had to say about Ron DeSantis in his announcement speech. Also ahead, a group of right-wing Republicans

bring House business to a halt. We'll show you what Speaker Kevin McCarthy is saying about the revolt within his own party, plus the scene in the flood-ravaged region of Kherson, Ukraine, where rescue efforts are underway following that major dam collapse earlier this week. And we'll be joined by two members of Congress from different sides of the aisle working together

in a push for new sanctions against American adversaries. You're watching Morning Joe. We will be right back. Instagram, an app used by more than 1.3 billion people worldwide, is reportedly social media's most pervasive den for self-made child pornography. The Wall Street Journal, Stanford University and UMass Amherst released the findings of a sprawling investigation yesterday, which found that not only does the app host networks for self-generated child sexual abuse material, Its algorithms promote them. Here with us now to explain Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz and technical research manager at the Stanford

Internet Observatory, Renee DiResta. Jeff, I'll start with you. If you could kind of encapsulate what was found out here and exactly how pervasive the problem is. Sure. I think it's important to note that with 1.3 billion users, of course, you're going to have bad people online and they're going to be trying to do bad things. So that's not really the question. What our review found is that Instagram is actively connecting people who have pedophilic tendencies and are sort of actively seeking to pursue children. And so one thing that we noted is that Instagram will, as soon as you even touch this network of pedophilic users, Instagram will begin recommending

that you sort of push deeper into it. They also had some tremendous operational failures. There is no conceivable good use for the hashtag pedohore, but that was actually being used to sell large volumes of self-generated child content, or I should say supposedly self-generated. I don't want to presume as to whether or not everyone was acting under their own accord. And it's, I think, pretty disturbing. I'm both an operational failure.

The company has acknowledged that they were inadvertently due to a software bug, throwing out a lot of reports of child sexual abuse without reviewing them. And they've also pledged to try to prevent the company or prevent their platform from actively connecting, connecting pedophiles with each other and, you know, try to take this off and prevent their recommendation systems for from promoting this pedophilic community. So in a statement responding to the new report, a spokesperson for Instagram's parent company, Meta, writes in part, quote, we work aggressively to fight it on and off our platforms and to support law enforcement in its efforts

to arrest and prosecute the criminals behind it. We're committed to continuing our work to protect teens, obstruct criminals, and support law enforcement in bringing them to justice. Renee, could you explain to us exactly what is happening here? Examples, if you could, in terms of this actively,

the Instagram actively connecting pedophiles with other pedophiles and beyond. What is, if you could give us scenarios. Sure. So one of the ways that that people are connected to content on the internet is that they indicate an interest in it and what a platform recommender system does is it says you've looked at content like this so you should see more content like this that's called content-based filtering so if you engaged with one account in a network that produces a particular type of content, uses certain hashtags very frequently, posts a particular type of image.

Again, this is how a recommender system works, regardless of what the topic is. is in this case illegal or deeply disturbing, various types of content that we might not want a recommender system to recommend, but rather that to perhaps send a signal to the platform to go look at something. Instead, what happens there is that the algorithmic nudge pushes content to a person who has already indicated an interest in it. So that's the way a recommender system works. And what was happening here was that many of the accounts indicated that they were selling content themselves. And so what they would do is they would connect using things like Instagram stories, which disappear. They would try to reach out. They would turn their accounts both on and off private. When they were off private, they would advertise when they were on private.

We don't know what they did because we don't look at private accounts. So what you were seeing was accounts that were very sophisticated in trying to grow a following. Once one of the what we might call buyer accounts connected with one of those seller accounts, the buyer account would likely be pushed other accounts in the network. So even as Instagram systems are trying to depress particularly bad types of hashtags related to CSAM in an ideal world, the recommender system is kind of working against that by nonetheless pushing this content out to people who've indicated an interest either through other accounts in the network or through engaging with particular hashtags or types of images in a network. So, Jeff, this story is absolutely infuriating and worth everyone reading. When you said Instagram identifies these pedophiles, I assumed you'd say, oh, they identify them and it's a sting operation.

They're thrown into a van somewhere and taken away. No, they're actually recommending them to connect and create a network of other pedophiles. I forgive the I'll clean up my language. What the hell? away. No, they're actually recommending them to connect and create a network of other pedophiles. Like, forgive me, I'll clean up my language. What the hell? How is that even possible? And what is Meta doing to stop this? It's not an unreasonable question, even if it's a little basic, I agree. But they, I mean, I think there's a good question here, right? Which is that if Meta's system can tell that people want this content, why are they not more on top of it, right? They do have the ability to analyze these networks and run tools. I mean, they have the tools to do something, candidly, that Stanford can't do, that I can't do, that Brian Levine at UMass, our other partner, can't partner, but our other, shall we say,

affiliated party can't do. And, you know, they should be doing better. I think they've acknowledged that they did have operational failures. And I think that's a notable step for them. They have fixed the glitch that was causing them to throw out user reports. They have taken down thousands of hashtags. They have started an internal task force. So in terms of responding to this, while they haven't said they're sorry, which I think is something you kind of suggested you'd like to see, they certainly have been taking steps to try to get the problem under control and maybe urgently.

So obviously that's something, you know, I don't think we can say that that's going to succeed or that they're going to follow through with it. But, you know, they certainly have begun that path right now. Jeff's article points out that this and this isn't just Instagram, it's Twitter, Telegram, other social media platforms as well. So I have a question for Renee and for Claire. Renee, first, is this a problem? If this is an algorithmic algorithmic thing, is this just a problem with pedophilia or does it go to to other crimes and and other problems that pervade throughout these social media platforms. And then, Claire, if you could follow up, what's the leak? There's got to be a leak. There's got to be some sort of regulatory or legal remedy.

So I want to know about that. But first, Renee, are there are you are you just scratching the surface here? Well, one of the things that social media companies do is they play whack-a-mole with people with realness. They can use their tools to connect with other people who might have an interest in what they're selling. Sometimes what they're selling is illegal. That might be drugs. That might be guns. There's been even stolen relics and ivory have been found on social media platforms. Anytime you have a platform designed to connect to people,

they can use it for illegal things. And so what you want to do is you want to see moderation focused on taking down, finding, and disrupting the illegal networks while leaving the legal things up. So in this particular case, it is all over social media, but this is in part because one of the things that account creators, whether it's for CSAM or for other legal things, they recognize that if they lose an account on one platform, they want to have a backup somewhere else. Or there are platforms that will try to moderate. Instagram does, even with its enforcement failures, it does try to moderate, whereas platforms like Telegram often just kind of throw their hands up and say, well, you know, nothing really that we're going to do about it. So what you'll see sometimes is accounts that will be created on Instagram where more what you might call average people are that kind of recruit them in, in that way, or

connect with them in that much easier to find place, and then send them links to other platforms where they can connect, where there's going to be far less enforcement. And that's why you see networks like this spread across the entirety of the ecosystem as opposed to just being confined in one place. Technical research manager at Stanford's Internet Observatory, Renee DiResta and Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz, thank you very much for your reporting and for bringing this to light. Claire, I mean, it's like these social media companies are going backwards. They open up the floodgates to anything and everything to pervade their platforms. And then they, oh, well, I think we should try and stop that.

Or maybe we should try and stop that. I mean, is there kind of an overall problem here? And what can be done? Well, Congress historically has a really hard time. Why? Keeping up with tech regulation, because the minute they do something, then it's already out of date. And they're simple. Make them accountable. But I will say there's a couple of bills right now that have bipartisan support that is focused on protecting our children. And we are talking a lot about parents' rights right now in politics.

I would urge every parent to pay attention and contact their member of Congress about these bills that have been introduced on a bipartisan basis that will outlaw the ability of social media companies to use algorithms with children. Yeah. So that would be a big step forward. if we can at least fence off this, let me feed you what you want to see, especially for young teenagers or tweens, those kids that are between 10 and 13 that are finding their way in the world. If we can keep them from the danger of algorithms that feed them things that cause self-harm or suicide or drug use or porn, that would be a huge step forward. And it seems to me that's a basic step that has to be taken immediately. And I think if more people are aware of it, we can get those bills passed. Joe, jump in. I mean, so many problems here.

Again, this is something we saw in the Instagram files where Instagram knew that their product was causing grave damage to young girls and young women and also men, young men as well. And they buried the research. And then when it when it was outed, when it was leaked, they then circled the wagons that, oh, no, no, that's not what we said in our studies is not what we meant. And I know people are always saying you need to be very careful not not correlating what's going on in social media and the impact it's having on the middle health of young people with with tobacco. But in this case, you have a major corporation making billions of dollars pushing its product, which they know is harming a subset of this country, especially younger Americans. And they hide the information. So and also, again, this is, you know, for for for

for Silicon Valley to constantly be telling Congress, oh, we've got to police ourselves. We got to police ourselves. And then you find out this is not a bug of the feature. This is the feature itself. It's the algorithm. They're doing this stuff deliberately. And it's it's complete. And this is this is a shocking story, I would guess. Shocking, but not surprising by this point, Mika, because, again, they're doing everything they can to hook young, young eyes. Yeah, no. And we'll continue this conversation throughout the show and throughout time because we were this is personal for all of us. But once again, it's important to mention that people who run the tech companies and create these platforms do not let their kids on social media. Right.