Morning Joe - House poised to pass a bill to force the release of the Epstein files in a bipartisan vote

Episode Date: November 18, 2025

House poised to pass a bill to force the release of the Epstein files in a bipartisan vote To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Everything was going up. Government jobs were going up, real jobs were going down. So you would have had that catastrophe. And on top of it, instead of 20 trillion coming in, you would have had 10 trillion leaving our country. In other words, you would have had a catastrophe. You probably would have had a bankrupt country. You are so damn lucky that I won that election. I'm telling you.

Kay, part of President Trump's speech yesterday, bragging multiple times about the state the economy in an event which was supposed to be about affordability. It comes as the president continues to face real pushback from members of his own party over the Epstein files. We'll dig into that ahead of a vote today in the House on those documents. Plus, we'll bring you expert legal analysis on the federal case against former FBI director James Comey after the judge yesterday issued a stark warning to prosecutors. We will also preview a consequential visit at the White House today with Saudi Crown Prince, with the Saudi Crown Prince, set to meet with President Trump. It comes on the heels of the United Nations Security Council voting yesterday to adopt a

resolution endorsing the 20-point ceasefire plan in Gaza. And make no mistake of it, we're going to be talking about a lot of things today. I think 10 years from now, 15 years from now, if the peace plan sticks, Jonathan Lemire, what's going on right now with the United Nations? What happened yesterday where you actually have Hamas coming in agreeing with this plan, Israel agreeing with this plan? You've got the Saudis going to the White House today. Hard not to believe after the F-35 deal, that they're not going to sign under the Abraham Accords. I mean, again, we're seeing, again, a complete, dramatic restructuring of the Middle East and a chance for Palestinians to actually have peacekeepers come in.

And a belief, I talked to somebody in the administration yesterday, a belief that Hamas will actually disarm under this deal. I mean, that's always been the key sticking point, whether or not. they will lay down their arms. This was certainly a triumph yesterday for the Trump administration. The U.S. has been pretty isolated at the U.N. over the Gaza war. Most of the countries there were very critical of how Israel prosecuted this conflict while the U.S. largely stayed in lockstep with Prime Minister Netanyahu. The key part here is the stabilization force that these other nations will put forth into the enclave in the weeks, months ahead. China and Russia abstained yesterday, as you'd expect. But twin that with MBS's meeting today. at the White House. It's not, it's a state visit in all but name, because he's not technically

head of state, so they can't roll out all the red carpets, but they roll out most of the red carpets. And there is a sense here that this is a key part of this plan to try to finally bring some stability of the region. Yeah, New York Times just today, Willie, leading with what happened to the United Nations talking about it being groundbreaking. And you see MBS coming today to the White House. And it looks like we're circling back to where the United States. And it looks like we're circling back to where the Saudis, we'd heard the Saudis were going to be with the Abraham Accords, bringing them on board with the Abraham Accords would be huge for the region. But of course, that all changed after October 7th.

Yeah, and Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, instrumental, of course, in the development of the Abraham Accords, that achievement, also a very close relationship personally with MBS bringing him into the fold. So you don't see a lot of 13-0 votes in the U.N. National Security. Council. So, as John said, China and Russia abstain, but 13 nothing tells you a lot about where they're headed on this. It's going to be significant. So along with Joe, Willie and me, we have senior legal reporter for MS Now, Lisa Rubman, and MS Now political analyst and contributing writer to the Atlantic. Eugene Robinson joins us. So our top story this morning, this afternoon,

the House plans to vote on a resolution that would compel the Justice Department to release all of its records related to late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The measure, which requires approval from two-thirds of the chamber, is expected to pass with overwhelming, if not unanimous support. Top Republicans say they expect everyone will vote for it. After President Trump's sudden reversal on the issue gave any remaining holdouts, the go-ahead. If the bill does pass, the House as expected, it will head to the Senate. And if the it passes in the Senate. The president now says that he will sign it into law. So I'm for any, I don't, they can do whatever they want.

We'll give them everything. Sure I would. Let the Senate look at it, let anybody look at it. But don't talk about it too much because honestly, I don't want to take it away from us. It's really a Democrat problem. The Democrats were Epstein's friends, all of them. And it's a hoax. The whole thing is a hoax. And I don't want to take it away from really the greatness of what the Republican Party has accomplished over the last period of time. All right. It's worth noting the president could have ordered the release of the files without an act of Congress.

He could just have them released. Meanwhile, MS now has new reporting on what led to this 180 turn from President Trump, who had been attempting to recruit Republicans to vote against the release of the files. until late Sunday night. One White House aes describes the reversal as the president abandoning a, quote, losing battle to kill legislation his own party was planning to defy him on. Yeah, it hasn't happened much,

but it was going to happen here, is going to pass the House. And I think the White House looked down the road and suddenly saw with the senators who, many people were saying he was dead on arrival there, these senators weren't going to vote against releasing a pet of viles' records. And I think they saw the writing on the wall. And so now they're saying, oh, go ahead and release it.

It's a democratic problem. No Republicans' friends to see here at all. Yeah, I mean, Donald Trump is still calling the Epstein story a hoax. Most Republicans disagree with them. Most of his supporters in the podcast world and in media disagree with him about that. It's fascinating this reversal in the course of just a few days when he was saying, you're a very bad or stupid Republican if you vote to support the release of the Epstein files. Calling this all a hoax, they would be a hostile act against him.

And then Sunday night just flipping the switch and saying, no, I support the voter. And then yesterday going as far as saying, I'll sign it if it makes its way through the Senate. So you can expect the floodgates now to open almost all, if not all, Republicans should support this vote later today. Republican Congressman Thomas Massey has been leading the charge for some time for the release of the Epstein. files suggested last night, President Trump on Friday directed the Justice Department to explore Epstein's ties to high-profile Democrats only in an effort to block the release of more documents. Well, I'm concerned that now he's opening a flurry of investigations, and I believe they may be trying to use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files, and that's my concern.

You think they'll try to block it? Well, they will, I'm afraid they're going to try to use a provision of the law that allows you not to release these materials if they're subject of an ongoing investigation. So, Lisa, let's explain a little bit what the congressman is saying there, which is that if there's an open investigation, the Justice Department could make the case, we can't release the files because many of them pertain to investigations, which, by the way, President Trump ordered just a few days ago to be opened. Let me explore a little bit, something that Congressman Massey was saying, because he is one of the co-sponsors of the bill with Congressman Kana. The bill has exceptions there. So when we talk about it demanding the release of all of the Epstein files, put a huge asterisk at the end of that sentence because the bill text says the Department of Justice can withhold it for various reasons, including victims' privacy, classified information, and of course the biggest one of all, the one Congressman Massey is referring to, the existence of an ongoing. investigations. So it goes back to what one of my law professors used to say, read the statute, read the statute, read the statute, or read the proposed statute. Somebody in the White House

got smart and realized the Justice Department didn't have to sort of rely by analogy on the Freedom of Information Act and its exceptions. It was built into the text of the law that Congress is expected to take the first steps forward passing today, Willie. Yeah, and we've certainly heard from Senator Coons, who joined us yesterday and other Democrats expressing that same fear that the DOJ won't release all the documents or selectively released some to say, well, these aren't part of an open investigation and perhaps just those would look bad for Democrats, Eugene Robinson. But this is certainly a political crisis for the president. This is some people have, I've talked to him in recent days. I mean, this isn't going to bring down a White House, but it's going to

bog down a White House. It's going to distract them from other things. It's going to require time, energy, political capital to navigate through this. And we are seeing now Republicans emboldened, at least maybe just this one issue, but to say no to him. And yes, Trump saying, I'm going to go for this, that will open the floodgates for the house. But here's the thing. Those floodgates were already going to open. He was going to get rolled. It wasn't just going to be a handful of Republicans voting to release it.

It was going to be most, if not all. And he simply saw the running on the wall. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it is a significant moment because I don't recall another in which the President Trump has been so roundly rejected and defeated. by his own party. The Republican Party has been in his thrall, under his control for the better part of a decade now. And this time they said no. They simply said no.

And he didn't want to hear that. He didn't want the nation to witness him being defeated in that way. So he caved. And just, you know, he absolutely caved. now, and this will not go away because these questions are, well, what gets released and what doesn't get released? I don't think Thomas Massey is going to desist now and just say that, okay, well, whatever the administration allows to trickle out is fine, he wants the documents. And I think that's what people expect. And so this is going to be a continuing story, I think, for this White House.

and one that they would rather not have be a story at all. Joe, even some of Donald Trump's most hardcore MAGA supporters in the Congress are flipping now. Troy Nails of Texas, who just a couple of days ago had posted this is a hoax. The Democrats are trying to distract us from all the winning of the Trump administration. Literally yesterday in the New York Times said, yeah, I'm going to vote to release the files. I mean, how do you do that? I really, I mean, listen, I was there. I was in Congress.

How do you say that one day and then flip it? a couple of days later because somebody tells you. He gave you permission, right? He didn't want to cross Donald Trump, but he says, yes, I'm going to do it. Is it really? Is the pen really worth that? Let me be the first to tell you? It's

not. But you have this happening so much. And I will say Donald Trump's biggest problem here. It's not the New York Times editorial page. It's not MSNBC prime time. It's not Roe

or Adam Schiff, it's the MAGA base. It's Marjorie Taylor Green. It's Steve Bannon. It's Thomas Massey. It's other leaders of the MAGA movement that have been pushing for this for years. And so I think that's really where the crisis came here. Because if the attacks from the left, well, that's no problem. He can brush that away.

not if it's coming from M.T.G. And Steve Bannon. Yeah, and this is not just about this vote. Marjorie Taylor Green, Thomas Massey, others are going to take this even further ahead of the vote this afternoon. Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein will gather on Capitol Hill for a press conference, Democratic Congress in Rokane of California, along with Republicans, Thomas Massey of Kentucky, who you just heard from there, and Marjorie Taylor Green of Georgia, will host the event alongside those survivors slayed to begin at 9 a.m. Eastern time this morning. And, Mika, that's when you put a face on these redacted names, it's extraordinarily powerful.

And it's something certainly that anybody that doesn't want the truth revealed. Right. It's a last thing they want to see. We're going to carry that live when it starts. Ahead of today's Capitol Hill event, some Epstein survivors released a video, urging Congress to vote on releasing all the files, all of them, related to his case. I was 14 years old. I was 16 years old. I was 16. 17. 14 years old.

This is me. This was me. This was me. When I met Jeffrey Epstein. This is me when I met Jeffrey Epstein. There are about a thousand of us. It's time to bring the secrets out of the shadows. It's time to shine a light into the darkness. That's powerful. The video ends with a call to action for voters to tell their Congress members to vote yes on the release of the files and to think about how long these victims have been carrying this burden, have been carrying this pain.

of what happened to them when they were children, legally children, and psychologically, children. I remember you talking about this literally 10 years ago. I think it was 2015. Well, and that's the thing, Lisa, when I read about people continuing friendships with him, right up until he was arrested, and there were a lot of them. There were reporters. There were academics. There were financiers. I remember in 2015, 2016, starting to ask around the table because there had been rumors that Epstein had been a friend, just rumors at the time. I mean, we didn't have, but this was a couple of years before Julie Brown's incredible reporting at the Miami Herald, but that he was close to both Donald Trump and to Bill Clinton. And so he started asking this question. because we had the election coming up. And I kept asking, why is this guy out of jail? I don't, and it wasn't, it wasn't a leading question.

I was confounded by the fact that this child predator was roaming around outside of jail. And so I kept asking over several years. Now, explain to me again, why is this guy not in jail? And what were these men's relationship to this guy? So people who are now saying, oh, well, I was shocked and stunned and deeply saddened. No, no. This was out there. It was available for everybody to know since 2006 that this guy was a child predator.

And these women, if I'm asking it, a lughead on cable news, who had no idea what had gone on before. What about these women that were carrying this, saw a sweetheart deal that was done by a future secretary of labor, saw him be able, after doing unspeakable things to these young girls, being able to go to work in Palm Beach, then go back and hang out in his jail cell, then go back out to work? I mean, it's been one sweetheart deal after another, and since his death, it's been one powerful group of people after another covering up the truth of the American people. There are some people say, there wasn't this huge grand conspiracy. Okay. Well, if there's not a grand conspiracy, if it's a hoax, release all the documents and let the

American people finally see what the real story is about Jeffrey Epstein, these extraordinarily powerful group of men, business leaders, academics, politicians who are rounding. Sure. And people from both sides of the aisle, right? The idea that this is a Democratic hoax, I think, is belied by the true of documents that we saw last week, where among the people that Jeffrey Epstein is communicating with well into 2019 is Steve Bannon, right? And so, and Tom Barrack is somebody that he's communicating. with. In fact, when Jeffrey Epstein is sued by a survivor who alleges, and this woman withdrew her complaint, and I want to be very clear about that, but there was a lawsuit at one point in

2016 during the campaign where someone came forward and said that they had been raped as a child by both Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump. What does Jeffrey Epstein do upon getting notice of that suit? Who is the first person he sends that email from Reuters to? So a Reuters reporter comes to him, says, or comes to his lawyer, says, Jeffrey's going to be sued today. Do you have any comment? Lawyer forwards it to Epstein. What does Epstein do with it?

He forwards it to Tom Barrick, who is the chair of the 2017 inaugural and says, this is nuts, thought you guys might like to know. So, you know, what one person's conspiracy is, is another, I would say, like, countless individuals engaging in deliberate, willful ostrich head in the sand

disregard of the plain truth right in front of them because for years and years and years, well before Julie K. Brown put it all together in 2018. The Palm Beach Post detailed the relationships with both Trump and Clinton and 2006. Vanity Fair and others were writing extensive profiles. This was out there, not to the same degree we know now, but these facts were out there for people to see.

And so to all of those who continued relations, relationships and say now, I deeply regret that. What do you deeply regret that you get caught or that you ignored the fact that your buddy had very suspicious and inappropriate relationships with girls you had to have known were underage four years in front of you? That was knowledgeable for a decade plus and they were still communicating with him in polite society. And again, I just will say, we don't know. What's in these documents? We only know a little bit of what, you know, politicians have wanted us to see for their own political reasons. For the survivors, for those who say their survivors, release all the documents. And again, I'm not trying, I'm not being glib here. I really don't know who could be against that unless you're in those documents and you're guilty.

release all the documents now. And by the way, it was an open secret in Palm Beach, but in 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted of state charges. So then it became official. So at least by 2008, everybody knows what's going to jail. He was going to jail. And then he got this sweetheart deal. But to your point, the people who in good faith for many years

have called for all these documents to be put out to tell the story of the women we just saw there, good for them. Those documents will come back. now for the people who now because they think their guy may be exposed in there are suddenly ignoring the thing they've been obsessed with for a decade shame on them and by the way jean robinson them just saying well the democrats had a chance to do this for four years and they didn't do that you know what i say to them yeah you're right okay yeah that's right so what now now you don't want to release it for four more years now i'm sure somebody in the justice department say well we were

had an ongoing investigation about maxwell or etc etc but let them say say that. But if you're just saying the Biden administration didn't release it for four years, so why should the Trump administration release it for four years? Well, if that was a problem, now you release it. I will say the one, just one little caveat to all that. When Democrats come on this show or any other show screaming and yelling, the documents must be released now, that does beg the question, where were you from 21 to January of 25 when the Biden administration, ran the Justice Department. Do you go on any shows screaming for the release then?

Where were you? So please, you just sit back, buddy, and let's let people that have consistently called for the release of the documents talk about it. Yeah, I think this was kind of an equal opportunity scandal and equal opportunity crime, crimes that were committed against these young women. and the failure to release these documents. And you know what, if Democrats are implicated in their relationships with Epstein or perhaps, who knows, in other Epstein's activities, let those chips fall where they may. And yes, ask questions about why during the Biden administration the documents were not released or why people who are now, you know, so strident about this, were silent in the past.

That's fine. Ask those questions, you know, given. That's fine. That is no reason not to do the right thing now. That doesn't answer the question. And it's obvious what needs to be done. So, again, is this not going away? It hasn't gone away for a decade. It's not. going to go away. And at some point, I think the Trump administration will realize that, that, no, this ain't over. Right. And let me just help here. Release everything. And Mika, if there's, if the Justice Department tries to selectively release it, no. Cover up, worse than the crime. Yeah. Cover up worse than the crime. If you're too clever by half and you try to cherry picket that only keeps this crisis going for the White House and actually makes it

even more intense. So release everything. Okay. And we're going to be carrying, of course, the news conference hosted by members of Congress with the survivors of the Epstein scandal at 9 o'clock Eastern Time. They are women now, but this happened to them when they were children. This is pedophilia. So still ahead on morning, Joe, a federal judge, criticizes the Justice Department over its investigation into former FBI director, James Coney, citing profound investigative missteps. We'll have the latest in that legal fight. Plus, minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, is our guest ahead of today's vote to release

more Epstein filed. And we're also going to be talking about the possibility of an extraordinary breakthrough in Middle East peace negotiations, the possibility of the Saudis becoming a part of. of the Abraham Accords and also what happened yesterday at the United Nations, possibly a great breakthrough. And as we go to break, a look at this morning's Travelers forecast from Accuethers, Bernie Raino. Bernie, how is it looking?

Happy Tuesday, Mika. How about some warmth your Accuether exclusive forecast, 88 in Dallas for Tuesday, Atlanta, 74, 84 in Tampa. Accuether calling for some rain around Detroit, Chicago, showers in New York City. tonight, a shower in Washington, D.C. Now, if you're doing any traveling, some wind and minor delays in Boston, other than that, we're A-OK.

To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the Accuether app today. I'm so glad that I know more than I do that, going to keep on trying to... Half past the hour, a federal judge warned prosecutors yesterday. Their case against former FBI director, James Comey, could be in jeopardy. Describing what he calls a, quote,

disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps in the government's handling of the case. Who could have ever seen this coming? In his ruling, Judge William Fitzpatrick criticized authorities for their, quote, cavalier attitude toward the rights of Comey and ordered prosecutors to turn over grand jury materials from his indictment. He also referenced several apparent missteps by Lindsay Halligan, the interim U.S. attorney handpicked by President Trump to pursue charges against Comey that may have spoiled the criminal case. Halligan has no previous experience as a prosecutor.

The judge went on to acknowledge that his order was an unusual step, but said Comey's right to due process outweighs the typical secrecy afforded to grand jury proceedings. Another federal district judge overseeing the case temporarily paused Fitzpatrick's order at the Justice Department's request, saying he would review the decision and decide whether to uphold it in the next few days. Comey faces obstruction and false statement charges stemming from testimony he gave. to Congress in 2020 about leaks of the FBI. He has pleaded not guilty, and his trial is set for January. So a couple things here, Lisa. First of all, a judge, a more senior judge saying, hey, okay, if the Justice Department says, can you guys slow down, take a look at this?

Nothing unusual about that at all. No, and he's doing it on an expedited time frame, too. Right. Second thing, Lindsay, is it Lindsay Halligan? Yes. Explain to people, and she chose to be in this position. So I don't need any emails. So why are you sympathizing with her?

Explain, though, what an incredibly difficult position she is in court. She did insurance work. I can tell you, I started out as an insurance defense lawyer in Pensacola, Florida. And whenever I would walk past the federal court building, I would have a hat, an Atlanta Braves at tip it down and walk fast so a federal judge wouldn't see me. I mean, it's scary in there if you're not used to doing that. And then going from civil to criminal, again, I'm not defending her for a second. I'm just saying, it's extraordinarily reckless for the administration to have put somebody in that position when there's absolutely no bail. I mean, she could have said no. I said,

I said that up front, but when there's nobody in the entire office that's going to help her with this bullshit case. Well, that's the biggest problem, I think, Joe of all, because most U.S. attorneys, whether they're interim or Senate confirmed, are never in the position where they go and present to a grand jury in the first place. Why? Because career prosecutors do that. Right. And by the way, law firms, just any law firm or in the prosecutor's office, you're sure. sitting here. You don't know how to do something? You walk next and go, hey, how do I do this? What do we need to do here? What should I do in this pleading? She doesn't have this here because literally everybody in the office says these are BS charges. You have to assume that somebody at Maine Justice walked her through how to conduct herself before the grand jury. And even so, there are three

categories of massive problems that this judge identifies in his decision. And one of them is, According to this judge, based on the recordings of the grand jury proceedings, Lindsay Halligan not once but twice made fundamental misstatements about the law. Right. One, with respect to a defendant's right to stay silent. And the second, with respect to what kind of evidence the government might ultimately be able to marshal were they able to take this case of trial. And a misstatement of law before grand jury would obviously be grounds for throwing the charges out immediately, right?

That is what he is suggesting. I mean, that there are 11 different bases on which this magistrate judge, William Fitzpatrick, says that he is grounding his decision to hand over the grand jury recordings and materials to Jim Comey's team. Each of those 11, he says, present a reasonable basis for Comey's team to believe that there was misconduct before the grand jury that would justify bringing yet another motion to dismiss. And so let me just review for our viewers where we are right now. Now, Jim Comey's team has already moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that Lindsay Halligan wasn't lawfully appointed. They've also moved to dismiss the indictment on grounds of selective and vindictive prosecution. In fact, their oral argument on that motion is tomorrow in Alexandria.

Now here comes what I'd call the granddaddy of them all. Right. Right? There are 11 different ways in which Jim Comey's statutory or constitutional rights may have been infringed by the conduct of the FBI and the Department of Justice. in the investigation of this case and in its presentation to a grand jury. I've really never seen, and I say this, I mean, it's like every three days, Joe, I say this. I've really never seen anything like this before. It's like Hayley's comment coming every two weeks.

I'm running out of hyperbole. And I will say, too, a misstatement, Willie, of law before a grand jury seems on the face of it to be something that would force any judge to dismiss a charge. Which is why you put a career prosecutor in front of the grand jury, not someone who's never done this before. So as you look at this, Lisa, what are the possible outcomes for James Comey? I mean, there's clearly a reason why all the career prosecutors in that office, including the previous U.S. attorney, who was also a Trump appointee, said, there's really nothing here. We have nothing to go on. Let's bring in somebody who might try to find something in Lindsay Halligan.

So if you're sitting this morning as James Comey, are you feeling good that this may disappear for you? Let's start by the presumption that no criminal defendant ever wakes up feeling good. I think someone on our air said recently the process is the punishment, and that is absolutely the administration's intent. That having been said, if I wake up this morning and I am Pat Fitzgerald, Jim Comey's lead lawyer, I'm thinking that this is like a choose-your-own adventure book, and I have three different ways to getting to the answer that my client and I want. And I just want to underscore one other error here, because this is perhaps the biggest error of all.

a time gap in the grand jury recordings between when the recording stops and when the indictment was returned. And you may recall that when Lindsay Halligan first presented to the grand jury, she gave them three counts. They did not agree to indict on one of them. There is only seven minutes between when she says in a declaration, the grand jury refused to return the three count indictment and when a proceeding starts before a different magistrate judge where she hands up the actual indictment. And the judge says in this, this opinion, two things could have happened. Either Lindsay Halligan is mistaken as to the timing or if it really was just a seven-minute gap, he says, we are in uncharted territory,

uncharted legal territory in that the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury. Wow. I want you to sit and like meditate on that for a second because that is an insinuating. that something was either falsified or presented to the grand jury under some pretextual circumstances. That is, that goes beyond a fundamental misstatement of the law. That goes into the realm of just pure misconduct, pure and simple. Right. Let's, let me ask you a legal question regarding whether Jim Comey would have to face future charges on this or not. There have

been, I think I heard you say or somebody else say before, that if it's just about, let's Henzy Halligan being removed, the statute doesn't kick in. I'm wondering on misconduct, the misreading of law, some of these other things. If prosecutors did that, does that then bar the feds from bringing a future case against coming? Because it would seem to me if the prosecutors just barely came in under the statute of limitations and then committed gross misconduct after that fact, they don't get a second bite of the apple. Well, certainly not these prosecutors, right? But the statute in place basically says if an indictment is dismissed for reasons other than the statute of limitations,

there's a tolling period of six months where you get to try again. What the administration would then have to do is decide, do I want to appeal that decision throwing out the indictment and take a gamble on that six-month period? Or do I just want to start from scratch with somebody else in this position? But as you know, there's this argument that she wasn't lawfully appointed and that nobody else could be lawfully appointed on an interim basis, that the only options would be for district judges to put someone in that position or for the president to nominate and have the Senate confirm somebody else. So the choices left to the Department of Justice if this case is thrown out on any one of the three grounds that I outlined, not good choices at that point in time. Amica, we should be clear, though, this case seems like it's in real trouble. the president's campaign of retribution continues. And it seems to only want to be, he wants to expand it. Just in recent days, words about John Brennan, Congressman Eric Swalwell. This is something

that he is going to keep doing and maybe even try to learn from mistakes made here. Senior legal reporter for MS now, Lisa Rubin, thank you very much. I will see you soon, I'm sure. And coming up on Morning Joe, we'll preview the meeting later this morning between President Trump and the Saudi crown prince at the White House. Plus, editor of the New Republic, Michael Damaski, will join us with his new piece on the person who, A.G. Bondi, has named to lead the administration's new Epstein investigation. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. What happened in practice.

Did you ever have two a days, Willie? Oh, yeah. Every year. Yeah. We were just talking about it. Yeah. My process. I see that.

Willie was talking about Krispy Kreeze, but I finished two a days in Pensacola. And it was like 100. degrees, you know, and 99% humidity. And I would just drive to the crispy cream. I'd get a dozen, get a dozen hot donuts. I weighed like 110, practically. It was so skinny from the summer, sweating. And I'd get the dozen donuts. I'd get a gallon of milk, and I would just sit in my car about to pass out. I'd eat all 12 of them. I'd have the milk. It would be coming out, just like Ron Burgundy. Like he said, Ron Burgundy, milk was a bad choice. But in this case, it was a great choice.

I would drive home. My parents would go, how are you doing? I'd fall down on the crash off the sugar. I'd crash. I'd sleep until like three minutes before the afternoon two-a-day session. I woke up in a pool of sweat. And I go, I'll be back. Like, you know, I mean, in Northwest Florida, kids would like, and I'm kidding.

I'm not kidding. Back in those days, they didn't give you water. You drink out of a warm hose, like twice a practice. Kids would, like, drop in left and right. I remember the hose itself was hot. It's sitting out in the sun, so you can pick that up like that, and then you'd get the warm water drinking out of it there. And I would go home until we'd have the gallon jug of milk in our fridge.

You're 16, 17, just unscrew it and just stand at the fridge and chug it. And your mom's looking at you going, what in the world? Don't drink straight out of the jug. And I go, it's all right, mom, there's not going to be any left when I'm done. And you finish it. But no, it was, yeah, that was pretty intense. But, yeah, the coaches would say you have. had to drink hot water out of a hot hose in northwest Florida because they go, son, cold water

makes your head fuzzy. No, no, not really. A lot of science behind that. Keeps you alive, coach, but that's another story. I dip my head and ice every morning. So maybe that's the reason. Precisely what Tom Brady did. Exactly.

That's his famous diet. Exactly. Tell them your routine. So Mika has a routine every morning. Talk about it. Are you serious? Well, you just said it. I dip my head in ice every morning for a 3, 10-second interpice.

But that's a thing. It's a thing. It's a thing. For the face and the hair. It's really good. But I don't know why we're talking about it on the air right now. Well, because there's a sorry, because I did my face and crispy cream donuts every morning for about five minutes. I'm like frozen right now.

Look at the complexion. Exactly. It's a little sticky. Okay. Get him a nap. I'm going to end this now and get she to the news. Why's Joe's face, oh, shot? At 48 past the hour, the United Nations Security Council has voted to adopt a resolution

endorsing the 20-point ceasefire plan in Gaza. It was brokered by the United States last month and was designed to bring an end to the war between Israel and Hamas. The adopted resolution includes details for post-war Gaza laid out in the ceasefire agreement, including the deployment of an international stabilization force to provide security in Gaza and the establishment of a so-called Board of Peace chaired by President Trump to oversee Gaza's transition and reconstruction. That news comes as Saudi Arabia's crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, is set to meet with

President Trump at the White House later this morning. The Trump administration says the two will discuss Saudi investments in the United States. Talks are also expected to focus on Saudi Arabia, potentially joining the Abraham Accord. Additionally, President Trump said yesterday the U.S. will sell the Saudis F-35 fighter jets. Yep, I mean, we have so, Willie, we have front page of the Wall Street Journal talking about the F-35 fighter jets. And I'm sure that's, here we go. I'm sure that's connected, of course, to possible Abraham Accordsdale, which has been sort of the dream of not only the Saudis, but the Americans that have them also. part of this plan. And then here, you have a story on the U and adopting the security peace

plan. And the Trump administration up here, there you go, the Trump administration believes that they will get weapons out of the hands of most Hamas members, this, as of yesterday, which would be pretty extraordinary, because I think that's what everybody's saying, you're never going to be able to do that. They believe that. And also, they believe the stabilizing force is going to be put. In fact, they're going to be putting down steps for the next 100 days about what needs to happen. And they believe they have buy-in from both sides to move in this direction. If they do, that would be a first since 1948. Yeah, certainly on paper, there's a lot to like about this 20-point plan. And obviously, if Saudi Arabia comes

on board with the Abraham Accords, that's a game changer to have them there. We will see as far as that stabilization force goes, the question is which countries are going to put their troops in harm's way and have to fight Hamas, potentially in the streets of Gaza. So we'll see about that. Let's bring in the contributing editor at the Financial Times, Kim Gattas and senior national security reporter for MS Now, David Road. Good morning to you both. Kim. I'll start with you. Your thoughts, first of all, on the visit of MBS to the White House. Obviously, this comes just a few years after the murder that American intelligence says MBS and the regime was responsible for of a Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. What is your feeling about

what will be accomplished today? So I think that it's an incredible comeback for Mohammed bin Salman from his trip in 2019 at the White House where he had a tour around the U.S. He was fated by the Trump administration and of course he became a pariah after the killing of Jamal Khashokshi. It was also a time when Saudi Arabia was engaged, I'm sorry, from barking with my dog

here, that's the joy of doing television from the house. Muhammad bin Salman was also seen as a source of instability in the region. He was at war in Yemen. He had locked up some of his own top royals and financial people in the Ritz Carlton. He had forced the resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister

in Lebanon, and he imposed an embargo on Qatar. What Mohammed bin Salman is trying to do today with this visit is to show that he has changed, at least in the region. Domestically, I think there's a lot of social change, but we have to keep in mind that political oppression is still very much the norm. But he's trying to show that he is a source of stability. in the region. And he's coming to show that he's a real partner for President Trump in the region with this vision 2030, that he puts the stability first. And he is trying to portray himself in opposition, in essence, to Iran, which has been a source of nefarious activities in the region and instability for decades. But he's also trying to show that he is in opposition to

what has been the agenda of the Israeli Prime Minister in the region of the last few. years, Arab countries are very concerned about Israel's belligerents. So David Rowe, there's no question that MBS has, this is part of his rehabilitation tour and the Trump administration has established close ties with Riyadh. President Trump's first foreign trip ever. His first term was Saudi Arabia. He went there right near the start of this time as well. But there are some skeptics about this arrangement. The Wall Street journal story that's on the front page today, notes that diplomats in the region, say a deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel not imminent, the Abraham Accords. And also these F-35s, it's U.S.

law that U.S. will supply Israel to keep them with a quantitative military advantage over the rest of the region. They're the only country, Israel right now that has the F-35s. This would change with Saudi Arabia getting them. That's setting off some alarms in Jerusalem. Yeah, so first, in terms of the Abraham Accords moving forward, I've heard the same thing. here in Washington. It's very doubtful that Saudi Arabia would move ahead with normalization with Israel until it's much more clear what's happening in Gaza and if this plan's actually going forward. It was a huge step forward at the UN yesterday. There's no question. But who's going to put troops on the ground? Saudi Arabia, it's very clear, is not going to put troops on the

ground in Gaza. And in terms of the F-35, it's not clear that Saudi Arabia needs them or wants them. They're very expensive. We're in the era where drones are sort of outperforming manned aircraft. And then the Pentagon has concerns that if these are sold to Saudi Arabia, China, could get hold of that technology. And Israel has concerns, as you've mentioned. So we'll see lots of pomp and a warm welcome for the Crown Prince. But there's many more steps to follow today's meetings at the White House. You know, Kim, what is so fascinating is I remember after September 11th, I remember after September 11th, many people not only in Congress, but also in the media, saying, well, the United States is going to have to make alliances with unsavory characters, warlords, dictators,

authoritarian regimes to fight this war on terror. It didn't really work out that well. What I find so fascinating at the other end of all of this is we are now seeing, that the United States has had to deal with unsavory characters, authoritarian regimes, dictators, and countries who many consider to be sponsors of terrorism, like Qatar, to make peace. But actually, we may be here just because of that. Look, I mean, the United States has always done deals with,

countries around the world that are ruled by leaders, to say the least, who are not democratic. I mean, just think about, you know, Egypt, for example, longstanding ally of the United States, but also a dictatorship for years. I want to echo David's skepticism about the Abraham Accords. First of all, I think it's very important to point out that if there were to be ties between the U.S. between Saudi Arabia and Israel, it would not be an expansion of the Abraham accords. The Saudis want to have their own accord. They are really the jackpot for Israel and for the United States to see this come together. So it's not going to be an expansion of the Abraham Accords, but something separate or different or bigger, which is led by Saudi Arabia. But right

this minute, I don't see it happening, and I don't see it happening for a while, actually, possibly not until after Israeli elections. And whether Netanyahu wins those elections or not, of course, will remain to be seen. But I think it's very difficult for the crown prince of Saudi Arabia to shake hands with Benjamin Netanyahu after what has happened over the last two years. It is too risky for him politically. Whatever he thinks about the Palestinian cause, and very often in private, Saudi officials will say, look, we don't really care about the cause, but it matters to a lot of people in the region.

And we cannot take this political risk of going ahead and establishing ties with Israel and ignoring the Palestinian cause. And although the vote at the UN yesterday is a diplomatic victory for President Trump, I'm also very skeptical about it being a real breakthrough for peace in the region. There's a lot that is still to be determined. The board for peace is very vaguely defined. who are these countries, which are these countries that are going to put troops on the ground so far, only Azerbaijan and Indonesia. But Arab countries gave support to this resolution because that's all there is at the moment. They want to be on Trump's good side. And I think that part of the visit of Muhammad bin Salman building on Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia in May

is making sure that the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. is as rock-solid as possible ahead of what I predict next year is another big Israeli military campaign against Iran. And the Saudis would like to either avoid that or make sure they have all the security guarantees possible before that moment comes. And Gene, Arab leaders in the region told me just, outright, they will not be part of any peace force in Gaza until the time that Hamas is disarmed. So if this peace process goes forward in a positive way, so Hamas ultimately gets disarmed, which again, a hell of a lot more skeptics in the region than not on that point. But if that were to happen, then you might have some Arab states going in being part of the

peacekeeping process. If not, then they're going to stay out. Yeah, that's right. Those two, those two antagonists, Hamas and Netanyahu are a problem for Arab states in terms of getting involved with boots on the ground. David wrote, I want to change the subject just briefly. Closer to home, Venezuela. We are sending our biggest aircraft carrier to the waters off Venezuela, that's a huge sort of strike force of naval power. We're striking boats, apparently, allegedly drug-carrying boats, but clearly there's this pressure on Maduro, the dictator in Venezuela. Where is this heading? That's the question. And I think at heart Donald Trump remains an isolationist, that he doesn't see, you know, Marines on the ground

in Venezuela as the kind of thing that's part of his political message for so long. He may have been told that bringing all this force in the region would cause someone in the Venezuelan military to maybe flip on Maduro and hand him over. There was, you know, out there's a $50 million reward for Maduro, but that hasn't happened. And so the more time that this goes on, you know, the longer, the bigger the questions get, these ships can't stay there forever. Prius Riddhar, our Pentagon correspondent, pointed out that they need to get maintenance they they they there's just it's this can't go on forever so at some point trump is going to decide

what does he do does he actually strike venezuela or does he pull back at this point and definitely donald trump doesn't like to lose face all right senior national security reporter for ms now david road and contributing editor at the financial times kim guttas thank you both very much for being on thank you so much we greatly appreciate it so so john the president I guess what David Rhodes says makes sense. At the end of the day, I would think America first, the MAGA base, all of those supporters of Donald Trump, do not want to see boots on the ground in Venezuela, even though we seem to be moving in that direction, at least the steps we're taking. Any reporting inside the White House, is this more about getting leverage? for negotiations with Maduro, or is there a feeling troops may go in?

First and foremost, it is a pressure campaign. They think that they're trying to intimidate that regime there with the strikes of the boats off the coast, and now the aircraft carrier group and other assets to the region. There had been a hope that Maduro might then blink and leave. He has not been willing to do that just yet. No, reports are that he was singing Imagine yesterday. Dang. So that may be telling sign. In front of a crowd. Do you hear that? Did we hear this?

Maybe I dreamed that last night. Please call our control room. I might not know if I dreamed that, but go ahead. So what we... This will be easy to Google. Go ahead. You Google, I'll talk. This is off Secretary of State Marco Rubio, also the National Security Advisor, has long

pushed for regime chains of Venezuela due to his ties there in South Florida. The fear among some is that Trump is getting pot committed, that at this point there's so much military assets there, and he's talking about maybe even ground strikes on land, not necessarily sending troops, but missile launches into Venezuela, that if he does nothing, if Maduro calls his bluff and doesn't leave, and that Trump doesn't order some sort of military action, that he'll be seen as weak. And therefore, he might feel like he needs to do something, even if that remains short of putting troops on the ground. But Joe Mika, it is something, it is active considerations right now, no decision made. And Joe, I think, has our answer here.

Oh, my God. And Willie? It may have been a dream. But it was a dream that foretold reality. Venezuela's more, Maduro, sings John Lennon's Imagine as he talks about U.S. tensions. Okay. He went on to sing parts of one of John Lennon's iconic songs, Imagine. A dream of a video. Got that clearance on that. Well, you think about that.

I'll tell you, the Beatles, I mean, Applecourt, they're pretty tough about royalties. Madero's got a lot more problems. problems on his hands now. All right. Then a carrier group. I saw him making the appeal to the American public for peace, not war. I didn't know he punctuated it with a rendition of imagine. We need to get a clip of that, Alex.

Okay. We're going to stay.