Morning Joe - Morning Joe 11/26/24

Episode Date: November 26, 2024

Judge agrees to dismiss Trump's 2020 election interference case

On the south lawn of the White House, President Biden pardoned two turkeys from Minnesota named Peach and Blossom. Thanksgiving isn't for three more days, but the turkeys looked at Biden and said, we better get this done. ["Birds of a Bird"] ["Birds of a Bird"]

Yep, Biden promised that the turkeys would not get killed this November. Democrats were like, hey, that's what you said to us. ["Birds of a Bird"] ["Birds of a Bird"] would not get killed this November, Democrats were like, hey, that's what you said to us. -"Oh, hey!" I hope everyone enjoyed the pardoning, because next year under Trump, those turkeys will be Matt Gaetz and Rudy Giuliani. ["The White House"]

President Biden today presided over the annual White House turkey pardon. Well, he didn't exactly pardon them. He just turned the investigation over to Merrick Garland, and then it just kind of petered out. That's right. President Biden presided over the annual White House turkey pardon and granted clemency to Peach, Blossom, and before anyone noticed, Hunter.

The turkey pardoned at the White House, given plenty of material for the late-night shows last night. We have a busy Tuesday morning just 48 hours away now from Thanksgiving, including special counsel Jack Smith's decision to drop both federal cases against Donald Trump. We'll have expert legal analysis for you on this straight ahead and what it means for whether they could come back down the road. Meanwhile, the president-elect is promising an executive order significantly raising tariffs as promised during the campaign on Canada, Mexico, and China. Look at the impact that could have

on America's largest trading partners in the economy here at home. Plus, we'll bring you the latest on negotiations for a ceasefire deal between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah. Good morning, welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, November 26th. I'm Willie Geist. Joe and Mika are off today ahead of the Thanksgiving holiday. With us we've got the host of way too early, White House

Bureau Chief and Politico Jonathan Lemire and managing editor at the Bulwark Sam Stein. Guys, let's dive right in with President-elect Donald Trump's federal criminal election interference case being dismissed. Special Counsel Jack Smith filed motions yesterday to drop all federal charges against Trump regarding his effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election in the lead up to the January 6 on the Capitol and the case about Trump's mishandling of classified documents. Hours later, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkin granted Smith's motion to dismiss the January

6 related indictment. Trump's election victory earlier this month means the Justice Department's longstanding position that a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime will apply to Donald Trump once he takes office on January 20th. Judge Chutkin's ruling leaves open the possibility the charges might be refiled after Trump leaves office, noting Trump's protection from prosecution only lasts as long as his term. As for the classified documents case, special counsel regulations require Jack Smith to file a report to the attorney general explaining his charging decisions before he steps down.

President-elect Trump still faces state charges for election interference in Georgia, but as you know, that case currently is on hold. Trump also awaiting sentencing on 34 felony convictions in New York in his criminal hush money case, but just last week, the judge issued a delay without providing any new sentencing date. All right, let's bring in our reporters, our analysts, NBC News correspondent Vaughn Hilliard, former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, former U.S. attorney and MSNBC contributor Chuck Rosenberg, and NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken

Delaney. Good morning to you all. Great group to sift through a busy morning in the courts. So Chuck, let me just start with you about Jack Smith, basically saying, we're gonna put this to the side with regards to the attempt to overturn the 2020 election and also with the classified documents case. Any surprises for you and what you heard yesterday?

Not really, Willie. I think what Smith did was inevitable and necessary. Now, on three occasions, the Department of Justice under President Nixon, under President Clinton, now under President Biden have more or less weighed the same question, whether a sitting president, in this case, a president-elect can be prosecuted. And the answer is no. And I think that's correct constitutionally and practically. And so what the Smith team did was move to dismiss the cases without prejudice, meaning at least theoretically, they could come back one day. But for now, they are gone. And I think it is exactly the right thing for the Smith team to do. Some folks may be disappointed, some folks may be elated,

but I think as a constitutional and legal matter, as I said, inevitable necessary and appropriate bully. And Ken, it was worth noting that Jack Smith, when he announced this yesterday, did not say we're not dismissing the case because we don't believe the evidence isn't there. We believe we have a strong case that Donald Trump worked to overturn the 2020 election and to interfere in the outcome. We're just saying that we believe, we agree as Chuck just said, with the Justice Department policy that sitting presidents

cannot be prosecuted. So how about for you reporting this from the inside? How did this come to be and were you surprised by anything you saw yesterday? Not surprised at all, Willie, because in fact, Jack Smith felt he had no choice but to do this, and it also was a strategic move on his part. No choice because he's a Department of Justice employee, and as soon as Donald Trump was elected, his office asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel whether that long-standing policy that presidents can't be indicted or prosecuted would apply to a president-elect before he's inaugurated. And the OLC came back and said, yes, we believe it would apply. And so at that point, Smith felt he had no choice but to seek the dismissal of the case.

Now, he could have potentially resigned first or kept the case around and let the Trump Justice Department deal with it, but he then would have lost control of what he would say in concluding this case. And you can imagine a Trump attorney general filing a document that says, we no longer stand behind this case, we didn't think we could prove it at trial.

And to the contrary, as you pointed out, Jack Smith made very clear in this filing that this decision does not speak at all to his view of the evidence of the case, of his chance for conviction, they are standing behind the prosecution. And as you said, he will file a report. Now, there's some question as to whether there could be

any new information in that report, given the compressed timeframe here, because normally the intelligence agencies have to review, in a case like this, whatever new information is released, they had to review everything that went into the indictments, and there just isn't time for a review like that. So I think we can expect not to learn

much new information in the report, but we may see a hearty defense of the prosecution, a challenge to the idea that this was somehow weaponized or politicized, and an explanation of exactly why they brought these cases and why they thought they were important. It's just extraordinary that this is where we are. We remember those high-profile January 6th House hearings that came ahead of the federal charges there in the election interference case. We remember the FBI search on Mar-a-Lago and the firestorm that created politically.

And yet after two years worth, this all ends, Lisa, with a whimper. This goes away in the most quiet possible way. The Donald Trump and his legal team played the waiting game. They tried to delay, delay, delay. It worked. They pushed it past the election. He wins. These cases now are abandoned.

Give us your analysis of what happened yesterday and whether or not you think there is a chance even a slim one that they could be revived down the road once Trump leaves office. Well, first, in terms of what happened yesterday, I fully agree with Chuck that this was both inevitable and necessary. The department's internal policy did not allow for them to do anything else other than to dismiss these cases. But in terms of the contingencies, both of these cases have sort of like revival opportunities there only if the Trump Justice Department sort of leaves them alone.

And what I mean by that is, first of all, Jack Smith said in his filing to Judge Chetkin yesterday that there's an open question about whether the statute of limitations against former President Trump, it's a five-year statute of limitations, could be told or paused while he takes office. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Trump Justice Department, through their own Office of Legal Counsel, couldn't issue a new opinion saying

tolling is itself unconstitutional. And that's a possibility that might happen. With respect to the Florida case, that dismissal is, of course, only against President Trump, not against the two other defendants. But were I the Trump Justice Department, I'd be thinking about pardons for Walt Noda and Carlos de la Vera, the other two defendants. But were I the Trump Justice Department, I'd be thinking about pardons for

Walt Natter and Carlos de la Vera, the other two defendants, the last thing that they want. And particularly if you talk to people in Trump world, John, they are much more angry about the classified documents case and some of the things that went on there than they are even about the federal election interference case. I think that we can expect them to pardon Carlos de Oliveira and Walt Natter because they don't want some of what happened there to be rehashed, particularly given the allegations of obstruction of justice against the former president as they manifest in the charges against those two individuals. Yeah, that's a great point about what the Trump Justice Department may do.

And these two cases obviously very much doubt The Georgia case is future deeply murky. And even though there's a conviction in New York, it's hard to say whether there'll ever be a sentencing there. That case might be tossed aside as well. So Vaughn, you know, as so many Democrats have said to me in recent days, he got away with it. He got away with all of it. That this is that there were four criminal cases against Donald Trump.

They have all now they appear to be all on the verge of going away. So let's talk about the politics of this now. This is now Donald Trump who has emerged victorious electorally and from the legal system. He's going to be emboldened and he might be seeking vengeance. When the next generations after us look back at this moment in history books, this is going to be twofold answer as to what happened. Number one, what was mounted to an effective delay in the DOJ really pressing forward, particularly on the election interference case.

Jack Smith didn't get his hands on this case until November of 2022 after the work of the January 6th Select Committee. It was not only until then that you started to see Vice President Mike Pence be called in and go before the grand jury and actually talk with the prosecutors and answer questions. Two years, almost two years after the January 6th attack. Then the second part of that, though, is ultimately who made the decision to bring these cases to the close. And who was that? It was the voters. It was Americans that made the decision that the system of justice was not going to see the end in these particular cases.

In large part, one year after January 6th, I was out in Arizona, it was Donald Trump's return to the campaign trail, January of 2022 out in Arizona. And at that point in time, he was running what amounted to a propaganda campaign, that the election was in fact stolen from him. It was FBI instigators that were involved in the Capitol attack, not his people.

And when he traveled around the country, the last three plus years, you heard from a significant number of Americans that believed it or questioned its truth. And ultimately in November of 2024, what happened? Americans said despite watching what unfolded on January 6th, 2021, and despite Donald Trump trying to hold onto power,

that they wanted to return him to the White House and effectively end these cases against him. And you know, Sam, how many times did we hear people say over the course of the last couple of years with Donald Trump running to get back to the White House, part of the reason or perhaps all of the reason he's doing this is to become president and keep himself out of jail? Well, it appears he's done that for now. We'll see if they really do revive these cases down the road when an 82, 84-year-old former

president is sitting there. But this is a mission accomplished as far as his team is concerned, and they effectively said as much yesterday. Yeah, it's hard to imagine them reviving these cases four years from now, assuming Trump is no longer president four years from now. So I do think he wriggled out of this one. And it does get to the basic idea, which is that Trump has this incredible Teflon about him.

And you just can't deny it at this point. And it does raise questions too, including one I think I pushed to Chuck here, which is, did Merrick Garland fumble the ball? That is, obviously, look, there's been an incredible number of convictions and sentencing involving people who ride it at the Capitol. That's undeniable. Whether those continue to stand once Trump gets back into office and potentially issues

a blanket pardon, we'll see. But it is also undeniable that they took a while to go after Trump himself with respect to the January 6th case. And if you talk to senior Democrats now, including those in the White House, there is frustration over the attorney general's decision to what they think is slow walk this. And so in hindsight, it's 2020, but shouldn't Garland have moved faster on this case to give Smith more time?

Maybe, Sam. I mean, I understand the criticism. I was a federal prosecutor for a long time, at least in my world, which seemed a little bit more normal than the one I currently live in. Precision was more important than speed. So could he have moved faster? Should he have moved faster? Perhaps. But at the end of the day, you want to get this stuff right. Now, I've also been a critic just generally of the special counsel regulations, regardless of who the attorney general is and regardless of who they appoint. I've always thought that the mechanism was flawed. And so, you know, maybe there's a lot of blame to go around

here, but at the end of the day, the Department of Justice did appoint a special counsel, Jack Smith, and his team, I think, were diligent and thoughtful in their work. And if you prize precision over speed, then it's hard to say that they were moving too slowly. Circumstances overtook them. If you're looking for someone to blame, I guess Merrick Garland is someone you can blame. But that's not how I think about it, Sam. You know, Lisa, it is important to underline the fact, as I said earlier, that Jack Smith says we believe we have a strong case in both of these cases. We have the evidence, we have the witnesses. We're not pursuing these because of that. We're doing it because of this regulation. So I guess it does raise the question

about statute of limitations. Do you really see a scenario where this case, first of all, the election interference case, but also the classified document case where they do come back someday down the road? I don't foresee that circumstance, Willie. I think they were smart to leave it open for themselves and leave that contingency.

But for the reasons that I identified earlier, first of all, I don't know that there will be a political will to reopen these cases with respect to somebody who is then well into his 80s. But even beyond that, there are steps that a Trump Justice Department can take now that make that impossible for future departments of justice. And I expect that they'll exercise those. These are folks who have told us what they want to do at the Department of Justice,

and we would be wise to take them seriously. I think there will be some repercussions for folks who were involved in the prosecution of these cases. That doesn't mean I necessarily think that they themselves will be prosecuted, but you can make people's lives extraordinarily difficult and tortured

even without prosecuting them. You can refer them to discipline at bar committees. You can refer them for internal investigation in the Department of Justice. You can sue them civilly. You can force them to testify before Congress. There are any number of ways that these people will have to relive the decisions that they made

during these prosecutionsutions and we should trust that that is going to happen. And on top of that, some of these people may lose their jobs and or be reassigned. Now, is it lawful for them to lose their jobs? Not necessarily. In fact, there are lots of civil service protections that would suggest that those who are career staff shouldn't be able to lose their jobs. But do I expect that some of them will be fired and will have to force through litigation reinstatement of their jobs? Yes, and that's an expense to both psychologically and literally. So after years of meticulous investigation, building a case, a preponderance of evidence,

the allegations now against Donald Trump, the case regarding his alleged interference in the 2020 election appears to be gone for good. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg, thank you both as always. We appreciate it. President-elect Trump is likely to appoint former U.S. National Security Council official Cash Patel to a high-profile position at either the FBI or the Justice Department. That is according to a new report from Axios. Patel would be an extremely controversial selection for any leadership role, including director of the FBI. Patel served as a senior advisor to the acting director of national intelligence during Trump's first term. Since leaving the White House, he has repeatedly talked about using the

Justice Department to go after Trump's political enemies and the media. The president-elect reportedly considering naming Patel deputy director or to an appointed investigative role within the DOJ to avoid a confirmation fight in the Senate. Trump is expected to fire FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom he appointed in 2017 to a 10 year term. Ken Delaney, what more can you tell us? Cash Patel has been a name that's been floating out there that some people have been concerned about being at the important leadership position in the government, particularly if he were to lead the FBI.

What else can you tell us about where he may land? Yeah. So it seems like the Trump team has made the decision that Cash Patel is not confirmable, particularly after the Gates debacle. And that may be not so much about what he said about going after the deep state. They're all for that.

It's the kind of things that are in his background that have been out there, like, for example, that he appeared to have misrepresented his role in the Benghazi case. He said at one point that he was one of the lead prosecutors, and that's just not true. And there are other things over the years that have been raised in his background. And so the plan seems to be to install him in an appointed position where he could do a lot of damage and wield a lot of power.

Let's make no mistake. Deputy FBI director, for example, is essentially the chief operating officer of the department. It's a hugely responsible role. Or even if they set him loose investigating the investigators, because it's clear that that is going to happen in some form, that Jack Smith and his team will find themselves under some kind of scrutiny, he could make a lot of mischief that way. Look, Patel is sort of the personification of MAGA rage about the Justice Department and the FBI. He has been the lead in making really what are baseless charges

that the FBI has been corrupted, that all these investigations were done with political interference by Democrats. I've covered these investigations for two years. There's not a shred of evidence that that happened. In fact, it's the opposite. Merrick Garland, as you guys were talking about before, bent over backwards to stay out of this, to appoint a special counsel, to have the political people play no role in these decisions, to a fault, some people would argue. But Patel has been

saying that the deep state corrupted the FBI to go after Trump, and he's going to mete out his revenge. And it looks like he's going to have a Trump and he's going to mete out his revenge. And it looks like he's going to have a job where he's going to be able to do that. He could do equal damage, by the way, at the CIA, where he's also waged war on the intelligence community for many years. Guys. So, Vaughn, let's first echo what Ken said. There's no shred of evidence to any of these accusations.

But let's dig in a little deeper as to who Cash Patel is and what he could do. I mean, he has sworn vengeance against those in the Department of Justice. He's also suggested that members of the media, he's by name, that he would be on his list as well. Tell us more about him, but also, what could this mean in terms of, if he does, let's say, get a deputy job at the Department of Justice, how could he target

these so-called enemies? Right. Number one, let's be clear, that Kash Patel is not a veteran of US spy agencies or the intel community. He did float around during the first Trump administration, working essentially the right hand to the director of national intelligence, Rick Rennell at the time. He then ended up jumping over to be the Chief of Staff to acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller during the events of the January 6th attack.

This is somebody who is a political ally. Let's be very clear, a political ally of Donald Trump's loyalist who over the last four years has been a frequent presence, for instance, on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast. He is somebody of that ilk who has been very open about saying, whether it be criminally or civilly, that they will go after not just folks that were part of the Biden administration, but also members of the press, arguing that they have been part of the conspiracy here to undermine Donald Trump and the political efforts that they went forward. And so to Ken's point, they could very well use the levers of the FBI or the DOJ to try to amount and convene a grand jury and

Try to seek an indictment of over some conspiracy charge that loops in the press loops in all the other Prosecutors from the DOJ it could be very vast effort that they would try to Try to put forward. Yeah, and let me just add, I mean, this is part of a larger pattern of potential appointees who want to take their institutions and agencies and effectively weaponize them against their opponents. I was talking to Chris Murphy, the senator, last week about what he was praying for, and he very soberly was like, I'm preparing for them to try to arrest lawmakers and look it may not happen it may happen I think the fact that they are considering the possibility certainly is frightening in recent days the mayor of Denver I

believe has said I'm not going to cooperate with mass deportation efforts and the response from Trump officials has been great we'll arrest you and I think that's really chilling honestly to see that people will cavalierly throw around the idea that elected officials, members of the fourth estate, could end up in the cross areas and end up incarcerated simply because they disagree with the administration. But that is really essentially the through line for a lot of these picks, which is that they are there for vengeance and to carry out the political will of Donald Trump. Yeah, we should take them at their word. And a lot of them either, as you say, want to use their

position for retribution or just tear down the departments they're leading altogether. That's what they've been promising. NBC's Ken Delaney. And thanks so much for your reporting this morning. We appreciate it. President-elect Trump says he will impose new tariffs on goods imported from China, Mexico and Canada on his first day in office. Trump made the announcement on Truth Social explaining a 25% tariff on products from Mexico and Canada will remain in place until drugs and migrants stop coming over the border, the way he put it. The president-elect also threatened an additional 10 percent tariff on China, saying the country is shipping illegal drugs to the United States.

The tariffs likely would have serious implications for several American industries, including auto manufacturers and farmers. Imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico also would violate the terms of the North American trade agreement Trump signed in 2020. Joining us now CNBC correspondent Megan Casella. Megan, good morning. So what more can you tell us about the actual implementation of this plan and the impact that we'll have on the economy? Good morning to you guys. This is President-elect Trump vowing to follow through on all of those threats that he

made on the campaign trail, threats that often had been dismissed as sort of negotiating tactics or bluster. But what I can tell you based on reporting is that the president-elect and his economic team have been focused for months now on finding ways to impose these tariffs and making sure that they can do it, because generally presidents aren't able to unilaterally impose tariffs this way, to impose blanket tariffs like this. It's not how trade law is generally written. But I can tell you that they feel like they have some options.

They've been studying this. The most likely way is that he'll declare an international economic emergency on his first day in office. That would then give him special emergency powers that would allow for the enactment of these tariffs on these three countries. On China, it's actually even easier, because he imposed tariffs in his first term against China, tariffs that President Biden then kept in place. He could simply turn the dial up and say, we need to go a little bit higher, another

10% higher because of what he sees as these threats of fentanyl and migrants, as you mentioned, coming across the border. It's going to have huge economic impact. We're already seeing things happen just a little bit in Canada and Mexico, for example, their currencies falling against the U.S. dollar makes their economy shake just a little bit. And companies are gearing up for this. We've been looking through earnings calls over the past quarter for mentions of tariffs. We see that that mentions of it are way up among all sorts of companies. And we also found no shortage of companies saying that they, if they get hit with tariffs,

will pass these costs directly onto their consumers. They're saying it right in their earnings calls. It's in black and white. So we know that one effect of this is that higher prices for consumers, at least on the most impacted goods. Guys? Yeah, and President-elect Trump also saying

he was gonna impose a 100% tariff on vehicles manufactured in Mexico. Canada and Mexico are our two largest trading partners. So Megan, you touched on it briefly there at the end of your response, but just in terms of the everyday consumer, this is something that all economists warned about during the campaign, liberal, conservative, you name it, said if you put a tariff on, it's a tax on the consumer. That's just an economic fact, always has been.

What is your sense of what this may do to prices in the short term? I think in the short term, prices certainly do go up because, as you said, it is a tax. Everything that comes into the US from those countries, importers have to pay a higher price. They'll pass that on to households. Then you mentioned the farmers. And I think an important point here, too, is that there's very likely to be retaliation almost immediately.

Canada, Mexico and China are likely to say, if you're putting a tariff on our goods, then we will do the same to yours. U.S. agriculture was really, really hit in the first term because they couldn't sell as much overseas, to the point that President Trump in his first term even sent money to farmers, about $19 billion, to help them out. So groceries likely to get more expensive. In the mix up of all of that, groceries likely to get more expensive. I will say it's still possible that he doesn't follow through on this threat. It's something that we saw from the president several times over in his first term.

And he's leaving enough gray area in some of this language, the way the threat was written last night, to give himself something of a runway that maybe any of those countries could come back and say, we will do X, Y, and Z, and then the tariff never does take effect. But we do have to recognize that there's some destabilization here. There's some uncertainty here. So there's an economic impact, even if it never takes effect. CNBC correspondent Megan Casella walking us through this this morning. Thanks so much, Megan.

We appreciate it. You know, Vaughn, you're struck seeing what the president-elect has already announced, the mass deportation, this tariff. These are things, the appointment of some of these choices that he's making, Bobby Kennedy go down the line, where during the campaign you would talk to people and say, oh he's not gonna do that. These are negotiating taxes, it's a campaign pitch, he's saying these things to win votes, and yet here we are seeing the real-world implications of those campaign promises.

Right, and we've lived this, Willie. I mean, back in 2018-2019 we covered a Donald Trump trade war and we saw the economic impact for soybean farmers, corn farmers, lobster farmers in Maine. We saw that their markets not only disappear because of those retaliatory tariffs, so they were not able to export their goods, but they also saw their prices significantly drop year over year over year. And to Megan's point, the way that Donald Trump made up for those losses with farmers and producers around the country was by providing $28 billion in subsidies in order to make up for those losses here.

And when we're talking about Mexico and Canada, there are two largest trading partners. And I think that the part of this tough style of politics that we see from Donald Trump when he's campaigning, but then translate into the White House has questionable benefits. Howard Lutnick and Scott Bessett, they've backed Donald Trump's tariff proposals. But I go back again to his first trade war in 2018, 2019. Donald Trump justified it to American producers and manufacturers.

The trade war with the idea that the US would strike a major trade deal with China, ultimately. And that China would agree to no longer go forward with IP theft or providing unfair subsidies to their own state-backed companies. And yet, what happened? They signed a phase one of a trade deal in which China said that they would buy a certain amount of goods. They ended up only buying about half of those in the first year. But they never agreed to the other issues that Donald Trump and the Trump administration justified to Americans that this United Trade

Deal would ultimately bear the fruits of. And so I think that's questionable about what can Mexico, what can Canada actually come through with, because this would essentially undercut the USMCA trade deal that these three countries negotiated during his first administration. Yeah, and on the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised that tariffs were going to pay for everything from education to healthcare. That was how he was going to fund everything, it appears.

Anyway, for now, 25% on Canada and Mexico. We'll see if it happens. NBC's Vaughn Hilliard, thanks as always for your reporting. Still ahead on Morning Joe, what we're learning about a possible ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah. NBC's Keir Simmons has more on that. Plus, Russia launches a drone attack across Ukraine, striking critical infrastructure and damaging residential buildings. Love the latest on the state of the war there. Morning Joe comes back in 90 seconds.

Real Security Cabinet is meeting today to discuss a potential ceasefire deal with Hezbollah in Lebanon. It comes as the IDF and Hezbollah have traded strikes in recent days, with the Iranian-backed terrorist group launching more than 200 projectiles into Israel on Sunday. Joining us now from Dubai is NBC News Chief International Correspondent Kyr Simmons. Kyr, it's good to see you. So how close are they here? Hey, really well.

Multiple European diplomats and US officials signaling to NBC News that potentially we are on the brink of something. A ceasefire deal would likely really look like Hezbollah moving its heavy weaponry behind the Latani River and the Israelis moving out of southern Lebanon. There are major hurdles, not least of which the difference between what the two sides are saying. So the leader of Hezbollah saying that that deal needs to be complete and comprehensive, whereas Israel is saying that it reserves the right to deal with, quote, disruption. That's according to the Israeli ambassador to Washington. It has been incredibly destructive.

We've seen 60,000 Israelis not able to go to their homes in northern Israel, 3,500 people killed in Lebanon. And the killing and missiles have have continued. Hundreds of missiles fired by Hezbollah over the weekend. More than 30 people killed in Lebanon just on Monday. This is an escalation. Maybe it's the storm behind before the calm if you like. But if there is going to be a calm, then certainly the families of the hostages

in Gaza are saying that they should be included too. This deal, though, is unlikely to include Gaza. And the signals are that the idea is that you get this done and then you try and move on to Gaza. So, Keir, the Israelis are saying as part of this deal, of course, we will reserve the right that if Hezbollah attacks us, we can attack back or that we can preemptively attack if we see a threat coming to Israel. That appears to be a bit of a sticking point here. How do they work through that? Yeah, it really is, I think. And we'll see.

I mean, we're expecting, as you say, that vote by the Israeli Security Cabinet just in the coming hours. So it's possible that Israel feels that what it's seeing is enough for it. Certainly, some on the right in Israel are already saying that they shouldn't vote for that. One potential way that this is being kind of worked through, if you like, is a collaboration, a coalition of nations, the US, the French, that will oversee this. And the French putting out a statement overnight saying that they're clearly hopeful

and talking about Lebanese sovereignty. So maybe with the French, maybe the British too, and the US, there will be enough confidence on both sides to get a ceasefire deal while both sides are kind of reserving the right, if you like, to take up arms against each other again. The Biden administration has been working on this deal for months and months trying to broker something there.

We'll see if it comes through. NBC's Keir Simmons reporting this morning for us from the Middle East. Keir, thank you as always. Joining us now, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James DeVritis. He is chief international analyst for NBC News. So Admiral, cautious optimism here. It feels around a

potential ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah. What do you see as some of the sticking points to make this actually hold and preserve a little peace there? Well, I'll start with the cautionary note. As Senator John McCain used to say, it's always darkest before it goes pitch black. And that is certainly the sensibility you've got to have developed watching the, to use another metaphor, Lucy with the football back and forth on ceasefires. I could count, I think, 20 times that we've talked about a ending ceasefire down south in Gaza two or three times up north, but I think this one probably happens just because it's it's kind of in the interest of the Israelis and what I mean by that is and Sticking point number one. They they must get those

60,000 I've heard numbers as high as 80,000 Israelis back into their homes. That's a political reality. Sticking point two is, they're clearly gonna hold on to the ability to go after individual targets up north. And I think that that is baked into the agreement at this point. And sticking point number three, back to Gaza.

I think that deal is next in the queue. Those are the three things to watch as we go forward here, Willie. Admiral Sam Stein here. You know, obviously everything is colored by the impending return to power of Donald Trump. And I'm wondering if you're a leader of an Arab nation who cares about the Palestinian

cause, who's looking at not just Gaza, what's happening in the West Bank, and you recognize that you have an incoming president who's more or less going to tell, baby, you know, do what you want for a little bit and then tidy it up. How does that affect your posture, not just with respect to what's happening in Lebanon, but on all these fronts? Yeah, let's do Lebanon first, Sam. Here I think if you're Hezbollah up north, you're Lebanese, you really want to cut a deal now.

And so that, I think, is why the ceasefire is moving forward. Stepping back a little bit, looking at the larger frame of the Middle East, you know, the capital that is most disadvantaged by the return of the Trump administration is arguably not Kiev, it's Tehran. And so you're Iranian, you probably are looking for ways to avoid a sledgehammer coming at you. That gets us to the Arab world.

Here, I think you're exactly right, Sam Stein, meaning that particularly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman, UAE, the rest of the Gulf Arabs, the Arab world with money are definitely waiting for Team Trump to come back. They have deep pipe there, including financial engagement with Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, who will probably ride point for the administration here in the Middle East. So you're holding, holding, holding, getting ready to go all in, all in being defined as finally recognizing the state of Israel by the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

That won't happen until after the inauguration. That's the next big strategic muscle movement. So Admiral, you mentioned Kyiv. Let's turn to that theater now. It seems that both sides have really ramped up the fighting here as winter approaches and also as Donald Trump approaches. Both sides trying to get as much gains as they can.

Russia even deploying a new missile, it appears. What's your analysis as to where the fighting could go in the months ahead before possibly a move to the negotiating table? I think you categorize it exactly right, Jonathan, which is to say both sides are pushing hard for advantage knowing that they are going to be headed to a negotiation probably mid-25, if not sooner. And so on the Russian side, you see the deployment of the new weapon, you indicated a hypersonic

10 times the speed of sound, very difficult to intercept missile. You're seeing 10,000 North Koreans thrown at the battlefield. Those are moves designed to enhance a bargaining position. On the other side, going back as far as a few months ago, the attack into Russia by the Ukrainians to hold the salient around Kursk, and above all, now the use of the A-TACMS missiles, finally. All of that, both sides pushing to strengthen their position. How does it come out? I would guess what you see now, if you got out a map and looked at the battle positions, it's going to be pretty close to what you're seeing now.

And that's a tragedy. At the end of the day, Putin will have managed to bite off 20% of a neighboring country illegally, immorally, and using war criminal behavior. On the other hand, if that deal is consummated, the rest of Ukraine, the 80% sales on, democratic, free, path to NATO eventually eventually path to the European Union. It's not the worst deal in the world. I think that's probably how it comes out. And Ukrainians fully expect down the road, Vladimir Putin to come back for more. So they want that path to NATO.

They want weapons. They want to be a harder target going forward. Retired four star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. Admiral, thanks as always, we appreciate it. Coming up, we'll take a closer look at some of the people Donald Trump has picked to lead the nation's top health agencies and the impact they could have on key issues, yes,

like vaccines. Morning Joe's coming right back. Here is Hill. He gets the first down and on he goes. Inside the 10, end zone, touchdown Justice Hill. Justice Hill, juke at the line of scrimmage, bouncing it outside, then turning on the jets for a 51-yard touchdown run helps the Ravens cap week 12 of the NFL regular season with a win over the Los Angeles Chargers. Ravens superstar quarterback Lamar Jackson accounting for three scores last night throwing for two rushing for this one nice little

sidestep into the end zone there. Derek Henry did not score that was the first time he has not scored as a Raven but he still racked up 140 yards on the ground having a big year for Baltimore. Coach John Harbaugh improving to 3-0 in NFL games, coaching against his brother, who's now the Chargers head coach. That's Jim Harbaugh, of course. 30-23 was the final score. Ravens over the Chargers in LA.

So Jonathan Lemire, you start to look at, we're now getting into down the stretch here, week 12 in the books. The AFC kind of looking the way it always looks. You got the Chiefs who look a little vulnerable a lot of close wins.

You got the Bills of course the Ravens are near the top throw in the Steelers but the good teams appear to be right where we expected them to be. Yeah that's exactly right. Chiefs had the remarkable knack of winning close games this

year even against a bad Carolina team. But you know outside of one they've managed to pull it off all season long. Steelers took a tough one in the snow the other night. Ravens closed the gap there. You know and Buffalo's with Josh Allen I'd say the MVP favorite right now looming as well and Sam Stein this was like the NFC is maybe a two team race. One could argue Lions and Eagles seem to be pretty clearly ahead of the rest of the field,

though Packers and Vikings also in the NFC North nipping at Detroit's heels. One team not in the playoff contention, the New York Giants, who of course now one who have ridded themselves of Daniel Jones. I wonder if he's going to sign with the Cowboys for the Thanksgiving game this week. My question to you is, do you think that it should be a fully clean house? Do Coach and GM need to go to? Are you really going to rule out my Giants with Tommy DeVito? Tommy Cutlets hanging in there?

I am going to, despite the signature hand gesture. Did you not see us last weekend? Did you not see us last week? I think we scored seven points. Pretty good. We suck. We're horrible. There it is.

It's embarrassing. It's awful. They need to clean house. I will say, I just, I can't even care that much, but I don't know why I'm so exercised right now. I will say, did you guys watch the Cowboys commander's game though? That was incredible. Unbelievable. The ending of that game. That was insane. People in DC were like sickened by it. So yes, I agree with your synopsis. The Lions look amazing. Just a juggernaut. But you know, they have this... Dan Campbell coaching ethos, you just know. There's gonna be a moment in the playoffs where something seems so spectacularly idiotic to do

and he's just gonna be like, yeah, I'm gonna do it. And all the Lions fans are gonna be pulling out their hair. So my money still has to go with, honestly, I hate to say it, the Eagles and Saquon Barkley, they just look really good. Yeah, Saquon, speaking of salt in the wound for Giants fans, Saquon, who we loved as Giants fans, who never really had a quarterback or weapons

on the outside or an offensive line, or having an absolutely phenomenal MVP style year. He just went off against the Rams the other night. I mean, just the raw athleticism. Oh man, Sam, he had a good year or two for us, but he was swimming upstream with that team. And you're right. You can't feel, you have nothing but love for the guy.

He deserves this. I agree. And honestly, we deserve it. Like, we should suffer. We stink, we should suffer. And this makes it even more appropriate, okay? I'm glad he's having a great year. Let it out, Sam.

Let it all out. Just show that way. This is the right forum for that. This is gonna be your therapy session. Totally agree, couldn't be happier for Saquon. He's a great giant, a great guy. So good for him. Now the nice thing they have the Cowboys and Giants is that middle game on Thanksgiving gives you a nice time to be outside with the family.

Go play touch football, do whatever you would like. I would I would literally do anything else than watch that game. I'll eat more turkey. I'll stuff myself again. I don't want to watch that game. Yeah. You can watch the Lions early, then you take a little break while the Cowboys play the Giants, and then you come back and watch the Packers and the Dolphins at night.

It's a perfect day. Yeah, my Thanksgiving nap will be four hours, precisely, right over that game. Who knows? Maybe Tommy Cutlet's comes alive on Thanksgiving. We'll see. We'll see.