Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/14/25

Episode Date: January 14, 2025

Southern California is braced for "extremely critical fire conditions" caused by a new period of Santa Ana winds today through Wednesday across parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties, as the battle to contain rampant blazes goes on.

These hearings, in a very real way, are the opening salvo for holding the Trump administration accountable to the public. We will use these hearings to show the contrast between Donald Trump's agenda of helping the special interests, especially the very wealthy, and the Democrats' agenda to fight for working Americans. Nominees should expect tough, candid, but fair questioning. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer laying out the Democrats' approach to this week's confirmation hearings for Donald Trump's cabinet.

Today, Pete Hegseth, the president-elect's pick to lead the Pentagon, will be the first to face lawmakers. We're going to go through the new reporting on a critical witness connected to the former Fox News host whose calls to the FBI were not returned. Plus, Jack Smith releases his team's report on Donald Trump's effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. We'll dig into why the special counsel is confident the case would have resulted in a conviction. Also ahead, President Biden delivers his final foreign

policy speech, highlighting his accomplishments on the world stage, strengthening relationships with our allies while putting more pressure on America's adversaries. We'll play for you the key moments from that address. Meanwhile, in that speech, the president suggested a ceasefire and hostage deal between Israel and Hamas could be imminent. We'll have the latest on those negotiations.

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Tuesday, January 14th, along with Joe, Willie, and me. We have the co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire, and MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle is with us. We have all those stories ahead, but Willie, of course, we start in California. Yeah, dangerous day ahead, it looks like, because those strong winds expected to return

to Los Angeles County today, posing a new danger for the wildfires that have ravaged that area for a week now officials say the winds could reach up to 70 miles an hour leading to explosive growth of the fire this comes as the fires have burned through nearly 40,000 acres destroying thousands of homes. The winds are expected to die down by Wednesday evening that still 2 full days away. Meanwhile firefighters

say they've made significant progress in battling the two largest wildfires in the area. The Eaton fire 33% contained while the Palisades fire is at 14% containment. The Hearst fire is 97% contained. Joining us now live from Pacific Palisades, a town that effectively has been wiped out is NBC's Jay Gray. Jay, what are you seeing on the ground there today and what do we expect for the next couple of days? Yeah, Willie, overwhelming destruction here and that real concern as you talk about that this footprint could grow in the next 48 hours. Some disturbing news to report right off the bat. We've got a new fire burning to the north in Ventura County, the auto fire right now, 56 acres

burning at this point. And that's a result of the changing conditions here. Winds building overnight into the early morning. And that's just going to continue. I want to give you a look at what we're seeing on the ground here right now. And it's just complete destruction. And this is something that again stretches for miles across this region. Now look, the winds, the National Weather Center says are going to intensify as the sun comes up and reach their peak in the morning, then continuing through midday tomorrow. Gusts, like you talked about at times over 70 miles an hour,

conditions that they say could lead to, and I'm quoting here, rapid growth and explosive fire behavior. We have seen a number of smaller new brush fires sparked as a result of these winds, but there are mobile strike teams in place right now and really scattered across the region in strategic areas to rush in quickly and they've done that to this point handling some of those rush fires. But I think it's worth repeating guys we've got a new fire burning in Ventura County just to the north 56 acres they're calling it the auto fire and that's the kind of situation that

is causing some real concern as we go into this 48-hour period. I would expect and fire officials say they expect to see more evacuations, more areas put on standby and hold and ready to evacuate and so all these areas have been living through these massive blazes and now on edge again. They can't get in and clean up any of this right now, not until the fires are contained, but they've got to worry about more flames and that's going to be a tough go over the next couple of days here.

As you say Jay, I mean I know people who live not far from where you're standing, who obviously everything has been lost. There's some pockets where some homes were still standing. People could go in for five minutes with police to get out some things that they may need, prescriptions or other things like that. I'm just curious though, Jay, because it has been a couple of days of low winds, firefighters feel like, as we report, making some progress against the biggest of the fires, but Are they ready for what's coming today and tomorrow?

And how can they possibly be when we've learned that these winds can blow on a whim one direction to the next putting new areas under threat No, it's a great point Willie and you're right they they've dug in there They're on the front lines and then we've got these mobile strike teams that I talked about. But when you pull aside some of these firefighters and talk to them, they'll say, it's not much of a fight when the wind gets to hurricane strength. Then it's just an issue of trying to protect whatever you can and trying to rescue, trying to get people out of harm's way and move people out of the direction of these fires. The problem is we'll likely see these winds really picking up, according to the weather

service, to the north and in areas where there is a lot of fuel left. You know, there's not a lot left to burn in places like this, but to the north you've got that dry brush and undergrowth. You've got trees that are dried out. They haven't seen rain in quite some time, and so you've got that fuel that will fire embers that are sparked up by these winds and pushed across that area. So yeah, they're ready, they're not going to give up the fight, but it's not much of a fight when Mother Nature's weapon is winds over 70 miles an hour.

We're expecting those to kick up later this morning. NBC's Jay Gray and Pacific Palisades. Jay, thanks so much for your reporting. Let's go over to meteorologist Angie Lastman. Angie, good morning. So what is the forecast exactly for those winds today? We're gonna see those elevate, especially as we get into the later parts

of our morning, Willie, and then we'll kind of see a fluctuation through the afternoon and into tomorrow. Here's those four fires that we're watching. There's that auto fire that you heard Jay mention, 56 acres, 0% contained, situation through the aft tomorrow. Here's those fo 56 acres, 0% contained, b warning. And this one is dangerous situation. That' extra layer of seriousness

Los Angeles area has only in november and december l one back in 2020. So that the Los Angeles area has five other times to this had a couple in november year and then one back in you some sort of sense of are and it's for good rea extremely critical fire w lasting across this region

large fires, explosive gro So here's how the winds p into the later parts of t as we get i of this morning, that's w the worst of the wind. So per hour gusts. Notice hu 25% but either way, not a for us to tap into in thi us at all along with the

as we get into later this those come down slightly. improvements, 40 to 55 mi still, we're go of an elevated gust situa into overnight tonight. T high end 65 miles per hour higher elevations, you'll

closer to the coast, 2030 winds. And then we get int is when we'll start to se Willie, we'll see high hi miles per hour, but a lit we'll start to see a bit of relief, Willie. We'll see higher ends up to 45 miles per hour, but a little better than what we're gonna be dealing with for at least the next 24 hours. All right, Angie Lastman, thanks so much. We appreciate it.

Guys, when you hear explosive fire growth coming from fire officials, that is a big warning of what may be ahead today and tomorrow. Not over. We'll be watching this. Of course, we'll be revisiting this story throughout the show this morning. We'll move watching this. Of course, we'll be revisiting this story throughout the show this morning. We'll move on now to the Senate confirmation hearings for President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet,

which begin this morning with one of his most controversial selections, Pete Hegseth, Trump's pick for Secretary of Defense. Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee huddled for a briefing on the FBI background check into HecSeth yesterday. Now, as is customary, only the heads of the committee, Republican Chair Roger Wicker and Ranking Member Jack Reed, were given physical access to the full FBI report. They then were responsible for relaying those findings to all other committee members. This says NBC News reports the contents of the report may be lacking. The FBI's security check of Hegseth does not include interviews with any of his ex-wives or the woman who accused him of sexual assault in 2017.

That's according to three sources with direct knowledge of the background check. Hegseth was denied any wrongdoing in that case and the local district attorney declined to file charges saying there was no proof beyond a reasonable doubt the assault took place. Democratic lawmakers are sounding the alarm that there may be additional key information left out of the report. I only know that some of the folks that have been, the women, past women in his life have wanted to be interviewed but have not been interviewed by the veterans. The transition team is slow-walked and stone-walled us, but we do know that there are significant

gaps in that background check. It's incomplete and, so far as we know, inadequate. And I am deeply concerned that there are facts that so far have been hidden from this committee. What are they hiding that they won't give us this kind of information. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that investigators reached out to Pete Hegsath's second ex-wife, Samantha Hegsath. The couple were married from 2010 until 2018, and according to the Times, FBI investigators had an initial perfunctory conversation with her on January 8th, according to people familiar with the apprised or apprised of the report.

Ms. Hegseth then made multiple attempts to contact the Bureau for a more substantive discussion, but her calls were not returned last week, said those with knowledge of the investigation who were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. Let's bring in the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale. And Pulitzer Prize winner is columnist and associate editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson.

Thank you all for being with us. Let's start. John Lemire, let me ask you, what is the reaction, I I guess to this very incomplete FBI report, but also more importantly, a lot of people asking, how do you have an FBI report on Pete Hegseth when those with the most explosive charges aren't even a part of that FBI report and you have one person trying to contact the FBI repeatedly who doesn't get her calls returned. Yeah, the report seems extraordinarily incomplete.

And we just heard a little bit of real democratic outrage yesterday about that fact. Let's recall, of course, that the Trump team initially for weeks stonewalled the idea of any background checks, certainly by the FBI as the president-elect began selecting his possible cabinet members, they wanted to do the background checks to a private company. Their real concerns there that that wouldn't be complete. They eventually let the FBI take part, but it seems here not able to talk to every pertinent person, including these ex-wives and those who suggested Hegseth behaved inappropriately with them. So I think right from the get-go in this hearing today, slated for this morning,

the first of a series of high-profile and some incendiary hearings, we're going to hear from Democrats crying foul on this very process. Now, Pete Hegseth himself, he's just testimony, prepared testimony, leaked to Axios, other places. We know he's going to say it's time for someone who served in combat, he is a veteran, to lead the department, to lead the Pentagon. He's going to talk about his mistakes in his life. He says he's found God. His new life has changed his behavior. We know in the confirmation interviews with senators, he said he'd stop drinking and the

like. But there are real questions here he's gonna have to face. And some pointed questions from Democrats about his personal conduct as well as his qualifications and few suggest that this Fox News contributor would have the bona fides to lead this department. We will see where this goes. Whip count, Republicans are growing more and more confident they have the votes, but no one knows for sure as to where this goes next. And there are a few eyes, certainly Joni Ernst, a couple other Republicans seen as the key votes here.

And I think a lot of people say, still up in the air. Well, depends what happens today at the hearing. Well, yeah. And Ali, please feel free to give us more insight on what you're hearing on the Hill. But again, the question that's raised here is, who directed the FBI not to talk to the person with the most explosive testimony against Pete Hegseth, charges of rape against Pete Hegseth. The police, again, we've said the police did not press the charges. But the fact that you don't have this woman that has come forward with all of this information

about that California event, and then again, one of his ex-wives trying to reach the FBI and not getting return calls, is there any suggestion that the Trump transition team directed the FBI to what it could or could not investigate? Or would that be the Republicans in the Senate that would tell the FBI, don't talk to the people that may have the most germane evidence against Pete Hegseth? Well, we don't know at this point if that direction was given, but it's important to remember that as one of our reporters who's been covering this said to me yesterday on way too early, the client for the people doing the investigation is not Congress.

The job is not to give Congress the most information possible. The job is to do the investigating at the direction of the client, in this case, the Trump transition team. And so that's going to be important for us to keep in mind when we watch Democrats talk about the gaps in this report. And I think we're right to lay out how glaring they absolutely are. And it's something that Democrats are now going to use in their lines of questioning. They were already going to talk about the sexual assault allegation.

They were already going to talk about the potential themes around his ex-wives. But now we're going to see them not just talk about that, but also ask the question of why this wouldn't have been included in the kind of report that senators have gotten quite used to getting, even if they're not reading the report itself, being briefed in full on what's in the report. And it's clear, these are the rules of this committee. That's not the thing that's odd here. The thing that's odd here is that there are pieces of this report that seem very obvious to have investigators at least ask

questions about and bring back to Congress. And that wasn't done here. And that's just the gaps in the report on the sexual violence and sexual assault allegation and also things that his ex wife ex wives might have said. But then there's also the misuse of funds at veterans' organizations. There are the allegations that NBC News has reported on that he was abusing alcohol. All of that is going to be in this hearing that is going to be quite explosive on Capitol Hill. Gene, this is an extraordinary moment in terms of Senate hearings, I would imagine.

There is no director of the FBI. Chris Roy has resigned. There's an acting director. We don't know what the FBI is doing in terms of pursuing any extraordinary or extra questioning of the potential witnesses, people who are willing to give testimony about Pete Haegs's. But we do know that the Post is not like the Postmaster General. It's the Secretary of Defense in a very dangerous world. And on paper, and according to everything you hear from, including some Republicans, Pete Hagseth is extraordinarily unqualified. So where does the Senate committee go from here, with not as much information as they

need and not as much cooperation perhaps from the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Well, that's a very good question because the hearing is today, right? So they're supposed to have the information. The committee chairman and the ranking member have already looked at the background reports, they're ready to go. And so it's really frustrating to have to talk about this investigation in retrospect. But that's kind of where we are now, unless something extraordinary happens, and there's some attempt to sort of go back into this.

Look, Merrick Garland is still the Attorney General, right? I mean, you know, Joe Biden is still the president. It's not as if the transition has already happened. So I am really curious as to why with a job this important, it's not just these allegations against Hedgeseth, it's the whole question of whether he is remotely capable of doing what is really one of the most important jobs in our government, a job that's doubly important now because there are all these questions about the readiness of the US Defense Department, if Paris had thought we ever had to fight or deter a major war. And these are big questions about what we're doing militarily to counter the rise of China. And it's Hegseth the guy to figure that out?

And I want to know more about that. Well, I've got to say, again, all the character issues aside, I can tell you there's not a single person in Washington, D.C. that I've talked to that thinks that he's qualified to run the Pentagon. Again, all character questions aside, that's something that Joni Ernst knows. She knows he's not qualified to run the Pentagon. That's something that John Thune knows.

He knows Pete Hegseth is not qualified to run the Pentagon. That's something Mitch McConnell knows. That's something that Lisa Murkowski knows. That's something that Susan Collins knows. It's something, of course, that Todd Young, one of the more serious thinkers, most serious thinkers on national defense issues, knows. So again, all of these character questions aside, these so-called John Tower questions, all of those aside, everybody knows the underlying truth that nobody will be served. I mean, the DOD will not be served by this.

Americans will not be served by it. The armed forces won't be served by it. Even the commander in chief, Donald Trump, ultimately will not be served by it. The armed forces won't be served by it. Even the commander in chief, Donald Trump, ultimately will not be served by having somebody running the DOD that's ill-equipped just because of experience or lack thereof of running the DOD. Still, the question this morning regarding the start of this hearing Jonathan Amir has to go back to, why didn't the FBI ask the most basic questions from the most germane witnesses?

Were they instructed not to by somebody or do you think they were doing it because they didn't want to offend the incoming administration? That is a great question. Now to Ali's point, the parameters are usually set think they were doing it because they didn't want to offend the incoming administration. That is a great question that's Ali's point the parameters usually set by the transition team so and that would be the case here as well so we there's likely some of this at least is instructions from the Trump team the specifics we don't

know we're still reporting the New York Times has broke the story part pieces of the story last night they don't have either. There is a suggestion we have Tammy Duckworth we played a little bit of sound from her a few moments ago the senator from Illinois, I was reading further from what she had to say yesterday, she also wondered that in some cases that the women involved may not have wanted to come forward because they're fearful of their safety or safety of their

children. So I think that's an element here, but we know that's not the case at least for the one-wife who proactively reached out to the FBI. So why she was rebuffed, why she was ignored, that will be one of the mysteries that I think, we heard this from Senator Blumenthal as well. I was just reading his notes that we'll probably hear in the first minutes of the hearing today. Why did it happen this way?

Yeah, I need to understand more. The transition team gets to tell the FBI how to do a background check, because last I checked, a background check isn't a background check unless it's a background check, like the way they do it. I... Well, but in this case, Ali, though, there were negotiations on whether there would be an FBI background check at all on Pete's exit. It was finally when Roger Wicker, another Republican senators said we need an FBI background check

that we even moved in that direction. But again, it is fascinating that the team that is most invested in getting a candidate through is the one that defines the outlines of the investigation itself. So I mean, it would be fascinating if they said you can't interview these most, the people that are, again, most germane to the investigation on whether he has the ability to run the department or not. And that's not to say that Democrats aren't also trying to reach out to these same people, especially now with the information that the FBI might not have or did not speak with them.

But I do think that it's important as we illuminate various aspects of this process for folks to realize the way that these kinds of background checks are done. And I think Mika brings up a really good point to the casual viewer, isn't a background check a background check that no one can put any parameters on? Here in Washington, that might not be the answer to the question, but certainly it's the question that we'll continue asking. And then I think the other piece of this as we move forward is the ways that Democrats try to highlight this. I know that there's some talk of surprises this morning during this hearing, and we'll see them pretty early on as Jonathan says, but then also coming back to the Republicans and the way that they handle this. There was a view at the end of during this hearing and we' early on as Jonathan says,

back to the republicans an handle this, there was a year that yes, they wante They pushed for that. Ev wicker, the head of the c Collins and Lisa Murkowski they were skeptical of th they needed more informat

was a really big push to actually get this investigatory process going in the typical sense. But then also when you leave glaring gaps in it, you give people what they ask for, but only kind of, do the gaps make them that much more skeptical? Democrats are going to play that up. But for someone like Joni Ernst, who is sitting on this committee, who already clearly had questions, what is she going to do with this lack of information? Do the primary challenges on Capitol Hill ultimately lend to Republicans being able to ram all of these nominees, however skeptical or unqualified people think they might be down the throats of Congress and thusly the American people? That's sort of been the litmus test for the entirety

of this nominating contest. And so the fact that we're here for the very first one could tell us early what we're in for. The host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale. Thank you very much. We appreciate it. And still ahead on Morning Joe, we're gonna break down special counsel,

Jack Smith's report on the election interference case against Donald Trump and how this could impact the president-elect's plans to pardon January 6th rioters. Plus, Israel and Hamas appear to be closing in on a ceasefire deal. We'll have the latest on the negotiations. You're watching Morning Jet. We'll be back in 90 seconds. Special counsel Jack Smith's report on his investigation into Donald Trump's efforts

to overturn the 2020 election was released to the public overnight just a few hours ago. The report summarizes Smith's investigation into Trump's efforts to hold on to power. The final line of that report reads, quote, indeed, but for Mr. Trump's election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial. The report cites examples of such evidence, including how Trump pressed Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results of the election, writing, quote, Mr.

Trump wanted no one else speaking with Vice President Pence because he and co-conspirators were already implementing a secret plan to use Mr. Pence's ministerial role as president of the Senate to Mr. Trump's advantage, end quote. The report also cites how Trump privately acknowledged he lost the election, writing, at times, Mr. Trump made comments implicitly acknowledging he knew he had lost the election.

For example, in a January 3rd, 2021 Oval Office meeting regarding a national security matter, Mr. Trump stated in part, it's too late for us. We're going to give that to the next guy, meaning President-elect Biden. The report continues in private, in contrast with his public false claims, Mr. Trump made admissions that reflected his understanding that he had lost. In a private moment, Mr. Trump confessed to his family members that, it doesn't matter if you won or lost the election, you still have to fight like hell. When President-elect Biden appeared on television in November, Mr. Trump said to a staffer,

quote, Can you believe I lost to this effing guy? And when his own vice president declined to join the conspiracy, Mr. Trump berated him for being, quote, too honest. Trump criticized the report on social media in a post at 1 41 a.m. Eastern time. Let's bring in NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney and former litigator and MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin. Good morning to you both.

A lot to sift through in these overnight hours, Ken. 174 pages released by Jack Smith, by the special counsel's office. Most of the detail at this point had been public knowledge through media reports and other investigations, but to see it in one place and to hear Jack Smith say, we had enough evidence to convict, but we had to step away because Mr. Trump was reelected. Yeah, that's right, Willie. It was powerful. Not really surprising, but what was most interesting to me actually was the introductory letter

which was from Jack Smith and in his own words and in his own voice where he really tried to push back against the false charges that Donald Trump and his supporters have been making from the beginning that this whole thing was politicized, that this prosecution was engineered by Joe Biden and his democratic allies to stop Donald Trump from becoming president. He has a whole long passage on that. And then he concludes, I thought was the most interesting line of the whole report, which is, and to all who know me well, the claim from Mr. Trump that my decisions as prosecutor were influenced or directed by the Biden administration or other political actors is in a word, laughable.

And that's absolutely true for those of us who cover the Justice Department and know anything about Jack Smith and the people around him. This was an investigation pursued by career FBI agents and career prosecutors brought from different parts of the justice department or former officials like Jack Smith. There was no involvement whatsoever by anybody political by Joe Biden or even really by Merrick Garland other than to be briefed on the results.

And what you have here is a powerful narrative really sort of laying out what we already knew, but in more explicit fashion. And you hit some of the really most important points that he hammered, which is that Donald Trump, according to the evidence that they've marshaled, knew that the claims, the false claims that he was making about fraud were in fact false. And that was the basis for charging him with defrauding the American public. And they also go into some great detail here about how they believe that he actually incited the January 6th riot. And while he did say in the ellipse speech, you know, urging people to be peaceful, he used the word fight more than 10 times.

And they say they considered charging him with incitement, but ended up tripping over the free speech issues. It's a really difficult charge to bring. They also considered the charge of insurrection but decided that insurrection is so loosely defined and the statute had been so seldomly brought that they didn't want to go down that road. So look, this was the last effort by Jack Smith to try to explain to the American public why he did what he did.

At the end of the day, the American people spoke. And the world that we thought we lived in when Richard Nixon was driven out of office during Watergate, where Republicans and Democrats came together, that's not the world we're living in anymore. It's very clear. Yeah, Lisa, this hit just before one o'clock in the morning. And again, Jack Smith makes very clear that Donald Trump was saved only by his own reelection, which is to say he goes through over 174 pages, the evidence

that he has, he said, we for sure, we believe have enough evidence to convict him, but we had to let it go. Yeah. And Willie, people like me are going to be spending the next several days or even the next several months looking at the footnotes of this report. You mentioned in your introduction I'm a former litigator and I'm looking through this report through that prism. What do we know from this report that we didn't know before? It's true as Ken said that the bulk of this is really known to the American public, particularly those of us who closely followed this litigation like Ken and

me. On the other hand, are there tidbits here that we hadn't seen before? Absolutely, I want to tell you about one of them. One of the things that the Department of Justice is saying in this report to explain why they made their charging decisions is not only did Trump know that his claims were false after and at the time that he made them, but it was always the plan to declare victory.

And they say that Trump had a plan to declare victory first, irrespective of what the election results showed. How did they know that? They drop a footnote in which there are citations to what appear to be at least five different interviews or grand jury testimonies from people who heard him say that. That's the kind of evidence that's all replete throughout this report and that people like me are going to focus on. He also warned Mike Pence when Pence said, I can't do this

for you. I'm going to have to go after you. I don't remember that from prior recitations of the facts here, but he basically told Pence, I'm going to publicly criticize you. And then what did he do in the next breath? He lied to the public and said that he and Pence were in agreement about the plan going forward to throw out votes when they then got together with John Eastman and Pence said, look, I can't do that. I can't return these electoral votes to the states. Trump said to him, well, I like the other thing better. The other thing being just throw them all out altogether. That's the kind of detail here that while it's not game changing, there are some additional details here that

I think will inform the way that people understood Jack Smith's charging decisions, both in terms of what he did charge and as Ken mentioned, what he didn't in terms of insurrection and some of the other options that were on the table. Ken, I want to ask you about two other investigations. Will we ever see the final report on the classified documents case, the other federal probe into Donald Trump? That's first. And secondly, we did hear from special counsel David Weiss yesterday about the Hunter Biden

probe. Tell us what he had to say, including some criticisms of the current president. Yeah, Jonathan, that was remarkable. First on the classified documents case, Judge Eileen Cannon in Florida appears to be doing her level best to run out the clock so that the Biden administration, the Biden Justice Department, the Maryland Justice Department will not have a chance to release that report. That doesn't necessarily mean we'll never see it because right now we're not seeing it because there are current pending charges against two of Donald Trump's co-defendants. And there is a

federal rule, a local rule in Florida that makes it difficult to release information about a case that's pending. So they're not going to release it. But once those charges go away, which we assume they will during the Trump administration, that report will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. And we can sue, and we probably will, to try to get a copy of that redacted, though it may be. So I think at some point that report may see the light of day.

Congress may try to get it, the classified documents report. In terms of special counsel David Weiss, who prosecuted Hunter Biden, there was even less new information in that report than there was in this report. The most significant thing about it was that Weiss went on at length criticizing President Biden for the justification he cited in pardoning his son. He said it was corrosive to the justice system. He essentially accused Joe Biden of doing what Donald Trump has been doing for years, which is casting doubt on the motives of prosecutors and bringing these charges against his son. He went on at length

about the idea that the charges that he brought were reasonable and were brought in other forums. Even the gun charge had been used many, many times. The tax charges, he said, look, Mr. Biden made millions of dollars, made a conscious decision not to pay the taxes on it. Yes, he was addicted to drugs, but he was engaging in complicated business transactions throughout that period. But he reserved his sharpest words, again, for President Biden for saying, essentially, the president said that this was a miscarriage of justice. That was an attack on fair-minded prosecutors.

It shouldn't have happened. Can we go back to, and then I want to ask Lisa this question as well, about the FBI investigations into Pete Hegseth. Do you have any insight on why the investigation may have stayed away from some of the witnesses that may have had some of the most pertinent testimony regarding questions, regarding the California allegations, and also the fact that one of his ex-wives tried to contact the FBI, but they would not return her calls. Joe, the FBI has been a closed book on this.

We've been trying to get information from that side of the fence and really have been unsuccessful. But I will say that officials have emphasized to us throughout this process that, again, this is not the FBI conducting a criminal investigation where they follow their own procedures. This is the FBI essentially performing a service for a client, which is Donald Trump and the transition. And we saw this with the Brett Kavanaugh investigation, if you recall.

They did a week of background check when Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault in his high school days. And there were many tips that came in on the tip line that we later learned from a Senate investigation were never followed up on by the FBI because they were instructed not to. They didn't interview key witnesses in that case, people who came forward. It looks like the same thing is going on here. Now, the other thing you should keep in mind is nobody has to talk to the FBI. So we don't know in some cases whether the FBI reached out to some of these ex-wives

and other witnesses, and they said, no, thanks, I don't want to talk to you. But at least in one case, we're seeing reporting that one of the ex-wives did want to talk and was not engaged with. And the most likely explanation for that is that the Trump transition team instructed the FBI not to pursue that avenue. But again, we'll have to do more reporting to find out the answer. Obviously, Lisa, that's not the way this is supposed to work. The transition team is not supposed to instruct the FBI to do anything.

The FBI conducts an independent investigation, provides the results in a report, gives it to the Senate Armed Services Committee ahead of a hearing that starts a few hours from now. Can you make any sense of this? Well, that's not how it's supposed to work, Willie, but yet again, we know that's how it works. How do we know that's how it worked? Sheldon Whitehouse wrote a report investigating what happened during the FBI background check

of Brett Kavanaugh. And during that, he noted that while the Trump administration was publicly saying that the FBI had been instructed to conduct a thorough background check, behind the scenes, the Trump Whitehouse was instructing the FBI to do exactly the opposite. Whitehouse has a 30 to 40 page report delineating everything that happened during that period. And I would submit to you that the Senateineating everything that happened during that period. And I would submit to you that the Senate has to get its own house in order. If it's going to exert its advice and consent powers in a meaningful way, they have to figure

out how to do a sufficient, responsible, thorough, and yet informed background check that doesn't subject people who are accusing folks of sexual misconduct, harassment, or even assault of this sort of last minute barrage and fusillade of questions that destroys people's lives. We've already undergone this with Christine Blasey Ford. We have had the experience of Anita Hill. Folks like Samantha Hegseth, if she has something interesting and important to say, or the accuser and the Monterey, California incident with Pete Hegseth, shouldn't be treated similarly. We've had decades to figure this out. The Senate needs to figure it out now.

But in terms of the politics and the theater of this hearing, the Hegseth theory is coming. Both Lisa and Ken mentioned the important name here. Spread Kavanaugh. The Kavanaugh hearings have established a playbook for Republicans. That's what I've been told, how they're going to approach this. That sort of angry defiance, maybe from Hexthutt himself, but certainly from his defenders in the Senate.

We remember Lindsey Graham in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. Expect more of that. This idea you're trying to take down a good man with, there are no allegations here. It's innuendo, it's rumors, where are they? That's the sort of approach we're gonna see from the Trump and others want, Joe. The idea that like, don't give in always fight don't

abandon it and even potentially smear the reputations of the accuser suggest it's all just hearsay look for the Brett Kavanaugh playbook to be it you know in full display for Hegseth and perhaps some of the other hearings in the weeks ahead as well. The difference though Mike Barnacle between the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, memories from high school which a lot of people didn't agree on. Boo and squee.

Yeah, didn't agree on. And maybe a drunken recollection from a friend at Yale that everybody didn't agree on and the specifics of this case, a police report, evidence of financial mismanagement in two veterans organizations, specific details of poor treatment, of abusive treatment of women, according to Pete Hegseth's own mother. And then you add on top of that a series of other very specific, very recent fact patterns that even members of Fox News told NBC news reporters, even in recent times. This is very explicit. It's very specific.

It's very relevant to what's going on in the here and the now. Joe, what we're talking about here is a perfect portrayal of the frustrating failure of the federal government, of the United States Senate, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, of all sorts of investigatory bodies, now circling around candidates for offices that truly affect our national security.

Lisa pointed out that the United States Senate has got to get its act together. They have about three hours to do it before the hearings begin. So we know that's not going to happen. Pete Hagsteth and Jonathan is absolutely correct. It's going to be the Brett Kavanaugh playbook. And this playbook has been in effect an operative for so many candidates for office under both administrations actually, but the combativeness and the fight that the Republican nominees bring to the

table has changed American politics slowly but surely over the past 10 years. And now it's regarded as almost normal that you have someone completely ill-equipped to be Secretary of Defense is on the precipice of becoming Secretary of Defense. Shame on us. Yes. Well, let's wait and see. There are Republicans again that if you look at their past record would have absolutely

no reason to confirm this nominee. And you know, we've spoken of Todd Young who's very serious thinker on foreign policy and national security and has dedicated much of his adult life to that. You have the Dave McCormick the new the new senator from the state of Pennsylvania. By the way he is not up for re-election for six years. But again, he campaigned talking about military culture and being raised in a military culture. So, of course, this is not somebody that Dave McCormick would ever hire for a job without extensive background checks in private sector.

And he, too, served. That's what I'm saying. He served and he would know. But you also, of course, have Joni Ernst. You take the issues that Joni Ernst has fought about, women in combat, also fighting against sexual harassment, sexual abuse. These are two issues that have been central to what Joni Ernst has tried to do to make the armed forces stronger and specifically make the lives of women in the armed services equal and fair to men who are also serving their country. Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell. I must say, I understand the cynicism.

So many people are that way for great reason about Washington, D.C., but of those I named and so many others who actually care about the armed services of the United States of America and America's national security. It would be a dark day if there were not four Republican senators who understood that we need someone, the president needs someone, the commander in chief needs someone running the Pentagon that actually is up to the task of that job.

And when crisis hits across the world, whether it's with China, whether it's with Russia, whether it's in the Middle East, that the president has somebody standing on guard at the Pentagon who is up to that task. There is no doubt, again, character issues aside, Mika, there is no doubt among Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, in the House, across Washington, D.C., that Pete Haggis is not

qualified to hold that position. All character questions pushed aside. Tempament and experience. MSNBC legal correspondent, Lisa Rubin, and NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney. Thank you both very much for coming on this morning. Up next, we're going to dig into Gene Robinson's recent column entitled Time caught up with Biden. It will also prove him right. Morning Joe, we'll be right back.

Welcome back to Morning Joe. It is 10 minutes before the top of the hour. The White House is pushing for a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas that could be finalized within days, according to U.S. officials. Under the proposal, Hamas would release the first hostages 48 hours after the ceasefire begins. One of those U.S. officials warns the hostages to be released first are in, quote, very bad shape. The remaining hostages, which include Americans, would be released later. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has invited families of the hostages for a meeting today in conjunction with the deal. The plan also includes Israel withdrawing from Gaza's populated

areas to the border. The cease-file deal between Israel and Hamas were among the topics President Biden addressed in his speech yesterday at the State Department, in which he touted his foreign policy achievements. Today, I can report to the American people, our adversaries are weaker than where we came into this job four years ago. Just consider Russia. When Putin invaded Ukraine, he thought he'd conquer Kiev in a matter of days. The truth is, since that war began, I'm the only one that stood in the center of Kiev, not him.

Putin never has. Think about it. New challenges will certainly emerge in the months and years ahead. But even so, it's clear. My administration is leaving the next administration with a very strong hand to play. And we're leaving them in America with more friends and stronger alliances whose adversaries are weaker and under pressure. And America that once again is

leading, uniting countries, setting the agenda, bringing others together, and we're and under pressure, an America that once again is leading, uniting countries, setting the agenda, bringing others together behind our plans and visions. Jane, I love the title of your piece, Time Caught Up with Biden. It'll also prove him right. I want you to talk about that.

I want you to talk about foreign policy, but it does bear repeating, whether you want to talk about that. I want you to talk about foreign policy, but it does bear repeating whether you want to talk about the price of eggs or gasoline or some of the things that people say moved voters during this election. And certainly, it certainly had to move some voters. At the same time, historians, you say time is on his side, just like time was on Harry Truman's side when he left with the 22% approval rating. The data is clear. Right now, as we've said on this show repeatedly, the U.S. is at envy, our economy is at envy of the world. Jobless rates are at record lows. The stock market is at record highs. Workers' wages keep going up year over year. The crime rate keeps going down year over year. Violent crime is actually at a 50-year low right now. And even

illegal immigration, which was the issue that so many pundits said, caused Donald Trump to defeat Joe Biden. as we said, even before the election, illegal immigration across the southern border at lower rates now than it was during Donald Trump's last year in office. And that's not to say that he didn't have a disastrous policy the first two years. We're talking about though where he ends up, add to that fact, more bipartisan legislation passed in one of the most partisan times in American history. And then on top of that foreign policy, it's a record that may be getting kicked around right now, but historians, Gene, like you said, with the passage of time, hard not to see how they don't look at his

achievements and say he did a pretty damn good job. Well, historians, Joe, will have to look at the country when Joe Biden took office and the country as he leaves office. And the difference is just dramatic. We forget when he took office, we're still in the middle of COVID and so much of the country was shut down. We had the vaccines thanks to the Trump administration, but we didn't have a way to distribute them. We were two weeks after January 6, an unprecedented violent assault on our democracy, on the central ritual of our democracy.

We were stunned and reeling from that. We were in, the country was in dire shape when Joe Biden took over. And look at the country now, as you said, our economy is the envy of the world. We have, thanks to bipartisan legislation, we have made historic, long overdue investments in our infrastructure, in climate change, in manufacturing of computer chips and other technology that sets us up for the future. We have—we're in so much better shape in terms of our foreign policy. You know, administrations,

going back two or three of them, always talked about, we're gonna make this pivot to Asia because we have to counter the rise of China. We're gonna pivot to Asia. And nobody did it. Joe Biden did it. He formed these new partnerships, these new alliances, the Quad group, the AUKUS group that makes the United States more of a presence and a player

in Asia than it was before, and that sets us up well. It's really quite dramatic when you step back and look at the achievements of Joe Biden. He made some mistakes, and he paid politically for them, but it was quite a record in only one term. I was going to say, he made mistakes. Afghanistan, inflation, the southern border, and not ceding the stage to other Democrats in 2023 so they could have a competitive primary. That will be balanced, though, against his successes. And I think historians, most historians, will find that he had a quite successful presidency. I completely agree. Jean Robinson, thank you very much.