Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/15/25

Episode Date: January 15, 2025

Los Angeles area on alert as high winds fan flames

You know, perhaps the most damning comment about Pete Hegseth came from Pete Hegseth himself when he was explaining what the military needs in its leadership. The DEI policies of today are not putting meritocracy first. Every single senior officer will be reviewed based on meritocracy. Getting anything that doesn't contribute to meritocracy out of how decisions are made inside the Pentagon, ensuring readiness and meritocracy is front and center. Meritocracy, meritocracy, meritocracy.

Oh, I know what his next kid's gonna be named. You heard him though, you heard him folks. A military cannot function unless it's staffed by a system based on pure merit, where only the most qualified people rise to the top. So says your next secretary of defense, who will run the most complicated, powerful, deadly organization the world has ever known, and whose only qualification is that Trump liked watching him sit on a couch on Saturday mornings. That is The Daily Show, reacting to Pete Hegseth's contentious confirmation hearing yesterday.

We're going to go over the important exchanges as Democratic senators grilled Donald Trump's defense secretary pick over his character, views on women in combat, and whether he is fit to actually lead the military. Plus, we're following more confirmations on Capitol Hill as some big-name Republicans face more scrutiny from lawmakers this morning. We're going to tell you who they are. Also ahead, President Biden is capping off a five-decade career in politics as he is set to deliver his farewell address to the nation tonight, just days before Donald Trump is sworn in.

Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Wednesday, January 15th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle, the co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire. He's now a contributing writer at The Atlantic, covering the White House and national politics. So a lot to get to this morning. Those hearings yesterday were quite something. It seems like at a different time,

things might go differently, but this isn't a different time. And when we get to it, the Wall Street Journal editorial page basically said Pete Hegseth got a free pass. Democrats weren't able to make any positive advances forward. And meanwhile, the Republicans just again gave him a free pass. And he got by with just general answers.

They end by saying, Mr. Hegseth made noises about restoring the US military, but it appears we're on track to have a Secretary of Defense whose real views are a mystery. Let's hope he rises to the occasion. We'll see. Yep. But we got to start with our top story, Out West, and the winds just making things worse and they keep coming Willie. Yeah they actually were a little bit better than forecast yesterday but today is shaping up to be a really difficult day. The death toll from those wildfires now has climbed to 25. This comes as crews are dealing with strong Santa Ana

winds that have ignited new fires many of which are under control. The winds expected to last until tomorrow. As of now, the largest of the wildfires, the Palisades fires, 18% contained. The Eaton fire is at 35% containment. In all, the fires have swept through 40,000 acres, nearly the size now as Washington, D.C. Joining us live from Altadena, California is NBC's Steve Patterson. Steve, good morning. What's the latest there? Willa, good morning to you.

The devastation here is just endless. These are some of the same images that you've been seeing, of course, all week long. It's now been more than a week since these fires started, and now firefighters are worried about what the National Weather Service has warned us about, which is this particularly dangerous situation. about what the National We us about, which is this p situation. That is the de are now saying we are und the last 48 hours or so.

spot fires, several brush you mentioned a little bi expected so far. The winz to pick up again in just maybe within the last few but they could be the wor seen so far. The winds ex again, the humidity very

fire weather, especially who are doing their best that have already started the Eaton fire, the Palis with containment left to those fires completely do still going. The Eaton fi both still with containme they get those fires comp not safe for most residen So residents still heartb

to see the results of the to see what their home lo to start the process of a that comes with it. It's thousands and thousands o by this fire. But the fires are not out yet.

Thirty five percent containment where I'm standing at the Eaton fire. Eighteen percent containment at the Palisades fire. But with these wind events again expected to raise the danger over the next few hours, firefighters are doing all they can to make sure hot spots are suppressed and looking out across the region because it covers because a large swath of Southern possibility that a new fi embers from an old fire m that the front of these f

to somewhere else as they down on these fires. Mean process, of course, start a lot of homeowners, a lo to contact FEMA and get t the emergency. The emergency funds that are available for homeowners need to be available and readily sell. But meanwhile, the investigation has started as well. The ATF leading the Palisades investigation. There have been multiple lawsuits here at the Eaton Fire, at the energy company, SoCal Energy. But meanwhile, firefighters doing the best they can to first get this major operation,

which is the firefight itself, under control. When that happens, then we can move on and start talking about everything else, guys. Yeah, the firefighters doing heroic around-the-clock work. There is a new report just this morning from the LA Times, though, about a lack of preparation when we saw these winds kicking up and the fires beginning, that some engines could have been put in place in palisades, Pacific palisades that were not. So there will be big questions but for now we hope they can get those fires under control. Steve Patterson and Alta Dena, Steve thanks so much. Let's go over to meteorologist Angie Lassman for a look at those winds today. Angie what are you

seeing? Hi there Willie. We're seeing just what Steve said, basically a fluctuation. So we've got these four main fires that we're seeing just what Steve said basically a fluctuation so we've got these 4 main fires that we're watching we are still dealing with that red flag warning as Steve said 10 million people right now though under that risk it stretches from San Luis Obispo all the way down to the border winds have as expected ramped up over the past 24 hours so 45 to 65 mile per hour gusts is what we're expecting for the peak of today

but notice the areas that we're looking at that par situation wording that ex because we do have those conditions in these place mountains, Simi Valley, S are some of the spots stre where we're still see that like kind of large explos

at a rapid pace. right now, 10 15 20 MPH f part. We've got a couple up in the higher elevati about 50 plus MPH. That's especially as we get pas time. Notice as we head i hours, those peak gusts c

humidity levels around 15 uptick. We're going to se the later morning hours, closer to 65 MPH humidity 30%. So a slight uptick. uptick here in the humidi forward through the week. of fluctuate between 10 15 levels. So we don't have from that. But later in t into the evening hours, w

relief when it comes to t 40 MP hour gusts for the later parts of the afternoon. Overnight tonight, notice those peak wind gusts, they get down to 35 miles per hour. Willie, the good news is also closer to the coast. We'll see those 10, 15 miles per hour. So there will be some improvements,

but we gotta get through the morning first. All right, Angie, we'll be watching closely along with you. Angie Lastman, thanks so much, we appreciate it. Guys? All right. The confirmation process for President-elect Donald Trump's cabinet picks kicked off yesterday with the Senate Armed Services Committee holding a hearing for one of the most controversial choices, Defense Secretary-Pick Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth, a combat veteran and former Fox News host with little experience in leadership, pitched himself as the much-nitted change at the Pentagon and brushed off the numerous controversies surrounding him. Now, it is true and has been acknowledged that I don't have a similar biography to defense secretaries of the last 30 years. But as President Trump also told me, we've repeatedly placed people atop the Pentagon with supposedly the right credentials, whether they are retired generals, academics,

or defense contractor executives. And where has it gotten us? He believes, and I humbly agree, that it's time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm. A change agent, someone with no on his boots the helm. A change agent. Someone with no vested interest in certain companies or specific programs or approved narratives. My only special interest is the war fighter.

You know, there's so much that was said yesterday. It would literally take us four hours just to get through the misinformation that was put out there. But there's just some things that we just have to stop before we even go any further and talk through the fact that when somebody asks the question, where has it gotten us? Anybody that knows anything about the United States military, anybody that knows anything about today's United States military and our armed forces and the men and women that serve proudly,

will tell you America's military is more powerful relative to the rest of the world than any time, certainly in the last 25 years and perhaps since the post-war world. The fearsome ability of the United States military to extend power across the globe unparalleled. And where has it gotten us with a NATO that is stronger and more powerful than ever before? We have helped Ukraine wreck the second most powerful military in the world without losing a single American sailor or soldier or marine or airman. And in Asia, China, more hemmed in today than ever before because what we've done in Guam, what we've done in the Philippines, what we've done with Japan, Japan and South Korea becoming allies, what we've been doing with Australia

helping them build a nuclear navy. I could go on and on, but this idea, this idea, Republicans, that we need somebody with dust on their boots in this position, and the suggestion that we haven't had people with dust on their boots in this position, is either willfully lying or willfully lying, are willfully ignorant, we have had actually some of the most decorated, heroic, brave, battle-tested men that have been holding the top positions over the past four to eight years in the military, and yes, women as well that have been there. So the idea that this is some feel-good exercise ignores the fact that whether from Mad Dog Mattis to General Milley,

you have people that have been fighting in Iraq, in Afghanistan, were're at the worst times in Fallujah. And it's just an insult, just an absolute. And again, there's so much to talk about here. But we've just got to go full stop because I'm sick and tired of people tearing down the men and women in uniform that are protecting us. And I'm sick and tired. People want to lie about the economy,

they can lie about the economy. I don't take that as personally. I mean, because that's their own problem, because they're going to be judged by how they do compared to the United States economy right now, which is the envy of the world. We have record low jobless rates, the stock markets at record highs. I mean, they'll have to deal with that. But this insult that somehow our military is weak and woke is just an outrageous lie, and it's an insult to our men and women uniform. I want to bring in right now General Barry McCaffrey,

you talk about American heroes. He's got, he's had a little dust on his boots through the years, and and sir we thank you. We thank you for your service to this country. Thank you also for getting up very early this morning on the West Coast. I'm just I want you to give me your general general feelings about you saw yesterday. But first, first, let's blow apart this lie that our military is weak and woke and not the strongest in the world by far. First, could we do that, sir? Boy, that was such a terrific opening statement on your part.

You know, this magnificent armed forces, active guard reserve, 2.1 million men and women in uniform, by the way, a thousand some odd killed and wounded among women fighting in the war on terror, 60,000 some odd casualties in total, enormously complex, globally deployed. The U.S. Navy is fighting actively day in and day out, trying to keep sea lanes open in the Middle East. It is astonishing the courage, the devotion to duty that we see among the active duty. And by the way, everybody goes back to Afghanistan, the disgrace of the withdrawal. Mr. Trump ran for presidency and said he was going to get us out of Afghanistan.

He handed Biden, who ran for office to get out of Afghanistan, a situation with 2500 troops on the ground. We pulled out over 100,000 screaming civilians in a miracle operation that could have been the French defeat defeated Dien Bien Phu because we put seven elite battalions on the ground and intimidated the Taliban, who had been 7,000 of them had been released by Mr. Trump. So there's a lot of nonsense floating around. But look, the hearing yesterday, divisive, partisan, in some ways, an unqualified candidate, he did remarkably well. He's articulate, he's smart, he's a decorated combat veteran,

he's a Princeton grad, he's quick on his feet, He's going to get confirmed. Senator Jack Reed, my friend, said it all in his opening statement, behavioral problems, alcohol abuse, lack of experience, his statements on the role of women in the armed forces. So we're in a period, though, where we got to remind ourselves the real problem is Mr. Trump suggesting we might invade Greenland. We might seize the Panama Canal. We might use military power against drug cartels in Mexico.

We might coerce Canada into being the fifth worst state. This is comical stuff. That's going to be the challenge, less so Mr. Hegseth. Well, here are some of the key lines of questioning from, of Hegseth from Democrats in yesterday's hearing. Take a listen. I do not believe that you are qualified to meet the overwhelming demands of this job.

We must acknowledge the concerning public reports against you. A variety of sources, including your own writings, implicate you with disregarding the laws of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other troubling issues. I have reviewed many of these allegations and find them extremely alarming. Indeed the totality of your own writings and alleged conduct would disqualify any service member from holding any

leadership position in the military much less being confirmed as the Secretary of Defense. An event in North Carolina drunk in front of three young female staff members after you had instituted a no alcohol policy and then reversed it. True or false? Anonymous smears. December of 2014 at the CBA Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt at Washington, DC, you were noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to your room. Is that true or false?

Anonymous smears. Another time a CVA staffer stated that you passed out in the back of a party bus. Is that true or false? Anonymous smears. I'm gonna leave with concerns about your transparency. You say you've had personal issues in your past, yet when asked about those very issues, you blame an anonymous smear campaign, even when many of these claims are not anonymous. Which is it? Have you overcome personal issues, or are you the target of a smear campaign? It can't be both.

Senator, I sit here before you in open book as everyone who's watched this process. With multiple nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements tying the hands of many people who would like to comment to us. Many of your work colleagues have said that you show up for work under the influence of alcohol or drunk. I know you've denied that, but you would agree with me, right, that if that was the case, that would be disqualifying for somebody to be Secretary of Defense. Senator those are all anonymous false claims and the totality they're not they're not

anonymous. The letters on the record here. They're not anonymous. On the record. We've seen records with names attached to them. One half, one of your colleagues said that you got drunk at an event at a bar and chanted kill all Muslims. Another colleague not anonymous we have this, said that you took coworkers to a strip club. You were drunk, you tried to dance with strippers, you had to be held off the stage, and one of your employees in that event

filed a sexual harassment charge as a result of it. Now I know you deny these things, but isn't that the kind of behavior that if true, would be disqualifying for somebody to be Secretary of Defense? Senator, anonymous false charges. They're not anonymous and and I'll just conclude and say this to the chairman. You claimed that this was all anonymous. We have seen records with names attached to all of these including the name of your own mother. So don't make this into some anonymous press thing.

We have seen multiple names of colleagues consistently throughout your career that have talked about your abusive actions. Senator Tim Kaine pressing there on Pete Hegseth. Despite everything we heard over those several hours yesterday, following that hearing, Hegseth did pick up the

support of Republican Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, significant for a number of reasons because she's a combat veteran, distinguished career in the military, also a survivor of sexual assault who is seen as one of the most likely Republicans who could potentially vote against him. So Jonathan Lemire, Joni Ernst certainly gives cover to other Republicans, a military veteran, a survivor of sexual assault. Two of the big concerns put forward about Pete Hegseth. If she says, I'm yes, doesn't that give license to all the other Republicans? It certainly seems that way. Ernst signaling that she will vote yes is a huge win for the Trump team in their effort to get Hegseth confirmed. Just backing up a step, you just ran through her resume why right from the beginning she

was seen as a key swing vote here on Hegseth. And after Hegseth's pick was announced by the president-elect, Joni Ernst, Senator Ernst was deeply skeptical. She made it clear in her public remarks and leaking through aides that she did not think that Hegseth would be qualified. She should put up a lot of resistance at the start and then a pressure campaign begun. A pressure campaign by the Trump team by some outside groups seemed to have been effective and rattled her. We saw it you know after she met with Hegseth

before the holidays she came out more receptive, still not committing, but more receptive. But I was told at the time and we heard again over over the holidays that they believed they had moved her and it seems like yesterday they did. She gave an interview after the hearing where she said she would support him. And now there were still a few votes here we're not sure about. So Senator Collins expressed some skepticism still yesterday but Collins, Murkowski, even McConnell that's not enough. That's only three.

You need at least four. Now that doesn't mean there won't be someone else who steps forward, but Ernst was seen as the most likely candidate for that. And if Joe Meek, if she's the one who says, you know what, I'm going to do this, despite a pretty halting hearing yesterday from Hegsath, who missed some very basic answers, you know, and was wrong, as Joe pointed out earlier, that, of course, other defense secretaries have served in combat. But if Senator Ernst is going to to if the pressure campaign got to her if her fear of the

MAGA base and Donald Trump coming to office got to her it's a pretty good signal that most Republicans will fall in line and those I talked to last night now feel very bullish about Hague's success. It's not done but they feel good. Well I say not done. I would say not done also because you know, Joni Ernst came out and she spoke her mind and was very concerned obviously about women in combat, something that she has fought for in her public life, also very concerned about sexual harassment and sexual abuse inside the military. And she made no secret of the fact that she was concerned about Pete

Hegseth. And then she had a couple of hours of people saying nasty things about her on X and ask somebody reportedly, how do I make this stop? People who get voting cards these days is crazy. It really is. But but that doesn't mean it's over. I mean, we will see what happens with Lisa Murkowski, somebody who does not let an hour and a half of tough times on social media move her.

We'll see what happens with Susan Collins. We'll see what happens with Mitch McConnell. We will see what happens to Dave McCormick. There's no reason to think that Dave McCormick would vote against Pete Hegseth. That said, he's not up for six more years. He went to West Point. If there's anybody who understands how woefully ill-qualified Pete Hegseth is, even if you put all of these documented, again, again,

not anonymous, documented character questions about the nominee that the Republicans are blocking from seeing the light of day, even if you put that aside, people like Dave McCormick, people like Senator Young from Indiana, who's a very serious thinker on defense policy, and also the new Senator from Utah, who has expressed concerns about Hegseth and also Tulsi Gabbard. I'm not saying it's over. I understand the committee went in lockstep, and there's no reason to think that Republicans will act differently moving forward. But there still are three, four, five that we have questions about. Well, you have me thinking about Dave McCormick, but really all the Republicans general who

are on this. It seems to me that what we saw yesterday was not a lot of accountability, not a lot of taking responsibility. A lot of information was held back for the public not to see, whether it be through NDAs or decisions not to share. But I'm just wondering, General, if the Republicans on the committee care about this pick, and they're not thinking about Donald Trump's influence over them or what people are saying on next, but really, is this person qualified to be secretary of defense?

What should they be looking at in terms of what we saw yesterday? Well, look, the reality of it is, in my view, that he did a magnificent job in terms of being evasive, smart, responsive, only the Republicans. We went into this committee hearing having refused to see any Democratic senators, which is, I think, the first time in probably 50 years that's happened. So this was a partisan attempt to get him through the ordeal of four hours and 15 minutes of a hearing. And to some extent, you know, Senator Jack Reed, Senator Kelly laid it all out.

They're an enduring concern about alcohol abuse. It's very difficult to walk away from alcohol abuse without therapy, without help. So that's on the table. But the fact he didn't know the countries of ASEAN, come on, give me a break. There aren't a hundred people outside the foreign policy process that know that Brunei is

a member of ASEAN. So I think he's through the wickets. We got to hope that he is able to surround himself with people that understand audits and defense acquisition and management of large organizations. Because I think he's going to be a secretary of defense. To some extent, it's going to be a popular nomination. He is a decorated combat veteran. He acquitted himself well as a soldier. He's obviously extremely capable as a communicator. So that's the situation rolling in. And by the way, there's some other picks, Tulsi Gabbard, Mr. Kennedy, the FBI director nomination

that are truly frightening. So I think this issue is probably behind us. Well, let's just say thank you so much Retired four-star Army General Barry McCaffrey and let's take note as we say goodbye to you That you have a hell of a lot of dust on your boots and far more Accumulated through the years serving this great country. Thank you then then most that we saw yesterday. We thank you and again, thank you for your service. Good to be with you, John.

Mike, sometimes the stupidity is just too much to take from these hearings, from political campaigns. We had a political campaign decided in part by a thirty-second ad about a procedure that maybe, I don't know, maybe he's done once. I'm not sure. The prisoners. We have a hearing yesterday that talks about everything but what needs to be talked about. And the Wall Street Journal editorial page, once again, skeptical of Pete Hegseth, just so anybody out there watching

doesn't believe this is some left-wing attack. There are a lot of us that want a tough military and a strong military, and want people in there that actually have dust on their boots, understand what it's like to serve in uniform, and also have the experience and the qualifications to ably run probably the toughest bureaucracy in America to run. This is what the Wall Street Journal editorial page said. Hegseth gets a Senate pass.

Americans didn't learn much about Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth at his Senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday. But they did learn more about the world's greatest non-deliberative body. And they talk about the failures that the Democrats and the Republicans make. This is what they say about the Republicans. Senator Mullen from Oklahoma noted that senators

sometimes show up drunk at votes at night and cheat on their wives. But as the Wall Street Journal editorial page says, they aren't in the chain of command of U.S. military forces. Senator Sheehy from Montana, after opening his remarks, asking how many genders there are, finally asked about Navy shipbuilding. Hegseth's answer, Donald Trump wants to build ships, no details. Senator Biden asked about what the U.S. should do about its shortage of fighter aircrafts.

Mr. Hegseth said he was gonna look under the hood. He gave the same vague answer to Senator Deb Fischer when she inquired whether the nominee supports a nuclear-armed sea-launched cruise missile system to counter Russian-Chinese nuclear capability. Said he was gonna look under the hood. Mr. Hegseth, the Wall Street Journal editorial page concludes, made noises about restoring U.S. military deterrence, and that's something.

But it appears we're on track to have a Secretary of Defense whose real views are a mystery. Let us hope, as General McCaffreyrey says that he rises to the occasion. Mike, life's rich pageant as R.E.M. said or perhaps in this case, if you look at how the questions Questions conducted yesterday. It sure made a mockery of this supposedly most deliberative body. Well, Joe, I would submit that yesterday's hearing was one of the most depressing aspects of politics in Washington that I have witnessed in a long, long time. Sitting there watching Pete Hegseth take questions from both sides, all I could think of was

that most of the panel, both Republicans and Democrats apparently, have never seen the full FBI report. Only the chairs, the majority chair and the minority chair, saw the whole report and shared anecdotally, I guess, information from that report with others. I'm also thinking that the principal client of the FBI was the Trump Transition Committee, which is shocking because the principal client of the FBI ought to be

and is the American taxpayers, you and me, all of us here, but no, not in this case. So this was further proof, at least to me, and I'm probably pretty much alone in this, that the process is broken, the committee process is broken. It's not working. You have Pete Hagstaff. You know, he will be probably the next Secretary of Defense. He wasn't asked about shipping lanes in the South China Sea and the dangers that lurk there.

He wasn't asked about AI and its impact on weapons systems. He wasn't asked that for a reason. They probably knew, the Republicans as well as the Democrats, that he wouldn't know what he was talking about. And he didn't. But he was talking about his lust for better warfighters and greater lethality. We do pretty good in both departments. Warfighting and lethal warfighting.

We've done pretty good at that for quite some time. We have the greatest, strongest, most powerful, most feared armed forces in the history of the world. The history of the world. History of the world. Not a close second, Mike. Not a close second. Go ahead. It was just depressing to watch. That's what the system has come to. Totally depressing. Yeah. You kept you kept talking. You kept talking about a warrior like the warrior ethos.

Warrior ethos. Joe, ask the 500 Russians, Mike, that bum rushed US troops in Syria a few years back about that warrior ethos. Wait a second. You can't. We kill them in about 15 seconds. You don't screw with the United States armed forces. We are lethal. We are across the world.

We are everywhere. We need to be. And the fact that Yockels like Tommy Tuberville somehow suggests that we are weak because somebody reads a poem over the loudspeaker on a battleship. Like the idiocy coming from some of these people who for some reason think there is political gain in tearing down the United States armed forces. It's just insanity. I'm proud of the armed forces, and I know, as do our enemies across the world, that our

military is stronger today relative to the rest of the world than ever before. What about the history of the position, Secretary of Defense? George C. Marshall was Secretary of Defense. The Marshall Plan, the general who ushered us through World War II. Yeah. He and Dwight Eisenhower. What about Chuck Hagel, an enlisted man from Nebraska? He has dust on his boots. He was Secretary of Defense. A lot of people had dust on their boots, Mike. And that was one of the things. It's one of the false choices that I found insulting because of the men and women who have sacrificed everything and risked their lives for this country, defending this country in warfare that have served in that position.

The suggestion that this has not happened before and that there's not a warrior class right now, whatever. I will say, Mike talked about the chairman and the ranking member. They did a very good job in trying to stop all the nonsense and the interruptions that were going through there. And you can tell Roger Wicker and Jack Reed work together very well.

I just, I hope Republicans really look at this candidate without thinking about anything else. Just look at this candidate and look at his qualifications and make a decision based on that. Coming up, President Biden is set to deliver his farewell address tonight. We'll take a look at his four years in office and the legacy he is leaving behind. Plus, we're learning more about who will be attending Donald Trump's inauguration next

week and the one prominent figure who will not be there. We'll tell you who it is. You're watching Morning Joe. We're back in 90 seconds. It's a beautiful live picture of Washington at 6 38 in the morning where Senate confirmation hearings will continue today with six more of Donald Trump's cabinet picks set to face lawmakers. Homeland Security Secretary nominee Kristi Noem was supposed to be among them but the hearing for the South Dakota governor was pushed back to Friday morning

because of a delay on her FBI background check. So today's high-profile hearings include one for Senator Marco Rubio who of course is the President-elect's pick for Secretary of state. He is expected to have a relatively smooth path to confirmation with bipartisan support. John Ratcliffe, though, Trump's selection for CIA director, and Pam Bondi, the nominee for attorney general, are likely to face much more scrutiny for Democrats. This is bringing the host of Way Too Early, Ali Vitale. Ali, good morning.

So what will you be watching today? Certainly the Pam Bondi hearing, Willie, is going to be instructive. A lot of questions for her around the idea of if people who have spoken out against the former president, now president-elect, will be facing any kind of retribution. We've had a lot of conversations about if members of the January 6th select committee, someone like Senator Adam Schiff, should have preemptive pardons. That's something the Biden administration has actively had to grapple with on their way out the door, in large part because of the ways that the president-elect has threatened

and targeted some of those people. So that's going to likely be a key line of questioning from Bondi. But I actually think yesterday's Hegseth hearing was instructive for all of these confirmation battles going forward That's not to say that I think every single one of Trump's picks is going to absolutely get through I think there's really valid questions to be asked about Tulsi Gabbard and about RFK jr I think those people have whip count problems in terms of getting enough Republicans on board Let alone Democrats who are skeptical and in many cases rightly so but I think the heads of hearing

yesterday showed us exactly how tribal this Senate and this Washington is going to be one of the key things was that Trump had way less naysayers in this group of congressional Republicans in both the House and the Senate and now we're watching where the rubber meets the road on that. The fact that even his most controversial picks with really valid questions to be asked about them are on a likely glide path really shows how the litmus test of the confirmations writ large is playing out even before any votes are cast. And so I think that's one of the key things that you can take away from yesterday

and then also apply to today, on Friday, and then of course into next week as these hearings start to roll on. So Ali, let's follow up a little bit more on what we saw yesterday in the hearing for Secretary of Defense nominee, Hegseth. We talked about Joni Ernst, who for a long time was viewed as a,

many perceived as a likely no vote. And she says, yes yes she's in. Is your sense of it that will now indeed give cover to other Republicans who maybe were waffling on Heg Seth. What's your sense of the whip count. How good are they feeling after

the hearing. Yeah look I think the mood shift on Capitol Hill from when we left at the end of last year when it felt like the Heg Seth nomination was in shambles and all they needed to do was get him to drop out and mop the dust up off the floor.

That mood has significantly changed even before Hegseth's hearing yesterday. But then watching the way that Joni Ernst immediately, the first thing she said when her line of questioning began in the hearing was entering into the record a letter from a fellow Iowan, which is always a tell for the Iowa senators, of how they were praising Pete Hegseth and his work atop one of the veterans' organizations that he was questioned about for his alleged mismanagement. That really set the tone. And so, yes, Joni Ernst likely means that he's getting out of committee with a favorable recommendation.

I think there's still valid questions to ask about what happens when it gets to the floor. You're right, Lemire, to point about what happens when it gets to the floor. You're right Lemire to point out that you need to count to four and at this point we can only count to four people who are openly skeptical That's Collins Murkowski McConnell and then the income the new senator from Utah John Curtis That's still four that I think you could go either way and I think I think there's valid questions that they can ask. I don't know that that hearing is changing any minds, but I do know that the vibe among Republicans, among Trump world, is that Hegseth is in really good shape

to be confirmed. And frankly, Democrats saw that too. Yep, the host of way too early, Ali Vitale. Thank you very much for coming on this morning. Coming up, Ukraine launches its largest attack yet against Russia. We'll have those details next on Morning Joe. It's past the hour. Time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. Ukraine has launched its largest attack yet against

Russia. According to officials in Kiev, Ukraine used drones and long-range missiles provided by the U.S. government to strike several targets deep across the border, including ammunition depots, chemical plants, and a storage base for oil. We'll follow that. Brazil is banning students from using cell phones in schools. The new rule was signed into law on Monday. The country's education ministry says the law is aimed at safeguarding the mental, physical and psychological health of children and

adolescents. And flags at the US.S. Capitol will fly at full staff during Donald Trump's inauguration next week. House Speaker Mike Johnson issued that order. After the president-elect complained about the flags being lowered, Johnson's decision overrides a White House proclamation to honor the life of the late president, Jimmy Carter, who died last month. The flags will be lowered again to have staff the day after Trump is sworn in.

And we're also learning who will and who will not be attending Trump's inauguration on Monday, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will both be there, along with former President George W. Bush, former First Lady Laura along with former President George W. Bush, former First Lady Laura Bush, and former President Barack Obama. Tech leaders Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos are expected to attend and will be seated on the inaugural platform positioned near cabinet officials and elected leaders. But notably missing from the list is former First Lady Michelle

Obama. So far, no reason was given for her absence. She did not attend last week's funeral service for former President Jimmy Carter as well. Meanwhile, President Biden will deliver a farewell address to the nation tonight from the Oval Office scheduled for 8 p.m. Eastern. According to sources, Biden is expected to reflect on his decades of service to the country and will include a message to Americans about the country's future. As President Biden prepares to bid farewell to the White House, a new opinion piece

in the Financial Times is describing his final curtain call as, quote, tragic. U.S. National Editor for the Times, Ed Luce contends the 46th president will be, quote, remembered chiefly for easing Trump's return. And Ed joins us now with more on this. Thank you so much. Some light reading from you this morning in the Financial Times. You say that Joe Biden

defeated Donald Trump, stood up to Russia, enacted more reforms and Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and bequeaths a robust economy. That made Biden a hero to America's left and beyond. Yet most of his achievements will

now be erased. His legacy is Trump's return after Biden, the deluge. He largely has himself to blame. The Greek tragic hero's defect is hubris, but is the flawed hero's nobility that gives Biden a Greek ending. Virtue and hubris, hubris were both present in his personal tragedies. Explain it. So, yeah, well, the Greek tragedy is, of course, the hero is a brings his own downfall, is a flawed hero. And Biden was undoubtedly a very good president until he wasn't.

And where I think he wasn't was in failing to step down. We had a number of journalists, but not enough. David Ignatius most prominently saying, blowing the whistle on Biden's wailing powers along the fact that public opinion was indicating two years before the 2024 election that it was skeptical of whether he could serve another term. David Ignatius blew the whistle on that. Ezra Klein did. They were very much sort of censored

and ostracized for saying what everybody in this town knew, which was that Biden was being shielded from unscripted encounters with the public, with the media, and was having a shorter and shorter day as president. In other words, that he wasn't fit to run again in 2024. And that didn't come through till the debate last June. It really left it too late for an open primary. It made it very difficult for Kamala Harris to launch a credible, a winning campaign against Donald Trump.

And I think that therefore history being brutal is going to remember Biden not just as a bridge away from Trump in 2020, but as a bridge back to Trump in 2024. That's the tragedy of this. He was and has been a very good president. But history will remember him chiefly for being the bridge back to Trump. And I take absolutely no pleasure in saying that. Let me press you on a few things here, Ed. You said that David Ignatius said something that everybody in Washington knew. I must say there are many of us who know Joe Biden fairly well.

I'm sitting next to one of them. I'm sure Mike Barnicle will have a question for you as well. Mike Barnicle, his chief complaints early on, quietly to me and others, was that they were not letting Joe Biden out enough. Mike talks to President Biden and has regularly throughout the year. I spent, as I've said before, two and a half, three hours with Joe Biden in the White House, all over the White House, talking at length, at length and in depth about foreign policy matters. And he was as sharp as anybody else I've spoken to

and spoke actually like a man who's been doing this since he was 29 years old and new world leaders. Was he slower physically? Yes. Did he occasionally jumble a few words or a few names? Yes, but he corrected those as well. So after two, two and a half, three hours of it with him in the White House, going all over the White House,

I did not see that. I spoke with French leaders after they had some pretty tough negotiations with him a couple of years ago. They left that meeting surprised how sharp he was and how they had listened to press reports saying that he had lost one, two, three, four steps. They were surprised by the fact that actually he was pressing Macron on every single issue. I've spoken to leaders in the Middle East. I mean, I could go on and on about this. I heard also at the same time that he would be at fundraisers at night and he would be wandering in his statements, even reading from a teleprompter.

I don't know that it's quite so easy that everybody in Washington, D.C. thought the man was ill-equipped to be president of the United States. I know that's what they say on social media, but that certainly wasn't my experience. I would guess Mike Barnicle will tell you the same thing as well as as well as Mika. Maybe. But I mean, foreign leaders and foreign governments told me very different things to what you've just said. I think that people who are getting older and have waning energy and vitality can go in and out. They can have strong moments, they can have weak moments. I think that the key thing here was that the debate last June occurred several days after Biden had been traveling and wasn't considered to be shocking by a lot of the people I know, you know, in various circles around the White House, that

that was the performance that reflected Biden's mental powers at the time. So I think the American public had it right. I'm sorry. You wait, wait, I've got to interrupt you again. And again, Ed, you and I are very good friends. I've got to stop you right there. I've had in-depth conversations with people in the White House before, during, and after who are still trying to figure out

what happened that night. I just, just over the past, you know, I think I said on the air, Jeff Zients said that he still will go out and his friends will be saying, why didn't you tell us? You think we knew that was going to happen? There's still people that are trying to figure out, and I said this to Susan page a couple weeks ago What exactly happened that night because anybody that's telling you that that is a reflection of how Joe Biden was operating inside of the White House regularly

That's something radically different than people that worked closest with him and people that I know that it were around him For large parts of the day were saying. Ed. Yeah, Joe, I'm not actually making stuff up here. I talk to people who know Biden as well. And I can assure you, I have many conversations over the previous couple of years about his declining energy, his declining memory, his increasingly short daily schedule to accommodate his declining memory and energy. So, you know, I'm not putting this out of thin air.

We, as I mentioned... No, we're not saying that. Actually, Ed, let me interrupt again. We're going to keep you here and continue this conversation after a quick break, because I think one of the answers is that two things can be true at the same time. But let's take a quick break, and we'll be back at the top of the hour. Live look at the same time. But let's take a quick break and we'll be back at the top of the hour. Live look at the White House. It is just about the top of the hour.

We have a lot of news to get to, but we continue our conversation with Ed Luce at the Financial Times. Go ahead. Right. Exactly. And Ed, as Mekin said, two things can be true at once. I'm never in a million years would suggest you're making anything up. I'm saying in retrospect, things certainly look clearer on the other side of it for people that are talking to you. I guess the question is, why didn't they talk six months ago? Why didn't they

talk a year ago? If that's what they saw, why didn't they say it? Because if I had seen it, I would have said it. You're right, though. A couple of notables. David Ignatius did come out very early and say that Joe Biden should step down. He was one of the few. The Wall Street Journal had a story over the summer suggesting that Joe Biden was not strong mentally. Of course, the weakness of that article is they quoted Kevin McCarthy citing a meeting where he had walked out and told reporters that Joe Biden was the Albert Einstein of our time,

basically, and he was looking forward to talking to Biden every day. Biden was running the show, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So again, it certainly, I guess my question is, if that is the case, why weren't people saying things earlier? Well, I mean, as we've, I reread David's piece actually the other day. He made it very plain, I think set out the right argument September 23.

And I don't think David was sort of uniquely accessed at that point. Certainly the conversations I have with people in our profession, but also people working in and around the White House, there were very similar conclusions being drawn. And that was, you know, 15 months before the election. There was time then for Biden to seed the field and have a full open primary for the Democratic Party. I think in terms of your conversation last week with Susan Page, where the interview that President Biden, the exit interview he gave to USA Today, he said he thought he could

have won anyway. I think that's highly contestable. I think you see the difference between the numbers that Kamala Harris got. She came within a point and a half of Trump's number. And the numbers that the polls were very consistently showing Biden at, which was far lower than that. I think that that's an understandable sense of pride in the fact that he defeated Trump in 2020 and that he was, as I wish to emphasize, a very good president, that he thought he

could beat Trump in November. But I do think that's completely wrong. I think there is no basis for him to believe that. And of course— Because the polls have always been so great. Well, I was saying that he saw what happened in the midterms and he thought he still had a shot. I'm sure that's what was happening. But I will say, Mike, even before the debate, we were commenting that Joe Biden was losing

ground in Minnesota, in New Hampshire, in Virginia. The polls were going in a terrible direction for him even before that disaster of a debate. So the idea that he could have won, I know Mika believes he still could have won. The numbers certainly at the time did not suggest that. No. And you know, you can't, I don't think you can talk President Biden out of his belief that he could have won. I mean, but that's the way he is.

That's the business he's in. And, Ed, I don't think anyone would quibble with what you wrote today in your assessment of the Biden presidency. But that's today. It's a snapshot. It's not history. Don't you think that history's view of Joe Biden is going to be a little bit different than your view of Joe Biden in today's piece that you've written, in the sense that it's

going to take into account Joe Biden's role in keeping NATO together, in keeping Ukraine alive, in the day-to-day tug-of-war match that he's had with Bibi Netanyahu for a year and a half, and most importantly, the economic underpinnings of legislation that he passed on a bipartisan basis in the first 18 months of his presidency that are gonna transform many middle-class cities and towns in this country

over a longer period of time. Not today, not yet, but within two or three years, AI and all of the chip manufacturing that's going to happen in this country is going to transform and help a lot of American families. That's a very good question, Mike. And I hope that you're right. A lot, of course, depends on how much of this Trump tries to reverse and repeal and abolish in Congress. I think if you look at the Inflation Reduction Act, there's tons of investment there that has gone to red districts. The investment that Republicans in those districts voted against at the time, but claim credit for now,

and would be, I think, loath to see abolished because they've created jobs in their districts. I think the CHIPS Act, you know, which is trying to reassure semiconductor investment to America, might survive. And I think the infrastructure bill, although most of it hasn't really been implemented, might survive too.

But on Ukraine, I'm a little bit less sanguine. I think Biden did an excellent job of supporting Zelensky, expanding NATO, restoring morale to the Western alliance. But if you ask anybody in Europe now, or indeed in Washington, DC, they think that era is over, that the advantage is shifting to Putin. And therefore, those gains under Biden look like they might be very, very fragile right now, if not headed for the ash heap. So a lot depends in answer to your question, Mike, on how much of it Trump reverses and

indeed whether Trump himself is succeeded by a Trumpian in 2028 or whether the Democratic Party can rebound and become competitive again. Yeah, we've got to, Democrats need to figure that out in a big way. U.S. National Editor for the Financial Times, Ed Luce, thank you. Thank you, Ed. We love you. Much. Thanks, Ed.

Thank you.