Morning Joe - Morning Joe 1/16/25

Episode Date: January 16, 2025

President Biden gives final address from the Oval Office

Thank you. What's the credit for this, Mr. President, you or Trump? Is that a joke? Oh, thank you. President Biden yesterday when asked whether he or Donald Trump should take the credit for the Israel Hamas ceasefire deal. That reaction is despite new reporting this morning that there was extraordinary cooperation between the outgoing and incoming administrations.

And could the deal be in trouble even before it's implemented? NBC's Richard Engel is standing by in Tel Aviv with the very latest on that. Plus, as Biden bid farewell to the nation, he delivered a dark warning to Americans about the future. We'll play those remarks and we will weigh how his legacy will be defined after five decades in politics. Also ahead confirmation hearings for Trump's cabinet picks continue today on Capitol Hill. We'll discuss who will be in the hot seat just hours from now and what happened yesterday. And firefighters in California are still working to control the wildfires as winds begin to

finally die down. We'll go live to Altadena with the very latest on that. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, January 16th. Along with Joe, Willie and me, we have the co-host of our fourth hour, Jonathan Lemire. He is a contributing writer at The Atlantic covering the White House and national politics. Columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius is with us.

President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas. He's author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, available on Substack. And NBC News Senior Executive Editor for National Security. David Rode is with us again this morning. Good to have you all. Big news.

And Willie, what an eventful day of news. Of course, we had hearings yesterday. Some look like they're gonna sell through pretty easily. Others were contentious at times. We'll be getting to that. Los Angeles looks like there may be hope in the coming days that they're going to be able to contain some of these horrific fires. Joe Biden's address last night sort of echoing

Eisenhower's prescient threat of a military industrial complex, which has proven to be the case over the past 70 years years where you have Congress pushing for weapon systems that the Pentagon doesn't even want. But the big story, the possibility of this peacefire deal, and yes, there's going to be squabbling back and forth by both camps, but David Sanger reporting today, Peter Baker reporting today, what happened in negotiations? Nothing short of historic and incoming and outgoing administration having their aides coordinate in the closest of ways the end of just a bloody brutal war. Yeah, even in the busy news day you laid out above the fold and all of the newspapers this

morning is this news of a ceasefire deal that you have here in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and all the other papers. And yeah, despite what we just saw a moment ago from President Biden saying, are you serious, who should get credit for this deal? It turns out, and we'll talk to Peter Baker about his reporting on this in The Times this morning, it turns out there was behind-the-scenes collaboration between the incoming administration and the outgoing one to get this deal, which looks a little tenuous this morning, but there are high hopes that at least some of these hostages will go home and that aid will start

to flow into Gaza. Yeah. The hostage situation would be the end of agony, at least for some families. Israel's claiming Hamas has reneged, though, on a ceasefire deal that would end 15 months of fighting in the Gaza Strip and free dozens of hostages in an effort to gain concessions. According to the Israeli prime minister's office, the Israeli cabinet will not convene until the mediators notify Israel that Hamas has accepted all elements of the agreement. The prime minister's office did not elaborate.

A senior Hamas official says that Hamas is committed to the ceasefire agreement. And David Ignatius, let's talk about that for just half a second. And we're going to outline the contours of the deal, but just for people waking up this morning hearing this news, the truth is that Benjamin Netanyahu was taking it from the most right-wing, most orthodox elements of his coalition. So I must say, when I was reading that last night, I expected some sort of pushback from Netanyahu, sort of to try to flex so his government didn't collapse, because the hardliners on the far, far right were talking about trying to undermine his government.

Maybe that's his way of doing it this morning. What can you tell us? So, Joe, after so many months of fighting, so much suffering for both Israel and the Palestinians, you can't help but rejoice in this news that there's finally going to be a ceasefire, 42 days, not a permanent ceasefire yet, and the release of the hostages who've been held so cruelly. They'll begin to come out if all holds on Sunday, begin to reunite with their families, including some Americans. Officials say two Americans are likely to be released in this first group.

What's held this up for so many months are the details of precisely who the Hamas fighters are holding and where they're held, and I think more important, who Israel will release among Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. Officials say there will be hundreds of Palestinians coming out as the hostages are released. How many of those will be people carrying life sentences

for having murdered Israelis? That's the kind of thing that Israelis may be studying at the last minute. They've gone over literally every name on this list as they've come down to the final negotiations. I think the thing that worries me, Joe, most about this deal is that there still is not in Israel a clear sense of what the day after the end of this war will look like. That's something the U.S. has been pressing for for many months, and to me the details still aren't clear, which means that Gaza is going to be a lawless place, a messy, ungoverned place for a long while to come. So let's talk about some of those details.

If this deal does hold, it would have several phases. Phase one would begin on Sunday and last for 42 days. During that time, 33 hostages would be freed by Hamas. Two of those are expected to be Americans. In return, Israel would release 100 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences and 1,000 other prisoners not involved in the October 7 attacks. It also would provide a large amount of humanitarian aid to Gaza, 600 trucks a day, and allow for hospitals and health care centers in the enclave to be rebuilt. Future phases aim to bring a permanent end to the war, with remaining hostages and soldiers exchanged, Israeli forces withdrawing, and reconstruction in Gaza beginning.

Let's bring in NBC News Chief Foreign correspondent Richard Engel live from Jerusalem. Richard, what more can you tell us about this, how it came together and how long it may hold? Well, things are already looking quite difficult. So today, this morning, there was supposed to be a meeting by the held by Israeli's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with his security cabinet, and they were supposed to formally ratify the deal. That meeting has been postponed. Some Israeli media are saying it's going to be held tonight, although that's not entirely confirmed. The Israeli Prime Minister's Office hasn't given an explicit reason why the meeting has

been postponed, just accusing Hamas of trying to renege on the deal. But as David Ignatius was saying just a short while ago, it does seem to be focused on the issue of Palestinian prisoners, which Palestinian prisoners prisoners could be released who has the ultimate veto power of uh... of releasing palestinian prisoners from us uh... has a list of names israel's objecting to some of those names so until this is signed it's not going forward the the good news is uh... it doesn't seem to be off. No one has said that the deal

isn't happening. No one is saying that the deal has been called off. It just isn't being ratified yet until they can work out these last-minute details. And it is not supposed to go into effect until Sunday. So there still is a little bit of time. There's also ongoing military operations. There were heavy strikes by Israel into Gaza overnight, and according to local medical officials, 71 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza just since this deal was announced yesterday. And according to those Palestinian medical officials, the majority of them were women and children. So just a few hours after the deal the deal was announced during the period of darkness here or last night local time

it is now sort of mid morning late morning here in Israel there's already quite a high death toll the Israelis haven haven't signed it. Hamas says that they never tried to change the terms of the deal. They're asking for the Americans to intervene and resolve this problem. They're accusing Prime Minister Netanyahu of looking for an excuse so that he doesn't have to go forward to this deal, with this deal, so that he can placate members of his right-wing coalition. There are problems already a few hours after the deal, but so far the problems seem to be on a, I don't want to call them, manageable scale, but no one has called it off, no one has walked away, no one has said the deal is dead, and we still have until Sunday.

All right, NBC's Richard Engel, as always, thank you so much for your reporting. We greatly appreciate it. So a few things here. First of all, nobody should be surprised that Benjamin Netanyahu was looking for an excuse to scuttle a deal that's defined his negotiations over the past year. But you look at the leverage now that is being employed against him. Yes, he may have leverage from the extremists on the far, far right who were saying they're

going to try to undermine his government and end his government. But he has two American presidents, one who has been negotiating with him over the past year or so, and actually had the outlines of this deal all the way back in May. And an incoming president, Donald Trump, who has said he expects this to be done by the time he gets into office. Why would that have any weight in Israel? Because Benjamin Netanyahu is not extraordinarily popular in Israel. Donald Trump though is. Just like Joe Biden after October 7th had the highest approval ratings of any politician in Israel.

Now Donald Trump is in that position and it's not even close. So there is pressure on Netanyahu and perhaps this is just his final dance with the extremists on his hard, hard right to try to get a deal that won't have them bolting. But, you know, Richard, you not only have Donald Trump and Joe Biden pushing for this, you have the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Jordanians, other Sunni Arab nations around the region that want this deal done and with a very, very good possibility that Israel and the Saudis are going to come to some sort of peacemaking deal in the next several months, which will probably include the Saudis helping to rebuild Gaza along with the Emiratis and other countries. It seems that most of the pressure coming from all sides is to get this deal over the

finish line with even Hamas begging the Americans to intervene and get the deal done. Well, Joe, what's come together in the stars of a line up to a point is several of the things you pointed out. I actually think the biggest factor is the weakening of Hezbollah. It isolated Hamas. It obviously led to the loss of the regime in Syria. Iran is much weaker, can no longer deter Israel. And I think that more than anything else set the stage along with the military weakening

of Hamas. So I think that is critical. You negotiators have to negotiate in a context. And it wasn't that suddenly Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan and Steve Witkoff became brilliant negotiators yesterday, and they weren't for the last few months. It's that the context changed. And Hamas felt enormous pressure. And also, the Israelis didn't want to get off

on the wrong foot with the new Trump administration, which wants this issue to some extent pushed off the agenda, almost like the Reagan administration wanted the hostages when Jimmy Carter was leaving off the agenda. They don't want to be saddled with this. And I think, as David pointed out, I think there's a pretty good chance we ultimately get through phase one. Phase two gets really tricky. And phase three is a sentence. And we're not even

in the right zip code yet to deal with the fundamental issues of governance in Gaza and so forth. I think you're right that the Trump administration also wants the normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And it's quite possible the Saudis will settle for very little on the Palestinian front in order to get it, because they want the security commitment and the nuclear help from the United States, which I think the new administration would be prepared to give them. But we shouldn't kid ourselves.

We're still in the first inning of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship, both in Gaza and even more so when it comes to the West Bank. So, David, assuming this does go into effect on Sunday, it does so with 24 hours left in the presidency of Joe Biden, a closing moment for his administration. But as Peter Baker and his team report on the front page of The New York Times, this was a joint effort that Steve Whiticoff, the Mideast envoy for the Trump administration, was a part of these negotiations, met with Netanyahu a couple of days ago to pressure him to accept the ceasefire deal with Biden's team there as well.

Brett McGurk on the phone, according to this reporting. So I guess the question is, what does this deal look like beginning on Monday under the Trump administration? Does that help its odds or hurt its odds of being effective and going forward? Depends on Donald Trump. Easy answer in a way. But will he... You know, he warned that all hell was going to break loose if this wasn't resolved.

Is he committed to that? Will he really threaten Netanyahu? I doubt it publicly, but privately, will he do that? And that risks his strong standing in Israel. So that's the key, because it's pressuring Netanyahu to actually follow through on this and turn on these far-right members of his governing coalition. And that's, you know, Trump is good at making threats. Will he deliver them here effectively?

Well, hours after announcing the ceasefire agreement, President Biden delivered his farewell address to the nation, capping four years in the White House as president and more than five decades in politics. Speaking from the Oval Office, Biden touted his legacy, but also issued a series of stark warnings to the country as he prepares to cede power to President-elect Trump. I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. This is a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultra wealthy people. The dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms, and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead.

I'm equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well. Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit. We must hold the social platform accountable to protect our children, our families, and our very democracy from the abuse of power. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our time,

perhaps of all time. Nothing offers more profound possibilities and risks for our economy and our security, our society. But less safeguards are in place. AI could spawn new threats to our rights, our way of life, to our privacy, how we work and how we protect our nation. We must make sure AI is safe and trustworthy and good for all humankind. We need to amend the Constitution to make clear that no president, no president is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office.

No president is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office. The president's power is not limited. It's not absolute. And it shouldn't be. After 50 years of public service, I give you my word. I still believe in the idea for which this nation stands. A nation where the strengths of our institutions and the character of our people matter and must endure. Now it's your turn to stand guard.

May you all be the keeper of the flame. May you keep the faith. I love America. You love it too. God bless you all. May God protect our troops. Thank you for this great honor. Jonathan O'Meara, it's always hard to figure out what will last, what will fall by the wayside as the years go by. But certainly with the rise of AI, hard not to imagine that his warning, again, his Eisenhower-like warning against the tech

industrial complex as the power of AI rises, largely unregulated. And as Silicon Valley grows more powerful by the moment, again, largely unregulated and the leaders there line up to make sure that Donald Trump will not have any need to go after them, to regulate them, to have the government doing what I think most Americans would want the government to do, having some sort of oversight role. That warning seems prescient. It seems like something we may be looking back on 20, 30 years from now with regret that more people didn't listen.

Just like more people didn't listen to Dwight Eisenhower. Yeah, that's clearly the takeaway line here in this remarkable speech. And, Kea, there are two distinct themes last night the president delivered from the Oval Office. The first was sort of a love letter to the country, talking about the Statue of Liberty and those who built it and what it means for the nation.

Let's say his own story was sprinkled in there a little bit, and you could see the pictures behind him there on the desk, including his late son, Bo Biden. He talked about how he still loves America and believes in its future, but in a defense somewhat of his record. And you could tell, he made it pointedly clear that he believes his team deserves the lion's share America and believes in its future, but in a defense somewhat of his record. And you could tell he made pointedly clear that he believes his team deserves the lion's

share of the credit for this ceasefire deal in Gaza. But Joe, you're right. It also much of the speech was fairly dark and a real warning. He used the word oligarchs, oligarchs, the United States of America. He didn't name names, but it's pretty clear that some of these tech leaders surrounding Donald Trump right now were in his sights. He did talk indeed about the tech industrial complex invoking Dwight Eisenhower's famous farewell speech that included, of course, the worries about AI. He talked about the need to defend the United States still.

And David Ignatius, you know, he, 50 years, a 50-year public career in public service from the Senate, the vice presidency, the president. A lot of personal heartache here at the end. Obviously disappointment that his mission was to defeat Donald Trump, which he did. A strong legislative record for a time, but then to relinquish the stage again

ahead of Donald Trump's return. What were some of your takeaways last night from his address, but in particular, that stark warning about the tech-industrial complex, one that I believe is how this speech will be remembered? I think that was the signature line. To me, the irony of his warning is that these tech leaders, until very recently for the most part, had been seen as supporters of the Democratic Party. Silicon Valley had been a stronghold of liberal views.

And that, in an extraordinary way, has flipped in the last year as prominent people. Mark Zuckerberg of Metta, Jeff Bezos, the head of Amazon, the person who owns the Washington Post, where I work. Others in the tech industry have really embraced Trump, come to support his ideas. So I think it's that movement that's troubling President Biden. This tech industrial complex is at once the key to our future prosperity, our ability to be the dominant player in the world. The incredible innovation of our tech sector is one of the wonders of America.

And in another sense, a danger whose dimensions we just don't understand very well yet. We see this huge complex ever ever more powerful, ever more central to our economy. I would note that President Biden had an opportunity during his presidency to rein in these technology industries to regulate them more and generally didn't generally held back from that. He was pressed by some progressives to do more. He didn't. His most decisive pronouncement on AI, the key technology, has been to work with the government for greater safety and transparency, not to suppress the technology or the leaders. So I think at the very end of the speech, what moved me was Biden in that kind of soft, almost

wispy voice, saying, now it's your turn. And he has given his whole life to politics, to these public issues that matter so much. Now it's your turn. And he's really saying, I'm worried about some things like these oligarchs. Now you need to deal with them. Right. And, Willie, of course, two things can be true at once. We talk about the explosion of America's economy,

the strength overall of our GDP, our leadership in the world. So much of that does come from Silicon Valley. So much of that does come from our advantage with AI. But it seems a false choice continues to be presented by tech leaders, which is stay off our backs, stay out of our way. We've got this. If you try to regulate us at all, then you're playing right into China's hand. It is an all or nothing argument that, of course, is just not compelling, but it is compelling to politicians and many

people in the incoming administration. It is one of the most powerful tools that humans have ever had their hands on. And the idea that we somehow are going to just turn this over to tech bros in Silicon Valley who are saying, trust us, much like Wall Street bankers were saying, trust us on credit default swaps. Doesn't seem too compelling, but that does seem like the world we're going to be living in over the next four years. And you're right, that's the argument they make. If you hamstring us, you're handing the future to China, you're handing the future to other countries, to our adversaries, and you don't want to do

that. So put us at the wheel, and clearly many of them, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, all going to be at the inauguration with prominent seats behind the incoming president of the United States as Donald Trump is sworn in. A clear signal of who they support and who Donald Trump is there to support and who he trusts with our economy. So Richard, when you think about AI, and there's a lot to talk about in that speech, so take this wherever you want a Biden speech last night and foreign policy in particular, but there's been this argument too that AI is too big to be legislated effectively.

There's nothing that Washington could do. There's no law it could pass to control this thing that has spread into every device we use in every corner of our lives. So what is right now sort of the dominant thinking about regulating AI in this moment? The short answer is it's going to resist regulation both domestically and internationally,

because it's not just a domestic challenge. People have this image almost like arms control. Nuclear weapons emerged and we regulated nuclear weapons through arms control agreements. But nuclear weapons are in the hands of two players, the United States and the Soviet Union, incredibly hard to build. AI is decentralized, Willie, plus it's dynamic. It's changing. Since this show began this morning, it's already advanced.

As a result, I actually think the chances for corralling AI, and since only the good parts we're going to embrace and we're going to push back against the bad parts, great idea in principle, extraordinarily difficult in practice. Can I say one thing about the speech also? Well, it was interesting to me. You used the word robber barons. That's a phrase I haven't heard in a while, the Vanderbolts, the Carnegie's, the Rockefellers.

I almost saw this speech as an attempt to wrestle back the mantle of populism from the Republicans. Donald Trump has run a populist campaign, and that's a lot, he's the outsider. And what Joe Biden last night did was quite interesting, almost trying to reclaim populism for the Democratic Party. A lot of Biden's career has been about populism, the midwesterner who's upset about the loss of manufacturing jobs and been going after the

oligarchs, which again is a really interesting phrase and calling them robber barons. That to me was basically defining for the Democrats a line of attack for the future, the concentration of economic power and also the concentration of political power. And I think, like everyone else, I think that will be what will ultimately be remembered from the speech. And David Ignatius, just briefly following up on what Richard said, I've been going back and been reading some works on Edmund Morris's, of course, extraordinary works on Teddy Roosevelt and seeing so many parallels between the world that Roosevelt inherited after the assassination of McKinley and what Teddy

Roosevelt did in focusing going after the trusts. And I find it, you know, interesting that perhaps the Democrats best way forward is looking back at a Republican president named Roosevelt that was not afraid to break up trusts that were only in the best interest of the richest of the rich in America at named Roosevelt that was not afraid to break up trusts that were only in the best interest of the richest of the rich in America at the turn of the century. And the JP Morgans, the biggest banks,

the Vanderbilts, the Carnegie's, you name it. And it seems to me, Joe Biden was pointing in that direction and looking to the legacy of someone like Teddy Roosevelt that was able to break up some trusts. So I think Teddy Roosevelt and the progressive era were about finding a way to bring the robber barons of those days, people who were arrogant even at a level beyond anything we see now in Silicon Valley or in American finance, and to insist that they obey the law, that their power be limited, that the progressive era was really a new start for the United States after the Gilded Age, the enormous

accumulation of wealth, but also of almost lawless behavior by these great industrialists. Donald Trump will come to the White House surrounded by the billionaires, the people who benefited most from American wealth. He wants to be a populist, but as I wrote in the Washington Post a couple months ago, his group, and you could call them the regressivists, they really want to move back, they want to make America great again. They're not about moving forward and finding ways to have better regulation discipline. But it seems this will be about giving the richest people in America more

opportunity to shape the country. If this is a new start for Biden and the Democrats speaking out against them, that's going to be, as Jonathan said, it's a powerful kind of populism. All right. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we're taking a look at yesterday's confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill, including what Marco Rubio and Pam Bondi had to say before lawmakers, plus a preview of who will be in the hot seat later this morning. We're back in 90 seconds. 32 past the hour, Senator Marco Rubio drew bipartisan support from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday at a hearing to be confirmed as president-elect Trump's

secretary of state. Rubio, who spent years as the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, expressed views aligned with senators who work on foreign policy, including the ranking Democrat who found common ground with Rubio on quick-filling, confirming vacant State Department posts. Will you commit to working with Chairman Risch and me to prioritize the advancement and confirmation of career State Department officials? Well, the answer to that is yes, but I would also point to the fact that I think we're and confirmation of career State Department officials?

Well, the answer to that is yes, but I would also point to this fact that I think we're going to begin by prioritizing. We're going to look at what are the key issues in the world. There are obviously every post in the world is important or it shouldn't exist. And then the question is, which are the ones we bring to you first? And those are the ones that I think are most critical. Go to Bondi. I thought it was interesting, David Ignatius, the Marco Rubio hearing for Secretary of State, as well as the John Radcliffe hearing for CIA, unlike the Hegseth hearing and even the Bondi hearing, which we're going to get to in a moment. But the confirmation hearings for Secretary of State and for CIA had a bipartisan air

to both of those, didn't they? I thought so. Marco Rubio is a well-known person in the Senate. He's worked pretty closely with Senator Mark Warner on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a committee that prizes and requires bipartisanship because the subject it covers is so sensitive. Ratcliffe has been working to speak with CIA Director Bill Burns to get to know the place, to reassure employees that he's not going to conduct a witch hunt against the deep state.

He's really been making an effort to reach out to the workforce there. So it's not surprising that those two nominations are going to go forward pretty easily. We still have a head cash Patel, RFK Jr. I think some pretty dramatic hearings, but no question that today's we'll talk in a minute about Pam Monte, but Rubio is so well known that the positions he laid out are not significantly different from those of the foreign policy positions of President Biden. So not surprising that that was smooth sailing. Yeah, Rubio's hearing was extremely chummy, talking to many of his, on both sides of the

aisle, many of his Senate colleagues there. And it should be said in contrast with some of these other nominees showing command of the issues there as well. Donald Trump's pick for attorney general. Meanwhile, Pam Bondi sought to assure Democrats yesterday she would not use the Justice Department to target the president-elect's enemies.

She made the comment after several Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Bondi about her loyalty to Trump. Yes. Would you have hired someone into the Florida Attorney General's office who you knew had an enemies list? Senator, to cut to the chase, you're clearly talking about Cash Patel.

I don't believe he has an enemies list. He made a quote on TV, which I have not heard. There will never be an enemies list within the Department of Justice. You have said that Department of Justice prosecutors will be prosecuted in the Trump administration. What Department of Justice prosecutors will be prosecuted and why? I said that on TV. I said prosecutors will be prosecuted to finish the quote, if bad. Investigators will be investigated.

You know, we all take an oath, Senator, to uphold the law. None of us are above the law. Bonnie also refused to say whether she believed the 2020 election was stolen after she initially was involved in the legal efforts to overturn Trump's loss. Are you prepared to say today under oath without reservation that Donald Trump lost the presidential contest to Joe Biden in 2020? Ranking member Durbin, President Biden is the president of the United States.

He was duly sworn in and he is the President of the United States. He was duly sworn in and he is the President of the United States. There was a peaceful transition of power. President Trump left office and was overwhelmingly elected in 2024. Do you have any doubts that Joe Biden had the majority of votes, electoral votes necessary to be elected president in 2020. You know, Senator, all I can tell you as a prosecutor is from my firsthand experience. And I accept the results. Very telling.

That's an answer we've heard from many of Donald Trump's supporters over the last several years as a way out of an answer, which is, well, Joe Biden is the president. Not being able to say clearly what should be able to say clearly, David, which is that Donald Trump did lose that election. And just let's say again, there was not a peaceful transfer of power January 6th to refresh some memories here. So David, you've been watching all these hearings very closely. Let's start with Pam Bondi.

How did she do yesterday? And do you think she's going to have the votes here in the end? I think she'll have the votes here in the end, but you're seeing the beginning of the sort of mission impossible I think Pam Bondi faces. And Hegseth, you saw this also, they have to say what Donald Trump wants to hear. They can't say that Joe Biden won the election. You know, and at the same time, she's trying to say she's not going to abuse her powers. And so Trump is expecting investigations and prosecutions, and she's going to have a hard

time building cases that actually show that. And then she was...this enemies list issue was stunning. Cash Patel is the nominee to be the FBI's director. He wrote a nearly 300-page book, full of allegations that there are all these deep state bureaucrats committing crimes. And then there's an appendix that we've talked about with the names of 60 people that's entitled members of the deep state executive branch. So that is a de facto enemies list.

And these are all the issues she's going to face. And then from my interviews about the first Trump administration, Jeff Sessions tried to walk this line. He's going to uphold the rule of law, but Donald Trump's demanding he fire Robert Mueller. He refused to do that. He's forced out. Bill Barr, Donald Trump demands that he help him overturn the 2020 election. Bill Barr refuses to do that.

He upholds the rule of law and he's forced out. So this is going to be a very difficult path ahead for Pam Bondi. It should be said too, I mean, relative to Matt Gaetz, people have said, well, she's much better than Matt Gaetz, which I don't think we agree shouldn't be the standard to be the attorney general of the United States. But she was his first impeachment lawyer for Donald Trump, right? She represented him in the Senate on that. And as we mentioned, she was there in 2020 talking about some of the conspiracy theories

about Joe Biden actually having lost the election when that wasn't true. She is a loyalist to the core, which is hard even in the space of a half-day hearing or whatever it was to run away from despite what you may be saying to get the votes. She is respected as a sort of serious attorney general who, you know, ran, held that office in Florida for two terms. And there's much less concern about her and the DOJ workforce than there is about Cash Patel, who has far less experience, who's far more political. She will be Cash Patel's boss.

So again, this is this tension about producing what Donald Trump wants to see and hear versus facts and reality. And that is interesting what David says. First of all, people in Florida, including Dave Ehrenberg, who worked with her, said that she will work with Democrats. And in fact, aggressively, aggressively went out of her way and often stood up to Republicans who got angry at her for working with Republicans. I think Ehrenberg may be on today to talk about running against her and then—oh, he's

testifying. Okay, I'm sorry. He's testifying on Capitol Hill today. We may have him tomorrow. But to underline what David said, Jonathan O'Meara, it's fascinating that this hearing seemed to be about as much about Cash Patel as the New York Times wrote yesterday. Cash Patel was brought up several times, and she distanced herself from Cash Patel several times, first on the enemies list, second on

saying there will be no prosecutions for public purposes, and third on Cash Patel's promise to go after and arrest members of the media. And she, I think she even said there, you know, you're talking about Cash Patel, no, members of the press will not be arrested for doing their job. So it's interesting, the hearing was about Pam Bondi, but it was striking, the New York Times reported how much Cash Patel came up yesterday, which suggests that he certainly will have a bumpy ride

when he goes before the Senate committees. Yeah, we're all thinking along the same lines. I jotted the notes. Whose hearing is this? Is this Pam Bondi's or Cash Patel's? I do think to the points that were already made, the Senate committees. Yeah, we're all thinking along the same lines. I jotted the notes. Whose hearing is this? Is this Pam Bonney's or Cash Patel's? I do think to the points that were already made, she will get through. This was not three-dimensional chess.

Donald Trump did want Matt Gaetz to be his attorney general, so this wasn't a strategy to have him withdraw and then replace him with another loyalist, but a more palatable one. That's not how this went down, but that is in effect what happened. And Pam Bonney does have qualifications. She did do well yesterday. less but a more palatable one that's not how this went down but that is in effect what happened and pant Bonnie does have qualifications you know she did do well yesterday was pretty death and answering some of these questions there's really no no suspense here barring some sort of 11th hour

bombshell that she will get confirmed but cash Patel's future remains far from certain and look we do need to say again just reiterate the bond he said that she's not aware of any enemies list written by cash Patel it's literally in his book he wrote it down it's not just something he said on television it is a chapter in his book and he has made real no efforts to distance himself from that and when it is his turn to testify before the Senate we can be assured that that will be a

major topic of conversation and lastly guys just as large momentum here there is a sense we talked about it yesterday Pete Hegsets chances look better than we would have anticipated a few weeks ago I think Pam Bondi is going to be fine But there are questions that remain Willie about Robert F. Kennedy jr. When it's his turn certainly we've heard some Republicans very squeamish about his stances on vaccination. What I'm told is that Tulsi Gabbard is now the one that a lot of Democrats say, hey, this one seems really shaky.

She may be the one that we can bring down and get enough Republican support to defeat that nomination. Yeah, that's the name I keep hearing, too, with some Republicans even saying, we'll give you Pete Hegseth, we'll give you some of these other ones, but Tulsi Gabbard is a bridge too far.

Richard, let's go back to Marco Rubio, very likely to become the next Secretary of State, barring something unforeseen here. What world is he inheriting, and just based on his experience and who he is, what kind of Secretary of State do you expect him to be? I think the good news for him, Willie, is he'll sail through, maybe even by voice vote. The bad news is he's going to sail through. It's going to be really tough. He inherits a dysfunctional State Department.

You've doubled the number of assistant secretaries and others. It just doesn't work. Most of the authority and power has shifted to the White House and the National Security Council under any administration. You've got more special envoys that I can count. You not only now have an ambassador to the United Kingdom, you have a special envoy to the United Kingdom. And then you've got some other special envoys who are circulating around who I think are looking at Marco Rubio's job. Plus, Rubio doesn't have the same relationship, say, with the president. Take

Jim Baker and George Bush Sr. It's not something that's forged over a lifetime. I just think it's going to be extraordinarily tough for him. It's not a criticism of him. I actually think he's a good choice. I just think it's going to be a really tough road to a hoe at a time that the inbox is unbelievably full. You got Ukraine, and we're already seeing the president, President-elect Trump is pushing

off some of the ambitions on Ukraine, taking a more, he's not going to solve it in a day. The Middle East, yes, will have a deal probably, but it's going to get phase one, maybe phase two, not more questions of what to do around Iran and the big question of China. Marco Rubio came out very tough on China, and the question is, how are we going to translate that toughness into policy? What are we actually going to do? So he's going to have a rough time of it, but again, he will sail through. Well, and he will take a tough position, most likely on China.

That's what he's done historically. In many ways, he may run into some opposition inside the White House with Elon Musk, but he's taken a tough stand on China, on Cuba, certainly on Venezuela. What is interesting, and I'd love for you to underline this, if you would, David Ignatius, just what Richard Haass was saying about the position of Secretary of State and how frustrating

that it has become over the years. And we don't have to look to the Biden or the Trump administration. We can even go back to the Obama administration where John Kerry was Secretary of State and often Barack Obama had moved his foreign policy apparatus basically into his chief of staff, Denis McDonough, and Ben Rhodes. And often it was Kerry flying around the world trying to get direction, trying to get guidance,

trying to get inside to have influence. And Kerry, like many other secretaries of the state recently, just found themselves on the outside looking in. So as the world has gotten more complicated, power over foreign policy, power over the interagency, as people in government always like to call it, meaning the CIA, Commerce, all the other departments, has shifted to the White House. The national security adviser has played an increasingly decisive role, going back, I'll be frank, to the days of Mika's dad, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a very powerful, centralizing national security adviser who clashed often with his secretary of state, Cyrus Vance.

That friction continues. It was a feature of the Biden administration. Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan were always nice to each other in public, but there was an underlying tension about how foreign policy would be directed. And in the world we live in, the national security advisor with us, intimate daily contact with the President is going to be the first among equals, even though we look to the Secretary of State as the decisive person. It'll be very interesting to see how President Trump's National Security Advisor, former Representative Mike Waltz, experienced combat veteran special forces expert deals with Marco Rubio, who has the legislative experience, but not the

same kind of military and strategic experience that Waltz does, who will end up at the top in that one. Interesting mix. And also very interesting, he goes back to a guy named Zabig. Yes, Zabig. I've read. He was the first cabinet level NSE advisor. And something that he, of course, let Cyrus Vance all over say after day.

Challenge is not something you push away. By the way, Ed Luce has a book coming out on your dad. He sure does. And I'm taking a sneak peek at it. It's going to be pretty extraordinary. It is extraordinary. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, thank you so much for coming on this morning. We really appreciate your analysis along with NBC News senior executive editor for national security David Rode and Richard Haas. Richard

seems to be holding up all right after the Giants season. I don't know. Well, maybe get a good draft. Not really, Joe, but thank you. We love Richard. Alright, guys, thank you very much. And coming up, we'll get a live report from Southern California, where firefighters are still battling two major wildfires. Morning Joe, we'll be right back. Winds are expected to ease a bit in Southern California this morning, provided a much-needed reprieve for the firefighters battling those wildfires across Los Angeles County.

The particularly dangerous situation warning, that's an official warning for the region, did expire yesterday, and now forecasters are predicting a drop in temperature which should help firefighters make more progress toward extinguishing the flames. Still though, a risk for new fires as strong Santa Ana winds are expected to return early next week, so they want to make a whole bunch of progress this weekend. Currently, the Palisades fire is at 21 percent containment. The Eaton fire is 45 percent contained. Joining us live from Altadena, California, NBC's Steve Patterson.

Steve, what more can you tell us this morning? Well, starting with that, finally some good news overnight that flame fanning weather that we've been in for the better part of a week is over. The red flag winds is over. The particularly dangerous situation, as you mentioned, is over. We were expecting maybe 30 to 50 mile an hour wind gusts

in areas, even at lower elevations, which would have obviously fanned the flames even further. Mostly, we dodged a bullet there. There were a few spot fires, a few burning embers in particular places. Firefighters vary on top of that, dousing them almost as soon as they sprouted up. What does that mean? It means it's good news for the containment of the large fires that we've been monitoring. The Eden fire, as you mentioned, now 45% contained.

That's the fire that I'm standing in. That's 10% more than it was just yesterday. That is great news, of course, for firefighters doing everything they can to manage the hotspots so people can move back or at least see where their home was devastated. Obviously, rebuilding and moving back is going to take quite some time.

And residents now frustrated about just being able to see where the plot of their home was. Again, fire officials warning, there are still hotspots. There is still smoldering in the building that we've seen behind us. There's still power lines that are down the health department. The EPA is going to want to get into zones like this to clear out hazardous materials before the thought of moving people back in or even allowing people to see where their home was is entertained at all. So quite a lot of work to be done on that front. Meanwhile, the investigation continues.

There is the possibility that this was done from human hands on the Palisade Fire. Utility company is being looked at at the Eaton Fire. Of course, residents just want to know what happened. But the primary operation still remains the firefight, although there is significant containment. There are still dangerous hotspots, pocket of embers that can be picked up. It is not safe for people to come back into these zones at this point.

We hope those courageous wildfires do get that break in the weather over the weekend and they can make some real progress. NBC's Steve Patterson in Altadena, California, which has been in so many ways just wiped out. Steve, thanks for your reporting again this morning.