Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/12/24

Episode Date: December 12, 2024

FBI Director Christopher Wray says he'll resign as Donald Trump takes office

OK then I'll do with you. What do you mean you do with me just what I said. I want to college what do you think. It was. That's a perfect way to start it is bill Belichick and I didn't like Rodney danger failed going back to school the 8 time Super Bowl winner is going to be the next head coach of the University of North Carolina a 5 year pending approval deal by

the board of trustees and of course really what makes this so special for him is he's also dating. he's also dating. You know just fact check his girlfriend is 24 out of college all I want to some grass. There's a back page there post chapel bill. I Jonathan the mayor I got to tell you I didn't think this was going to actually happen in the end thought it was maybe talk maybe

some leverage something that he's going to sit in the living rooms of 1617 year-olds and beg them to come play. Coach guys like. It's part of the show yesterday expressing doubts that he would do this and then hours later as he proved his wrong. I yeah, I'm floored, I mean it's very clear that he read the room and realize there was not going to be an NFL head coaching job for him next year so looks like

he'll fall short of the NFL wins record that he really wanted and now to go to college not exactly a glamour program there at UNC and look I'm sure the on the field X's nose he'll do brilliantly yeah, but he's not exactly the and I love Bill Belichick the warmest and cuddliest figure it's hard to imagine in the. So I mean Nick Saban sounds like it's a little bit hey why don't we you know makes giving dinner a

little bit livelier and bring over save and now I'm sure he's talked to Nick Saban a good bit how do I do this what do I do and think about it if you're Bill Belichick you're like one of the greatest football coaches of all time and your owner who I love I love Bob Kraft, but your owner starts out everybody don't hire this guy he's trouble. So look what he's doing he's saying OK, I'll humble myself I'll go to you and say and I'll prove myself all over again I

think really this this is again a pathway back to the NFL. But still I mean I personally I like to call it's kind of like oh really you know you you think you know myself I date is passed. Yeah, let me show you you know his dad actually was an assistant coach at Carolina in the 1950's sent him out actually said he's to go with his dad was a kid watch film with him it's where his love of football was born so I think that's part of it too and And I think bottom line, he just wanted to coach football.

He didn't like being out of the game and this was the opportunity that was there. Again, the good news, his girlfriend. I need you to, that's just to stop. Post grad education degree, probably law school something. I don't know. Okay. All right, Willie, you're a Jersey guy, okay? What's going on in Jersey. I don't know. Okay. All right, Willie, she's terrific. Willie, you're a Jersey guy, okay?

What's going on in Jersey? I don't know, man. I keep hearing about these drones, UFOs, whatever. What's going on in Jersey? These are not privately owned. Is there an Amazon headquarters nearby? I got it at best by drones. Right, these are big ones.

Some of them have been measured at six feet in radius. Yeah. Some questions, bedminsters nearby, some question there's a military facility nearby. But no great explanation for what a lot of people in New Jersey have been seeing in the skies. I'm not adding to any conspiracy theories, but we do need some answers. What exits are they floating over the month?

That's the one. Which rest stop? Holy pitcher. Hoot? Let's see. I don't know. I've got to look. But it's downstate a little bit. Okay. Downstate a little bit. It's not the Burbs. It could be the Slombardi restock.

I want to get into this first story because I got to tell you, I do not understand what Christopher Ray is doing. I mean, if Donald Trump is going to break precedent twice, first by firing the first FBI director when he went in, Akomi, and now doing it again. I would make him do it. I would make him once again breach protocol. Right. But, Ray didn't do that. No.

That's the big story we start with this morning, the announcement from FBI Director Chris Ray that he will resign from his position before President-elect Trump takes office in January. Here is what he told FBI employees at a town hall yesterday. After weeks of careful thought, I've decided the right thing for the Bureau is for me to serve until the end of the current administration in January, and then step down. And in my view, this is the best way to avoid dragging the Bureau deeper into the fray while reinforcing the values and principles that are so important in how we do our work. The decision comes as Trump vows to replace Ray after the inauguration, selecting loyalist

Cash Patel to take Ray's job. Patel, of course, promised last December, about a year ago, that he would be part of the next Trump administration and go out and arrest journalists, and either go after them civilly or go after them criminally. He also said he would shut down the FBI building on day one and turn it into a museum for the deep state. Trump has signaled he would likely fire Ray upon taking office if Ray did not leave first. Trump has accused Ray without evidence of allowing his role to be politically weaponized by the

Biden Justice Department. A senior FBI official tells NBC News the current plan is for Ray to stay on as director until January 20th when the new administration takes over. At that point, FBI Deputy Director Paul Bate will be named acting director and will stay in that position until a new director is confirmed. Ray's resignation means he will not serve out the 10-year term to which he was nominated by then President Trump in 2017.

All right. So, David, we either have 10-year terms or we don't have 10-year terms. And it seems with Donald Trump, we don't have 10-year terms. And it seems with Donald Trump, we don't have 10-year terms. Are you surprised that Ray just backed down and didn't make it more difficult for Donald Trump? Candelanian, who covers the Justice Department for NBC, he heard from one source that Ray thinks this will be better for the FBI, that there's a chance Trump will attack the FBI

less if he steps away. Some might say that's naive, but that should have fits a pattern of Ray trying to keep a low profile and not getting in public fights with people. And we'll see. The real danger here and the main thing I want to talk about is I talked to a half dozen current former FBI officials. They are vastly more worried about Cash Patel as FBI director than Pam Bondi as the attorney at the DOJ. That it is such, it is the most powerful law enforcement agency in

the country. He's got a very conspiratorial worldview. They question his competence also in terms of just fighting crime and protecting the country. So they see him as one of the most dangerous cabinet picks that Trump has made. Well yeah, you know we say this about Pete Hegseth all the time about the DOD being the most important bureaucracy as far as the large bureaucracy, as far as America's national security. As Mike Barnicle said on Way Too Early, this is the premier law enforcement agency in the world. And so you put somebody out there who's not prepared to do it, even putting aside the

fact he says he's going to shut down the FBI building on day one and he's going to arrest journalists. I mean, it's hard to just say, oh, well, let's put that to the side that he said he's going to go out and hunt down journalists. Right? Even with that to the side, he's ill-equipped, like Hegseth, like Gabbard, to run these massive agencies. Let's bring in right now NBC News

and intelligence correspondent, Ken Delaney, and also congressional investigation supporter for the Washington Post, Jackie Alemany. So tell me, Ken, why did he quit? Why did he announce his resignation instead of staying in there and saying, I've got a 10-year term? If you're gonna fire me, you're going to have to fire me.

Yeah, Joe, you laid out the stark choice that was in front of Chris Wray. As soon as Donald Trump announced that Cash Patel was his pick without commenting on the fate of the current FBI director, Wray knew that essentially he was either going to have to force Trump to fire him or find some graceful way to bow out. And at the end of the day, and they wrestled over this, I'm told, at the end of the day, they came down on the side that it would be more traumatic and painful for the FBI and worse for the country if Ray did what you suggested and forced Donald Trump to fire him because, look, for example, Charles Grassley, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, issued

a tendentious letter a few days ago accusing Wray of all manner of crimes and sins, essentially saying that the FBI was a disaster under his tenure and made charges like the FBI sat on bribery allegations against Joe and Hunter Biden, which has been completely debunked. It's one thing for Charles Grassley to say things like that. It would be another thing for Donald Trump to do it as president in, say, a letter made public throughout the world announcing why he was firing Chris Wray. That's the kind of thing they were concerned about. Now, as you said and as David explained, there are a lot of people out there who think that

this is a strategic mistake. And it's really in keeping with Chris Wray's profile over the years, of trying to avoid these fights, of trying to keep the Bureau out of these partisan battles. And, but the result of that has been the Republicans have relentlessly pummeled the FBI for seven years when Wray is on the Hill and other times made baseless charges

that the FBI has been politicized, and the FBI has done very little to push back against that. And as a result, you have only 40% of Americans, but recent polls, have confidence in the FBI, and 23% of Republicans. Now, the FBI believes they couldn't win that fight, that there was no winning in getting up there, and Ray did try to push back occasionally in hearings

where he said, at one point he said it was insane to assume that he was biased against Republicans given that he's a lifelong Republican and was appointed by Donald Trump. But at the end of the day, he decided that saying in and making Donald Trump fire him would be, would really be painful for the workforce, which still many of them have not gotten over the traumatic firing of James Comey in 2017. But what it would have done, as you suggest, it would have underscored to the country that this was yet another norm-shattering moment, that this is the second FBI director that

Donald Trump has pushed out short of a 10-year term, really sort of making a mockery of the idea that the FBI director should be independent and should serve independent of presidential cycles. So, David, Director Wray, as Ken just reminded us, was appointed by Donald Trump in 2017 when they fired Jim Comey. He is a lifelong Republican, was lauded by Donald Trump at the time. The accusation Donald Trump makes and made again in his response to this news yesterday is that Chris Wray is responsible for the weaponization of the FBI.

The Justice Department was weaponized. Chief among those accusations is that they exercised a lawful search warrant at Mar-a-Lago to get classified documents that had been hoarded at the beach club after months and months of attempts by the National Archives to politely get them back. So that's the argument for weaponization. Now what you have coming in is explicit weaponization if it is in fact cash motel. No wink and not just saying, I'm coming in, I'm loyal to Donald Trump to go after his

opponents on Capitol Hill in the press, go down the line across Washington. So this is a case where the guy who's coming in next potentially, if he gets confirmed, will actually use that department as a weapon. Yes, and the 10-year term is a reflection of history first. This is to get away from J. Edgar Hoover, who for nearly 50 years fed dirt to different presidents, four Republicans, four Democrats, and weaponized the department. So in the 1970s, that ended. We've had a good 40, 50-year stretch where that stopped.

Cash Patel, I'll go back to his book, Government Gangsters, there's a list again of 60 people in an appendix that he says are part of the deep state. They're Republicans. Pat Cipollone, Trump's White House counsel, is part of a deep state plot with Hillary Clinton and Jim Comey. So he is coming in and- I mean, it's just so absurd. It's just so preposterous. And yet you have Christopher Wray backing out to make it easier for him to get in there.

This is the fear is that he's...it's a very conspiratorial worldview throughout the book. He exaggerates his own achievements and his own experience. And it serves this political messaging that Trump likes to hear. And part of it is performative, because you really believe it or not, this is sort of how you get ahead in that inner circle. But he is now going to be possibly the head of the most powerful law enforcement agency in this country, and has access to tremendous amounts of sort of secrets that Americans have.

Again, Hoover abused all that. Right. Yeah. And so that's what surprised me in my recent conversations was much, much more fear about what Cash Patel will do with the FBI than what Pam Bonney will do with the DOJ. So, Jackie Alamany, I'm curious if what we just heard here is reflected in the thoughts on Capitol Hill. You've got a number of different nominees, like Pete Hegseth, who he's unqualified.

These are just facts. And he's behaved in ways that may disqualify him. And there are just questions in terms of his basic ability to do a job. Then there are nominees or ideas like Cash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard. These are people who have outwardly engaged or spoken in ways that are dangerous to American democracy. If I've said that right, are Republicans showing that they are aware of this distinction and that they are aware of the dangers at stake?

Yeah, Mika, there's actually sort of two tracks of mind going on on Capitol Hill right now, the inspector general announcing that the Trump administration had previously used concerning and surreptitious tactics to monitor congressional staffers and to Democratic lawmakers and obtain their communications. That there is very clearly a precedent here for Trump abusing some of the vast powers of surveillance that the Justice Department has, and as Kash Patel has basically clearly stated, that he plans on doing. We know that there were 43 congressional staffers whose communications were monitored as a part of investigations

into who was leaking to potentially two reporters during the Justice Department and the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. And this is something that was top of mind for many of the staffers that I spoke with yesterday who flagged this inspector general's report. But in terms of the nominations, these things all sort of feed into one another. Cash Patel is someone, as is Tulsi Gabbard, who have kind of flown under the radar and sort of sailed through the process so far as a result of all of the scrutiny that's been

on Pete Hegseth, whose nomination for now has been relatively stable. We saw a number of noncommittal statements about the candidates meeting with Republican senators throughout the week this week for one-on-one meetings. But right now, other than the usual suspects, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Mitch McConnell, there is not a lot of opposition to these people. There are some sort of milk toast concerns, especially about Tulsi Gabbard, but not about Patel for the reasons

that we're talking about So, you know, I talked to a Trump administration a Trump transition official last night who says that that they're really not concerned with many of their nominees at the moment and feel like Their approach especially with Hegseth of fighting his detractors has really been effective. Well It depends on who you talk to in Trump world. The ones that are leaking to reporters, we got this, we're going to reduce their political bones to dust if they stand. Those people are saying, oh, we got this.

You talk to actual senators and people close to them, they will tell you they're still five, six, seven, eight that are pretty hard nos. It is interesting that there was a focus on Gates. Now there's a focus on Hegseth. Yesterday Susan Collins, it was not...they did not sit around and hold hands and sing kumbaya yesterday. Susan Collins let everybody know where she stood. She's going to go through

the process, but she very pointedly says, I want to look at the FBI background check before making any decision. That was not a win. Maybe some of the people on their little podcast can say that was a win today and scream and yell and flex their muscles. But I will tell you, there's another problem. And that is, and the New York Times is talking about it right now, the land of sand and death, the disruptions in Syria puts Tulsi Gabbard in the center of the spotlight. Hard for me to believe, even in this cynical age, that Republicans who have spent their entire life concerned about the intelligence community and building the intelligence community and giving a damn about the intelligence community, just like the FBI, are going to appoint some — are going to go ahead and vote for somebody like Tulsi Gabbard, who they have openly said,

we are very concerned about her statements that sounded supportive of Assad and very concerned that even Russian media considers her to be a close ally of Vladimir Putin and again just repeating Russian talking points. I find it hard, I find that hard to believe that there are not going to be four Republican senators to vote for. No, with her, with Heggeth and yes, with Cash Patel, a guy who said he's going to close the FBI on day one and that he's going to run around arresting journalists or charging them civilly. Yeah, certainly for Tulsi Gabbard, the spotlight on Syria, not helpful to her chances here.

She just even over the weekend was again featured on RT, the Russian Propaganda Television Network, in a supportive way. As far as Patel goes, I was talking to someone in Trump World yesterday who was gleeful about Ray's decision to step down. Just gleeful. We don't have to spend any capital fighting him. This is another sign that we've intimidated Washington. We're breaking the process.

And in this case, they're right. We don't know that that will be the case for all of their nominees, but they have managed to avoid this fight with Ray. Though I do think that now that Ray is stepping aside, there will be more scrutiny on Cash Patel going forward. He's managed to avoid the spotlight to this point, Ken Delaney. But that's going to shift now with more focus on him. So my question to you is, as someone who covers this day in and day out, we know Joe went through it. We know what Cash Patel has promised to do, were he to be confirmed. Will there be people in the FBI who will carry out his orders? Will there be resignations or will there be loyalists, people who will say, I will do

that even if it's morally or legally questionable. I don't think there are going to be very many people inside the FBI who are willing to carry out illegal orders, when you put it that starkly, Jonathan. And by the way, I should just say that taking raise place here as the acting director on January 20th will be Paul Abate, who is not a man that Trump world loves at all. In fact, Paul was a key to the decision to search Mar-a-Lago. And so for them, it's not a win in terms of Paula Bate. And in order to replace him as an acting director before Cash Patel is confirmed, they would have to find another Senate confirmed figure or someone within the FBI. So just putting that out there.

But to get back to your question, look, look, David is absolutely right. Current and former FBI officials are very, very concerned about Cash Patel, in part because he lacks the qualifications in the history of people who ran the FBI to lead the nation's premier law enforcement agency. He doesn't even know how it works. He doesn't know how the place functions. But the FBI is a rule of law organization. After the abuses of Hoover, a lot of safeguards and guardrails were put in place around the

awesome surveillance powers of the FBI. And in order to get around them, you have to do a lot of suspect things that are flagged along the way. I mean, there's the reason an FBI lawyer went to jail for lying on a form in the Carter Page 5 situation is because there was a paper trail there. There are layers and layers of oversight and review of these surveillance applications. So look, there are MAGA FBI agents, there are people inside the FBI, many people who

support Donald Trump, but there aren't a lot of people, I would argue, willing to do things that are outside of their oath of office to fulfill some political agenda. And if Cash Patel tries to order people to do that, he's going to find that on the front page of the major newspapers very quickly. Does that mean he can't make mischief? Absolutely not. There's a lot that can happen behind the scenes, but I'm more optimistic than maybe some other people about that the guardrails can hold in an institution like the FBI.

Right. NBC's Kenny Delaney, and thank you so much for your reporting. This is the thing I always explain to politicians, especially politicians that are going into the White House or people that are going into the White House. The intel community is going to get you coming, and they're going to get you going. You could talk to George W. Bush about that during the Iraq War. You know what? People that it was like split.

Half of the CIA agents who are against it going, oh this yellow cake stuff that's bullshit and would be leaked to the New York Times you know Barack Obama's targeting people like himself personally that gets leaked to the New York Times like there's a split in the 2016 campaign and this was so wild about the whole idea oh it's politicized is for this side or it's fat no the New York office, you know they were against Hillary Clinton they didn't like Hillary Clinton we knew that during the 2016 campaign the DC office didn't like Donald Trump and Donald Trump got elected the first time because

James Comey after not indicting Hillary Clinton decides he's going to hold a press conference and say, yeah, yeah, for the first time, by the way. Yeah, yeah, she's not guilty, but oh, she's politically guilty, which was just out of an outrageous norm. And then 10 days before the election, we know exactly what he did.

The FBI screws up on both sides. They're politicized on both sides. You can look at James Comey and look at the mistakes that he made. Ask the Clintons today about what he did and how he elected Donald Trump. You look at what happened afterwards. The Steele dossier, which we said from the very beginning, was nonsense. They're doing the Steele dossier. The Carter Page FISA apps.

They screw up. They're human beings. But there are people who like Republicans in the FBI and who like Democrats in the FBI. And the Trump world running around saying what they're saying. It's just absolutely ridiculous, Willie, because they have short-term or long-term memory loss. They don't know what it is now. It was the FBI. It was James Comey who gave Donald Trump basically a life raft and a paddle to shore and win the election

10 days before. It was over until James Comey did what he did. I think you might have heard about that from Bill Clinton a few days ago. I did. Sat down with the president. I did. I did. I did. That lingers. They do not forget.

No, they do not forget. For good reason. You know, there's another interesting element to this, which is a little bit of blowback on the pressure campaign that's being brought on Senate Republicans. So you have people like Lisa Murkowski coming out of those meetings saying, the calls we're getting, the pressure we're getting from Trump people are not appreciated. She's saying politely what I think a lot of senators are saying, which is back off. We have an advise and consent role here.

Not all senators, obviously a lot of them will go along with whatever Donald Trump tells them to do, but you have Heritage putting up ads saying, we're going to primary you unless you vote for all of these people. You're getting pressure from outside podcasters. They had tried that with Lisa Murkowski,kowski right. Yeah, that didn't work too well and by the way you have done to stop ranked choice voting in Alaska. Yeah, so actually taking the middle ground and being responsible actually pays off

there but yeah and also Tom cotton running around going I am the enforcer you all better vote for you all better vote for every one of these people. Do you know how well that plays with fellow senators? What do they say about fellow senators? Everyone looks in the mirror, and what do they see? The next president of the United States. So, you know what? They don't need Tom Cotton running around playing enforcer.

And people that in MAGA world that are going, oh, we've got Tom Cotton on our side. He and people that in MAGA world that are going, oh, we've got Tom Cotton on our side. He's yelling at all the other senators. Just sit there and let them know where are these people from? Right. Because that's not how senators, it's we in the house called them the House of Lords for a reason.

Yeah. And I mean, Jackie Alamante, these are the people you cover every day. There are people like Ted Cruz going out and saying that Donald Trump won with a mandate. You've got to approve everyone he has. Again, he didn't vote for all but one or two, I think, of Joe Biden's choices. He had to be reminded of that this week. So what is your sense of, obviously, Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, those people are going to vote across the board.

What is your sense of any pushback from, again, all it takes is a handful of Republican senators who don't appreciate, first of all, maybe don't think these people are qualified, but secondly, don't appreciate the pressure campaign being applied from the outside. Yeah, well, so Joe, I totally hear you on this. There are a number of senators who have experience in going batting back against Trump and defecting

from him from time to time, especially during the 2016-2020 administration. But this time around, I have been surprised at some of the private conversations I've been having with staffers and lawmakers who don't have as much of an appetite to go against Trump. And even the people who would be ideologically extremely opposed normally to some of these candidates, people like Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham, who have very different policy approaches to things like Iran and Syria, as Tulsi Gabbard, who would normally come out against her, and not just on the policy, but also ideologically in terms of Gabbard's trajectory from a Democrat

to a Bernie Sanders booster to now a prominent Trump backer. But again, we are not seeing that much pushback behind closed doors. Some people have sort of suggested to me that this is going to be akin to the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, where maybe there'll be some opposition and questions and performative grandstanding raised throughout the nomination process, but that ultimately someone like Susan Collins is going to go along with it, someone who's up for election, by the way, in 2026.

But Tom Cotton tweeted a few days ago, as you sort of alluded to, that of the 72 cabinet secretary nominees since the Clinton transition, only two nominees have ever received no votes from the president-elect's party. And this is a message that is being circulated amongst staffers and between transition officials and staffers. And what we've also heard is that some of even the new lawmakers who have come to the Hill for the first time to serve as senators, again, there is not that much of an appetite to make their mark and take a stand against Trump, that this pressure campaign is working

in some ways. I mean, we already saw Joni Ernst backtrack and come down from her position against Hegseth. She's someone who's a survivor of sexual assault in the military, was the first female in combat to serve in the Senate. And now suddenly she is supporting Hegseth through the process. So we're keeping a close eye on some people who have a bit broader concerns that they've expressed publicly. But right now, there seem to be only a core group of three who could hold out ultimately

against these controversial candidates. Yeah, we'll see. Jackie, thanks so much for being with us. The Washington Post. Jackie Alamany, greatly appreciated. And of course, you need four votes. And by the way, you can throw precedent out the window. When you've got one guy who has said, once he's FBI director, he's going to shut down

the FBI and arrest journalists. You got another guy that has absolutely no management experience except running two VA, two veterans organizations into the ground and his own mother says he's a serial abuser of women. She retracts it, but it lines up with accusations before, during, and after the letter. And you can go down the road with all of these other picks. You know, I am reminded, though, and I wanted to ask you about this, David Rode, because obviously we hear these things and we expect the worst.

Rightly, we should, you know, I'm, a conservative so I always prepare for the worst hope for the best. But it can delay a very interesting will ask can air these people really think of follow through on this knowing that they could be sent to jail that was it was it you learn there I get credit for that question. I will give you credit for the question that he does like this. I will give you credit for the. It's really because. That's that's not what happened.

I felt it was a lot of Jack and you know you know Jackie you know Jackie Cole that's why I was Joe which I took his and that's what he went. Just like that we can. Yeah, so Johnny. So David. So it's very it's very important remember these people that are in the FBI actually know what the law is they can actually look around and see what's happened to people that haven't followed the law, that have followed what, you know, part-timers. That's after all what bureaucrats call, you know, a lot of them just call these people they come in,

they call them Christmas help, because they're here and they're gone. You look at somebody like Rudy Giuliani and how his life has been destroyed by telling lies about people spreading conspiracy theories. And I'm just wondering what your thought is. When somebody, whoever it may be, if it's not Cash Patel, if it's somebody else, they come in and they ask them to do something illegal when they know Donald Trump's got four years and at the end of four years everything they do is going to be judged by another FBI director and it reminds me of what Milley said to Cash Patel at the end of the first Trump term said you don't want to go to jail that's some bad bad whatever he said it was you know I don't swear on go to jail. That's some bad, bad...

Whatever he said it was. You know, I don't swear on TV, so... But that's kind of the attitude that a lot of these old-timers have. And I'm just wondering your thought. Are they gonna be people going, yeah, he's the FBI director today. You don't know who the next FBI director is.

You do something illegal. You may think you're sending somebody to jail. But you're the one who will end up there in the end. I first want to say that is a great question the best question that's come this morning. Thank you. One note. They will not overtly break the law because you're right. They don't want to go to jail themselves. Trump world is smart enough to make it more subtle than that, to ask them to sort of launch

investigations to appoint a special counsel. This is about two things, intimidating people, investigate the investigators. If you dare investigate the second Trump administration, you will be investigated, you will be ruined. And the second thing is rewriting history. It's all about Donald Trump. I mean, the broad narrative here is that there was no need for any kind of investigations of January 6th and his role in January 6th. There was no need to investigate him holding dozens of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

He had his lawyer present the FBI and the DOJ with a signed affidavit saying, here are the last 30, 35 documents. This is it. Then the FBI and the DOJ got surveillance video showing that they had moved around all of these boxes in the days before they came to Mar-a-Lago. So these folks, many of them I've talked to in the FBI and DOJ, felt they had to carry out the search to uphold the rule of law. By the way, by the way, the FBI kept asking, everybody kept asking for those boxes, so for people to go, oh

this is horrible, they just showed up one day at my home and they started. No, they continually asked for it. Politely. This is what I wonder also, David, and I just throw this up into the whole table. The evidence in that case is so bad. When you look at what the IT director said, when you look at what the maintenance people reportedly

said, he wanted to flood the pool to destroy documents. There's so many people on the inside testifying. I really do wonder, do they want to lift that rock? Do they want all of this evidence pouring out on the front pages of the New York Times or Washington Post or Wall Street Journal, you name it, in the first months of their administration, or even halfway through the administration, because it's one of these things, like, you know, the old saying,

I heard a preacher say it a couple years ago, you know, when your plan calls for revenge, bring two shovels, one for the person you're going after, and one for yourself, because you're gonna end up one for yourself because you're going to end up burying yourself. It's relitigating the past.

And I think there's some Republicans who worry this is a waste of political capital because these are nominees that again, the narrative Donald Trump did nothing wrong. Donald Trump is a victim. Anyone who any of these, all these investigations were wrong. And many Republicans believe that, but it's up you know, it's up again to, it's up to voters to decide did he deserve to be investigated or was he completely unjust. So you're saying as we sum it up at 35 after the hour when we were supposed to be out at 15 after the hour, you're saying it'll probably be investigations, it'll be harassment, it'll

be forcing people to get lawyers. But as far as stepping over the line and charging somebody criminally for a crime they did not commit, that may be a bridge too far for some of these people, not because they're good, but because they know they will be the ones that end up in jail ultimately. The one danger is that Trump can secretly promise them pardons. This is the, you know, we have more- That's a big danger. That's a big danger. And the Supreme Court, the sweeping immunity decision, more and more presidential power

is dangerous in the long term for this country. I'm a journalist. I love transparency. I want to see three branches of government co-equal fighting each other and leaking, hopefully, to us. Yeah. So this is the danger, is that all this power in the presidency, Trump now and future presidents. All right, NBC News National Security Editor David Rhoade.

Can we validate Jonathan Lamir? Can you validate him? David Downer Rhoade. Oh my God. David, speak of the truth. God, now that's trying to. All right still ahead on morning Joe some of President Biden's top aides are in the Middle East this morning in an

effort to ensure a smooth transition of power in Syria and with just weeks left in office, they're also pushing for a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas will get expert analysis on where things stand in the region straight ahead. We're back in 90 seconds. Look, there's one of these drones that I've heard about over New Jersey. All right, 39 past the hour. Little green man inside taking those shots for you. Thanks, Chopper.

Here's the story we mentioned at the top of the show, several mysterious drone sightings across the state of New Jersey. The FBI is investigating the matter, and now the Pentagon is even weighing in. NBC News correspondent Gadi Schwartz has the latest. In the skies above New Jersey, trying to get to the bottom of a mysterious wave of SUV-sized drone sightings

that so far have proved impossible to identify or to stop. The minute you get eyes on them, they go dark. It's not an airplane. Reports of mysterious drones and lights in the sky are growing. From over the warships of the West Coast to nuclear sites across the West to Langley, Virginia, and most recently to Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey.

The Pentagon says there is no evidence the drones are coming from a foreign adversary, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill are demanding answers from the FBI. I don't have an answer of who's responsible for that, of one or more people that are responsible for those drone flights. Those who have sent drones up to give chase, like local sheriff's department, say they've never been able to see where they come from or where they land. Mine Hill Mayor Sam Morris chased this one down in his car and thinks the military should consider shooting them down.

He says 11 drones have flown over a military site in New Jersey recently. Those drones should have been blown out of the sky. Why are we putting up with this? And as more people start to look up at the night sky, the FBI is asking anyone with credible video to send them in for analysis. It's 2024. Are you telling me in this day and age, somebody can fly drones of this size, the size of a car, if not bigger, and we have no idea who's doing it for now, yet another growing mystery in the sky. So so so Willie, they're flying them over Langley, they're flying them over nuclear plants, they're flying them over military facilities.

I'm just a simple country lawyer, but I wouldn't allow that to happen. Yeah. I mean, what's striking is how no one actually appears to know what on earth is going on. And I'm going to quote the New York Post who talks to a high ranking New Jersey police source saying, quote, we're all befuddled as to what the F is going on. Oh my God. End quote. Nobody has an answer to what these,

and these are not, as I say earlier, nobody got these at Radio Shack and is flying them out of the backyard. These are massive drones. Well, I mean, again, where are they from? I mean, certainly it's not from the Pentagon, right? Because they're not gonna be flying over military bases or other things.

I mean, it could be... Well, Richard, how should you tell us? I mean, foreign powers would have the ability to do that. So why in the world... Where would they though take off from or something like that? I would think it's more likely from here, given their limited range. But your basic point is right. We ought to just have stipulated, if you will, no drone zones over any potentially sensitive

site. That's not complicated. Yeah. There you go. We solved it. We solved it. Let's move on to the next story. All right.

The latest behind the curtain column for Axios, entitled The Great Upheaval, focuses on artificial intelligence and its potential impact on the incoming Trump administration and the future of geopolitics. Let's bring in the co-author of that piece, co-founder and CEO of Axios, Jim Van De Hei. MSNBC contributor Mike Barnicle also joins us with the... Well, he looks good, actually. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

All right, so Jim Van De Hei. Thanks for showing up. Jim Van De Hei, this AI thing scares me. You know, just like, carneys. You know, carneys. They just scare me. It's an Austin, it's an Austin Powers line. But this AI thing scares me, man, and it seems like we're, we don't have an administration that is going to be actually bringing the reins in on development of it. What are your concerns and what are you reporting this morning? Well, I think it goes beyond AI, but I think AI sits at the center of it, which is if you

think like most viewers probably feel pretty disoriented and like feel like there's a lot of change. There actually is because you simultaneously have massive change happening in how we get information, how we govern ourselves, businesses, and then geopolitical relationships. Very rarely in history do those four plates shift simultaneously. And I do think you put your finger on it. I think AI sits at the center of a lot of this, given that almost every business is thinking about how to apply this.

Your biggest technology companies, some of which are the size of nation states, are investing collectively hundreds of billions of dollars to will it into existence. Then you look at Trump and you look at the relationship with Elon Musk, they want this government and they want AI to be an accelerant of these technologies, which will hit not just new like chat GPTs, it will affect how you create data. That's why you see these data centers opening in a lot of cities. And energy, they require and eat an astronomical amount of energy. So you need to produce more of it domestically, which will re-orient the entire domestic energy

system that we have today. And so that's huge. And I think the people that are at the table often stand to benefit from it, right? Like Elon Musk has big pieces of this. He has his own AI company that he's raising money for and that he's helping fund. When you have the ear of the president and you have Marc Andreessen, who has a huge portfolio and the ear of the president, these are really smart people who understand the technology. And so I think they're gleefully and I think pretty confidently feeling like, let's use

this moment to make government an accelerant of all of this. And that's just a big shift from the Biden administration. Yeah, and Jim, your piece is called the great upheaval, this AI question. It's just one part of what's happening really, really fast right now. And as you say, people like Elon Musk and others want to use government to accelerate

the pace of innovation and development. Elon Musk, clearly, people said, why did he come out so early and endorse Donald Trump? He saw a winner in Donald Trump. He was right about that. He wanted to get on board early, reports that he's doubled his wealth since election day and may go even further. So how influential do you expect him to be,

not just on questions of AI, but more broadly in this administration? Like astronomically influential? I don't think he could put words to it. I can't think of a civilian who has had, in history, more impact over at least an incoming administration in the transition of a presidency. And what he tells Trump privately is he believes

there could be more business change, more cultural change, and more governance change than at any point since the founding of the country. And obviously he's prone to sort of grandiosity, but he's been right on a lot of these technologies in a lot of the areas where the country's going. And I do think, like for people who fear it, and Joe, you said it worries you, I do think taking a wrecking ball to how we've been doing business in Washington. There's a real eloquence and logic to it in that you are going to have to change very fast to keep up with these technologies. And most

of our government agencies are so antiquated, so bloated, they're not necessarily set up for this next era. So if you did it right, and if you apply technology right, then you position us to hopefully prevail against China. And that's the reason that they're not going to put the brakes on AI because every moment that they think about putting the brakes on AI you're gonna have somebody whispering in their ear, you really want to give the Chinese an advantage on a technology where we have a decisive head start. It's the reason that Biden didn't want to regulate it. When you hear that and you see it and you worry about it,

you don't want to be the person to put the genie back in the bottle when we're the ones who created the genie. Well that's always an argument and you are right. The first thing they'll say is really you're gonna give China the advantage here and I will say also I mean we do have a bureaucracy across Washington DC that's antiquated. I mean we had reports reports that, you know, the Pentagon has computers from like the 1980s. It's absolutely horrid. So yeah, if we can update those, fantastic. But Mike, you look at the Great Upheaval though, and we still haven't come to terms with what's been happening over the last 30,

40 years and why there is such great unrest in middle America, where there's such great unrest in the upper Midwest. We had an industrial age that was hollowed out by globalization and the tech revolution. So we became more productive with less workers. Now we have the next revolution with AI, and that's just gonna supersize that crisis. We're going to be a more productive economy that's going to require even less workers.

That's going to put more people out of work. That's going to put more people on the sidelines. It is going to create social unrest. It is going to create cultural unrest. It is going to create more economic decay in the heartland. And when you have a government of billionaires that we're going to be having, I don't see a lot of people that have been nominated thus far that are going to be worried about the long-term impact of that. You know, Joe, what you just said is the icing on the cake of an extraordinarily past 40 minutes of discussion about this country.

And it appears today, right now, we're talking about the basic function of government going forward. Is it going to change? The function of American forward. Is it going to change? The function of American government, is it going to change? Chris Wray decided to just quit his job because he was so disturbed about the reputation and the morale of the FBI being dragged through the mud once again. There were three intelligence positions up for grabs. The Director of national intelligence, the

head of the Department of Defense, and the head of the FBI, obviously. Those three jobs up for nominations are critical to the protection and the defense of the United States of America. And the nominees are a joke. And they're about to be nominated, and it appears that the Republican Party and the Senate side will go along with the nominees to further damage the function of government. We'd be surprised, we'd all be surprised at the number of Americans in this country who depend on the government. They don't think they depend on the government, but they do. A Social Security check, a tax refund, government functioning, obeying the law, moving the law

forward, moving the country forward. All of that now, listening to the last 40 minutes of this discussion, is on the table. Which way are we going to go? Which way are we going to go? I'm waiting for the answers. We all are. Jim VandeHei, final question to you, and I'll ask you just based on your reporting,

what you're hearing on the Hill, what you're hearing from people around Washington, D.C. We've asked David Road his thought about when we're looking at some of the appointees, whether there is an effort to intimidate or a clear hope of retribution. And David Rowe talking about people inside of the FBI, inside of the Justice Department, understanding the costs of following an illegal order that ultimately lands them in hot water.

What are you hearing around the Hill? What are you hearing around Washington, D.C.? Do they believe that this president and those around him are trying to intimidate critics into silence, or are they going to be seeking retribution from day one? I mean, I wouldn't assume that they won't seek retribution and I wouldn't even assume that they wouldn't stretch it to areas that would get into gray areas or illegal areas. I'm not saying that they will, but you have to take them at their word, take them at their writing. A lot of these folks have said that's what they want to do.

I think it really depends on how President Trump feels his presidency is going and who he's agitated with at any given moment. I think the biggest story is the one you just put your finger on. You were saying you think there's six or seven or eight senators who at the end will probably do the right thing and might oppose some of these nominees. I'm not so certain of that Joe. I think you look at what happened with Senator Ernest in Iowa. Here's somebody who is dead opposed to that nominee, to that nomination on deeply deeply philosophical grounds. Well what happens? You get the hell pounded out of you on Axe and then you have all of these conservative groups running

ads back home calling people who are close to you, having other senators come in and pressure you, it takes a very, very strong, virtuous person to say, you know what, I'm gonna withstand all of that and I'm gonna put my political career at risk to oppose the president of the United States who happens to be of my party. I would not be confident

that any of these nominees are going down. They might, you might be right, but I'm watching what these members are saying after they go through this pressure campaign. And that's what's different from when you were in Congress. There just weren't that many ways to pressure you with that level of intimidation. And it's very, very, very successful. Well, as I said to a British journalist who was asking me this very question yesterday, when it comes to Susan Collins, it's just like Premier League football.

It's the hope that kills you. Axios co-founder Jim Van De Hei, thank you so much. Richard, you wanted to get on this conversation. Yeah, because I take slight issue with Jim. You seem to think that this administration was not doing enough on it. There's two issues with AI. One is, can you regulate it? And I would say probably not.

It's happening in too many places. It's too decentralized. We shouldn't be thinking almost like the US-Soviet relationship, where you got two players, you can have arms control. AUI is much too dispersed already. Too many things are going on in too many laboratories around the country. And secondly, do you want to?

Jim mentioned the China angle, which is one concern. The other is there's all sorts of upside with AI that we haven't thought through. So the idea that right now we can sit down, or we're going to shut down this path of AI, but open up this one? Uh-uh. That's not where we are.

So I actually think it's way premature to be thinking about all sorts of regulatory ways. So I actually think it's way premature to be thinking about all sorts of regulatory ways. So I actually think the administration is right to be opening up. We'll see what good can come of it. And yeah, Mike is right. We're then going to have to think about how we offset some of the social and economic implications of it, loss of jobs in manufacturing, loss of jobs in services.

But we're not at a point now where we can basically shut down big parts of it. I just don't think that's wise. Let's talk about Syria. A lot of things going on there. What's your take? Lots of things going on there. Some more recent things going on there. We're beginning to see certain types of revenge killings.

The Turks are using this as an opportunity to go after the Kurds, which they see as terrorists rather than a legitimate national group. Israel's moving in to create a strategic buffer. These things don't usually go well. After you get rid of the old regime, the idea that everyone's going to come together, you're going to have a single authority and it's going to be benign, there's very little in history, very little in Middle East history to suggest this is going to be smooth or neat. So I think we're going to see at best a very decentralized, messy country, almost a version

of the Balkans in Syria. At worst, we're going to see an awful lot of friction that you will civil strife to basically determine what comes next. And we could also see a somewhat jihadist group. I mean, think about the Taliban. These guys could be very Taliban-like, potentially. So again, I don't mean to be the bad news bear here, but great that we got rid of Bashar al-Assad. This was an awful, awful despicable regime responsible for hundreds of thousands,

if not millions of deaths and refugees. But that's just the beginning of the end. Right now, we've got a very difficult and I think uncertain path ahead of us in Syria. So Richard, you've got Secretary of State Blinken and Jake Sullivan, both in the region, Jordan and Israel respectively, both in the region, Jordan and Israel, respectively, to talk about what's going on with Israel, but also with Syria. What is their objective there? We know they're discussing perhaps removing the, basically the leading terrorist group

that rode into Damascus and toppled Assad. And it is a terrorist group, according to the United States designation, removing them from that list. There's just it's so much more complicated than it seemed on that first day when they were dancing in the streets. My guess is we're going to try to have a conditional kind of relationship with saying we'll take you off the terrorism list. We might even help you economically. Big if though you cannot make Syria a safe venue for ISIS to essentially come back. Then there's question also with the Turks. What do we say to them?

I think actually in some ways the most important meeting may be in Ankara. What do we say to Turkey, which has now replaced Iran as the most important external country in Syria? What do we say to them about the Kurds? What do we do for the Kurds? What about the 800, 900 American military forces that are still in Syria? So we've got a lot of big questions about what to do. We know the Biden administration is still hoping to get some sort of ceasefire hostage

release deal in Gaza. Some reporting overnight from the Wall Street Journal that Hamas willing to drop a few of their demands. Maybe we're inching closer to that. Give us your read and also how the tumult elsewhere might be impacting what we're seeing here. I think it's exactly what you're got at. I think the fact that his bullet is so weak has actually opened up all sorts of possibilities. It's left Hamas really isolated there. It's weakened Iran. By the way, you could also now see new hope for Lebanon. It almost turned Lebanon into a revived country.

But yeah, you're right. Rare good news. It seems that Hamas has dropped the demand of a full Israeli military withdrawal, which is a big deal. Talking about here's a hostage list. So we've seen this movie before, but actually, yeah, I think the strategic situation has so weakened Iran and so weakened Hamas that I don't think it's fanciful now to think that there are possibilities going forward that simply didn't exist for the last few months.

Really quickly, let me just ask you. This mean, this could end up looking like Germany after World War II. Syria, you could have a Turkish zone, excuse me, a U.S. zone, a Kurdish zone, and then a Syrian zone. Is that possible? An Israeli zone. Israel is going in. That would in some ways almost be it's not the best outcome. The best outcome would be it's a normal unitary country. If you had that it would be preferable to an ongoing civil war if the zones were mutually respected. I think the danger is they won't be, in particular the Turks I think will have real problems with the Kurds being an autonomous zone. Our close allies who are always standing by our side and who we don't always defend. Mike Barnicle really quickly from Syria to the Sox.

What do you think of the deal? Well the Syrians don't have a starter right now. They're out of the game. The Red Sox came up with one yesterday and I'm very hopeful they're gonna continue. They're going in there in the grocery store. They're gonna take players off the shelves and check out with more players than they went in with. I'm very hopeful. You think. Are you seeing Bregman next pick up to move to second base? No. The next pick up I think is going to be another pitcher. It could be Walker Buell or someone like that. It could be the kid from Seattle. A pitcher. Louis Castillo could be someone like that. I think another pitcher and then they go to the offense. Okay.