Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/2/24

Episode Date: December 2, 2024

Trump picks loyalist Kash Patel for FBI director

It doesn't surprise me that he will pick people that he believes are very loyal to himself. And that's been a part of the process. Every president wants people that are loyal to themselves. But I'll also share with you that Chris Wray, you know, who the president nominated the first time around, and I think the president picked a very good man to be the director of the FBI when he did that in his first term. When we meet with him behind closed doors, I've had no objections to the way that he's

handled himself. And so I don't have any complaints about the way that he's done his job right now. Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota expressing his support for current FBI Director Christopher Wray. After Donald Trump announced over the weekend, he will nominate loyalist Kash Patel to that position, one which shouldn't normally even be open for a nomination. We'll have the latest about that controversial selection from the president-elect. Also ahead, we'll dig into newly surfaced allegations against Trump's pick for Defense Secretary

Pete Hegseth as reports of whistleblowers have surfaced detailing years of troubling behavior. And we'll go through President Biden's pardon of his son Hunter, who is set to be sentenced later this month on federal tax evasion and gun charges. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, December 2nd. With us we have the host of Way Too Early, Jonathan Lemire, and President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haass.

He's the author of the weekly newsletter, Home and Away, available on Substack. We've got a lot of great guests straight ahead to talk about. The two big stories this morning. One, of course, Cash Mattel. Two, the breaking news overnight regarding Pete Hegseth. More information. We'll also get to the Hunter Biden pardon later. But I want to just first, Jonathan Elmire, this is this is one of these moments, you know, we hear a lot of people talking about flooding the zone and a lot of information coming at you all at once and not being able to sort through things. There are two picks right now that if you talk to people in Washington, D.C., they will this morning tell you two of the most dangerous selections they've seen. Number one, Pete Hegseth,

simply because he's unqualified to run the most complicated and most powerful bureaucracy, not only in America, but in the world. And number two now, Kash Patel. And Kash Patel, of course, is a person who infamously said he was going to jail reporters and journalists and news people, people who did not go along with the 2020 election conspiracy theory.

And we're going to be talking in a little bit to Elena Platt Cabrera, who wrote a story about six months ago on Cash Patel. Let me just read you just a little bit from that. When Patel was installed as chief of staff to the acting secretary of defense just after the 2020 election, Mark Milley, who of course was the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, advised him to not break the law. Quote, life looks really shitty from behind bars, Milley reportedly told Patel. When Trump named Patel deputy director of the FBI, Attorney General Bill Barr, again, another Trump loyalist,

confronted the White House chief of Staff and said, quote, over my dead body. When in the final weeks of the administration, Trump planned to name Patel Deputy Director of the CIA, Gina Haspel, the head of the CIA, threatened to resign. Trump relented only after an intervention from Vice President Mike Pence. He goes on to ask, who is this man and why did so many top officials fear him? And we will go through it. It's certainly not because he's an expert in any of these fields. It's not even because he's an ideologue. It's because he seems, according to this piece

and everything we've seen, singularly focused on exacting revenge on people who did not carry through on Donald Trump's threats of retribution. And again, we will be playing the clip in a minute where he promises to arrest journalists and reporters and news people who refuse to go along with the 2020 stop this deal conspiracy theories. I mean, this is, again, we're going to be talking about Pete Hegseth in a second, explosive reporting overnight from the New Yorker, from two whistleblowers, which I predict will

probably at the end sink that nomination along with a letter from his mother that was published this past weekend. But let's, again, let's keep everything in perspective and let's start with the man that was not selected yet because he'd have to fire Chris Ray first, but the person that he floated out there to serve as FBI Director Cash Patel. Well, let's start with the idea that he'd have to fire Chris Ray. Let's remember, he fired FBI Director James Comey, which almost brought his administration down in 2017, and Republicans in a fury.

Now he talks about firing Chris Ray. most of the GOP shrug. Go along with it. This is the new normal in Donald Trump's Washington. They believe and the man that Trump says he wants to put in race stead, Cash Patel perceived by many to be deeply dangerous because he has indeed, as you note, no qualifications for this job. Many of Trump's former aides said as much four years ago. But Patel, I'm told, and I'm talking to people in the orbit the last couple of days, there

is no ideology. There's no agenda here other than retribution. Patel's one defining characteristic is that he is simply loyal to Donald Trump. And even inner circle Trump members of the last few years have been startled by Patel's willingness to simply do whatever. Let me stop you right there. Let me stop you right there, Jonathan, and we need to talk more about this. Cash Patel is not just controversial among media outlets, our Democrats. He's not just controversial among Republican senators. He is controversial inside Trump's own orbit.

I mean, you go inside Trump's own orbit and it is split down the middle with half the people thinking he's going to be a disaster for any Donald Trump administration. And they never wanted this nomination to see the light of day, because again, that divide goes straight through MAGA world as well for those around Donald Trump. Yeah, people I've talked to say this pick was a nod to the extreme right-wing portions of Trump base the Steve Bannon, ultra MAGA a sector here who had been disappointed by some of

Trump's more conventional picks like say Treasury Secretary and Secretary of State so this is Trump throwing them red meat because he knows he needs to keep them happy but there are others in Trump world deeply worried about this pick who feel like Patel is not only unqualified but indeed dangerous. That Patel will never think twice, never hesitate in carrying out whatever Trump wants even if it means potentially, people say, breaking the law. So there are real questions here and we'll get into it as to whether or not Patel can be confirmed.

You know, much like Matt Gaetz, that pick seemed in trouble. This one seems hardly a sure thing either, Joe Meekett. But there are mechanisms where if he were to fire Ray, Patel could step in an interim way for 200 or so odd days. That even, even that short sample size, even if he can't get confirmed, would be enough to carry out some of Trump's agenda. So, let's take a closer look into the man Donald Trump says he will nominate as former National Security Council official Cash Patel to serve as FBI Director.

Patel is an ultra-Trump loyalist who has promoted lies that the 2020 election was stolen, as well as the baseless conspiracy theory that federal bureaucrats in the deep state tried to overthrow the former president. At the end of Trump's first term, Patel served briefly as an advisor to the acting director of national intelligence and as chief of staff to acting defense secretary Chris Miller. During that time, Trump proposed that Patel run the FBI, which Attorney General Bill Barr vehemently objected to. As Joe mentioned, Barr wrote in his memoir, he told then White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that Patel would get the deputy job, quote, over my dead body.

Barr also wrote that Patel had virtually no experience that would qualify him to serve at the highest level of the world's preeminent law enforcement agency. The very idea of moving Patel into a role like this showed a shocking detachment from reality. That's a quote. That's Bill Barr's quote, by the way. Not NPR's. That's Bill Barr's quote. In the closing months of his first term, Trump also suggested that Patel serve as deputy

CIA director. Then CIA director Gina Haspel threatened to resign if Patel was installed. In an interview last year, Patel vowed to go after judges, lawyers and journalists who he viewed as enemies of Donald Trump. Take a listen. Cash, I know you're probably going to be head of the CIA, but do you believe that you can deliver the goods on this in a pretty short order the first couple of months so we can get rolling on prosecutions?

Yes, we got the bench for it, Bannon, and you know those guys. I'm not going to go out there and say their names right now so the radical left-wing media can terrorize them. But, excuse me, the one thing we learned in the Trump administration the first go-round is we got to put in all-America patriots top to bottom. And we got them for law enforcement, we got them for intel collection, we got them for offensive operations, we got them for offensive operations, we got them for DOD, CIA, everywhere. We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media.

Yes, we're gonna come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're gonna come after you. Whether it's criminal or civilly, we'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice. All right, let's bring in. Could you play that again? And this is can we do a CC to Republican senators?

Hey, Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley. Let's see. Mike rounds is a great patriot. Chuck Grassley, let's see. Mike Rounds is a great patriot. I'm sure he's already deeply disturbed by this. He said pretty much just that. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, who certainly stood up to the atrocious election of Matt Gates. We want to play this one.

Again, this is a long distance dedication from Casey to you. Cash, I know you're probably going to be head of the CIA, but do you believe that you can deliver the goods on this in a pretty short order the first couple of months so we can get rolling on prosecutions? Yes, we got the bench for it, Bannon, and you know those guys. I'm not going to go out there and say their names right now so the radical left-wing media can terrorize them. But excuse me, the one thing we learned in the Trump administration the first go around

is we got to put in all America patriots top to bottom. And we got them for law enforcement. We got them for Intel collection. We got them for offensive operations. We got them for DOD, CIA, everywhere. We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government, but in the media. Yes, we're gonna come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens,

who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're gonna come after you. Whether it's criminal or civilly, we'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice. Yeah, you know, I'd love to also place one more time for all those Wall Street billionaires who say, oh, come on, come on. This is just all about tax cuts.

He's not going to get people who prosecute. He's not going to put cash in there. Come on. Never put cash, Patel and his FBI director. Love to see what the Wall Street Journal editorial page. I maybe they've written about it this morning. They certainly should have. Love to play this for other apologists who have said that that oh oh Cash Patel would never get put in that position.

We kept hearing that time and time again. And again, mainly for the Republican senators, Republican senators who stood up when their advice and consent power was tested when it came to Matt Gaetz. Well, this is not a question of either or. I keep hearing people going, well, maybe if he says no to Matt Ga- they say no to Matt Gaetz and maybe the one more- no, no, no. If somebody threatens the Constitution, if somebody threatens the First Amendment, if somebody threatens the basic Bill of Rights, it does not matter whether you have to say no to one of those or two of those or three of those.

You know, the founders did not write that the Senate had the advise and consent power for maybe one, one and a half dangerous selections. Oh, got that for as many as you need. And by the way, this is not just uniformly vote no against everybody that Donald Trump puts up. I think everybody agrees that Marco Rubio, though not a Democrat selection, certainly is within the framework of somebody who could be Secretary of State, who knows the issues, who works with people on both sides, who may be an effective Secretary of State. Same thing with the Treasury Director. Same thing with the treasury director.

Same thing with the treasury director. But not this. Play it again. We will go out and find the conspirators not just in government but in the media. Yes, we're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after the people in the media who lied about American citizens, who helped Joe Biden rig presidential elections. We're going to come after you, whether it's criminal or civilly. We'll figure that out. But yeah, we're putting you all on notice. Yeah, and we're putting you on notice. This is not only bad for the men and women who run the FBI.

This is not only bad for the rule of law. This is not only bad for the rule of law. This is not only bad for the First Amendment. This is not only bad for the United States of America. This is bad for Donald Trump. This is bad for the Trump administration. This is not going to end well. So I think the best case scenario for everybody is that Cash Patel and this talk of Cash Patel ends like the Matt Gaetz nomination ended because

this will not go well for anybody and I believe, I still believe, there will be four Republican senators who will not vote to confirm somebody who says he's going to throw judges in jail, he's going to throw bureaucrats in jail, he's going to throw reporters in jail who did not go along with a 2020 stop the steal Conspiracy theory and by the way, just got word the Wall Street Journal did write about this. Mm-hmm. We'll get to that They don't like it. No, let's bring in NBC News national security editor David Road NBC News justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Delaney and congressional reporter for the Hill

correspondent Ken Delaney and Congressional reporter for the Hill, Michael Schnell. Good to have you all on board this morning. David wrote, How dangerous is this election? Again, we need to be let's get this straight, right? Since Christopher Wray is still the FBI director, this is not like he nominated Matt Gaetz to be a G. He just put this out on truth social. So he's going to have to fire Chris Ray first. Chris Ray, an FBI director, he appointed himself. So if he fires Chris Ray, which many Republican senators have already expressed concern about, and then he moves on to someone like Cash Patel, or let's just say Cash Patel specifically, how dangerous is that for the rule of law in the United States of America?

To me, it's an unprecedented effort to politicize the FBI. I've been reading Cash Patel's memoir. You've been citing these quotes. He's a conspiracist. The memoir is very black and white. He worked as a public defender in Florida. He talks about federal prosecutors conspiring against him and his clients. Then he goes and works for the Justice Department in the National Security Division.

Again, there's people in the Justice Department and judges who were ruling against him. Over and over, it's this very dark, simplistic vision of conspiracies. And he is nominated now to be the head of the most powerful law enforcement organization in the United States. And it's just a critical moment. It's this, and he endlessly talks about deep state conspiracies. Again, just to go back, there was a nearly four year investigation by special counsel John Durham during the Trump administration, the Biden administration allowed it to continue.

They looked at all the deep state conspiracy theories about the FBI and Trump in 2016. No senior officials were charged. There were mistakes made by the FBI. A low-level lawyer pled guilty to changing a document. Two people were brought to trial and they were acquitted by John Durham. So these conspiracy theories aren't true and this is a very dangerous moment I think. So Ken let's get reaction from people you've talked to about this potential selection and let's be clear what Patel has said he will do if he were to get

this job. He would target Trump's political opponents including members of the media. He also said he would shut down FBI headquarters, turn it into a museum of the deep state, in his words, and also purge the roles of those in the preeminent law enforcement agency in this country. What is the initial response here of to what Patel's vision would look like? Well, Jonathan, no one would be surprised to know that people at the Justice Department, the FBI, Kern and former are horrified, people of all political persuasions, by the way, by this idea. And just to be clear about something, the proposal that Bill Barr said amounted to a

shocking detachment from reality was to make Cash Patel the deputy FBI director under Chris Wray in the prior Trump administration. Now they're talking about elevating him to lead, as David said, not only the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country, one of the most powerful national security agencies, and I gotta emphasize this to our viewers, because a lot of people don't really understand everything the FBI does.

The FBI director wields incredible power in the United States, and for anyone who doesn't believe that, go read a biography of J. Edgar Hoover. Now, we don't live in the Hoover days anymore but the FBI still they have people who can break into your home and plant a bug and you'll never know about it and they can get secret warrants National Security warrants to do that and no one will ever find out they can obtain the records of news media phone

calls and we'll never hear about it assuming a Justice Department set of guidelines on that is overturned. So this is an incredibly powerful job. And just at a very basic level, Cash Patel is not qualified for it by objective standards. I mean, past FBI directors, the past three, have all been very senior officials

in the Justice Department with long experience as prosecutors. And then of course you had Louis Free, who was a career FBI agent. These are these are significant figures in American life. Cash Patel spent several years as a public defender, as David said, he spent three years in the Justice Department's National Security Division. And he went on to say that he was the lead prosecutor in the effort to bring the Benghazi terrorist to justice, which just isn't true. That's been completely debunked.

So leaving aside his conspiracy theory beliefs, he's just by objective standards not qualified for this job. And it's worth remembering how he came to Donald Trump's attention. It was this thing called the Nunes memo that he co-wrote back in 2018 that was looking at how the FBI obtained FISA warrants on Carter Page and the Russia investigation. And you know, it's worth saying that there's a lot of things in that memo that actually were vindicated by the Justice Department Inspector General. The FBI did make mistakes, as David said, but the fundamental notion that the Russia

investigation was a hoax, that's just wrong. That's a conspiracy theory. And if you don't believe me, go read the Senate Intelligence Committee report released in 2000, that was co-signed by Marco Rubio. And I hope he's asked about this as confirmation hearing, because it is a remarkable document that really most people have never seen, don't know what it says. It was signed off on by the Republican senators on the Intelligence Committee,

and it said that Russia interfered in the election, that the Trump campaign was open to those efforts and was willing to use the fruits of Russian interference to help get elected, and it called that a massive counterintelligence threat. So that's Cash Patel's foundational belief, the Russia hoax, and it's just flat wrong, guys. Well, and here's actually a quote from that GOP Senate intel report that I keep handy.

The report's language is often stark describing the Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort's receptivity to Russian oligarch as, quote, a grave counterintelligence threat that made the campaign susceptible to, quote, malign Russian influence that comes from Republicans on the Intel committee led at the time by Marco Rubio. Yeah, and we're not shocked about this because we were warned about this all along, and I wonder what a conversation like this would look like in the world of Cash Batella's FBI director. Just keep that in mind. Everything will be looked at as perhaps an assault on him, and perhaps he takes it out on members of the media talking about him.

He's using free speech with real information and facts. He said it. We got the warning. We got many warnings. We got another breaking news last night from the New Yorker. More, you know, I'd already heard that the Pete Hegseth nomination was in grave danger from my sources inside the Senate. Grave danger before a letter that dropped this weekend and before the whistleblower news

that came out late last night from the New Yorker. It was a real pattern being tracked out and fact checked about his behavior. And now Penelope Hegseth, the mother of Trump's Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, told her son he should, quote, get some help and accused him of abusing multiple women in a newly unearthed email from her back in 2018. The email was obtained by the New York Times from another person with ties to the family. In it Penelope wrote in part, you are an abuser of women. That is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women

for his own power and ego. NBC News has not independently obtained the email. The message was sent in the midst of an acrimonious divorce from Hegseth's second wife, Samantha. Their marriage ended after Trump's choice to lead the Department of Defense impregnated a Fox News co-worker with whom he was having an affair. In an interview with the Times on Friday, Penelope Hegseth defended her son,

saying she disavowed those sentiments as well as apologized in a follow-up email. She told the paper, "'It's not true, it has never been true, adding, I know my son, he's a good father, husband. We'll read the full original email in a moment. Hegs's lawyer declined to respond. Trump's transition team provided a statement saying

it was shameful, but not surprising, that the New York Times is publishing a story about one out-of-context snippet. The entire purpose of this exercise is to malign Mr. Hegseth. The email comes as senators weigh the potential impact of a 2017 sexual assault investigation against him that has come to light. No charges were filed in the investigation, and Hegseth has maintained the encounter was consensual, but in 2023 he paid his accuser an undisclosed sum as part of a settlement agreement.

Meanwhile, a new piece on Pete Hegseth was just published in The New Yorker about a whistleblower report and other documents suggesting that Trump's nominee to run the Pentagon was forced out of a previous leadership position for financial mismanagement and sexist behavior and being repeatedly intoxicated on the job. It reads in part, a trail of documents corroborated by the accounts of former colleagues indicates that Hegsath was forced to step down by both of the two nonprofit advocacy groups that he ran, Veterans for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America, in the face of serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct. A previously undisclosed whistleblower report on Hexseth's tenure as the president of Concerned

Veterans for America from 2013 until 2016 describes him as being repeatedly intoxicated while acting in his official capacity to the point of needing to be carried out of the organization's events. The detailed seven-page report, which was compiled by multiple CVA employees and sent to the organization's senior management in February of 2015, states that at one point, Hegseth had to be restrained while drunk from joining the dancers on the stage of a Louisiana strip club where he had brought his team. The report also says that Hegseth, who was married at the time and other members of his management team, sexually pursued the organization's female staffers, whom they divided into two groups, the party girls and the not party girls," the New Yorker continues, in a separate letter of complaint, which was sent to

the organization in late 2015. A different former employee described Hegseth being at a bar in the early morning hours of May 29th, 2015, while on an official tour through Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, drunkenly chanting, kill all Muslims, kill all Muslims. In response to questions from the New Yorker, a lawyer for Hegseth replied with the following statement, which he said came from an advisor to Hegseth that read in part, We're not going to comment on outlandish claims laundered through the New Yorker by a petty and jealous, disgruntled former associate of Mr. Hegseth's.

The New Yorker also notes that Hegseth has been open about resorting to alcohol during a period in his life when he had returned to the U.S. from active military duty and felt lost. NBC News has not seen the whistleblower report or letter of complaint cited by the New Yorker. More quotes from the New Yorker. The whistleblower continued as if in disbelief, quote, a Fox News contributor with the rank of captain in the National Guard and the CEO of the veterans organization in a strip club trying to dance with strippers, which of course, as the whistleblower reports say, from 2015, he had to be dragged off stage.

Let's bring in right now the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, retired four-star Navy Admiral James Trevides. He's an international analyst for NBC News. Mika is going to read the letter from Pete Hegseth's mother, which aligns with much of what is written here. She wrote that in 2018. He, of course, had an incident that was reported on about another event he went to,

which led to accusations of rape, but also, again, reported drunken behavior, screaming out in the courtyard of this event. And there's so much to ask, but we've been talking about Pete Hegseth for a few weeks now that even if he were Atticus Finch, the character of Atticus Finch, he would not have the abilities to run the most complicated, biggest bureaucracy, most powerful bureaucracy in the world. And would be doing a disservice, as I always say, not only to America, not only to the men and women in uniform,

but to the president he's supposed to serve. But here we find he got booted, according to this New Yorker reporting, he got booted from heading up two vets groups because of the same drunken behavior, because of the same unfortunate behavior that his mother wrote about and that we reported on this past week. I've just got to ask you, Admiral, how in the world does any United States Senator confirm

Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense? Okay, we don't have audio. Hold on one sec. There we go. Let's try that again and I'll... Yeah, my fault, my bad. So the question is, again, given everything, how does any United States Senator, Republican or Democrat, or Independent, vote for Pete Hegseth to run the Department of Defense.

I don't see it. Let's break it down into three items. One is this package of character issues, and it's the entire parts that you've talked about. There's just too many there for any rational observer to say, oh that's a disgruntled employee or that's somebody who he worked with a long time ago. These are recent, they're fresh. His mother's comments, my mom is watching today, your mom's a pretty good source on most of us.

I think all of that is almost in and of itself a character issue that's significant. Secondly, you haven't mentioned it, but his comments about women being unqualified to serve in combat. I've commanded women in combat, a lot of them, including as a young captain of a ship with a mixed gender crew that went into combat, to aircraft carrier strike groups, to NATO itself. Women are 20% of the Department of Defense and they have performed well in combat. Those comments alone, I think, would be pretty close to disqualifying.

That's kind of a policy piece. And then third and finally, you mentioned it Joe and Mika, it's the management responsibilities. I spent two and a half years as Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld's senior military assistant as a three-star admiral. I've seen that job up close and personal. And you look at the people who have held it, I work directly for Bob Gates, who led the CIA, Leon Panetta, who was chief of staff in the White House and led the CIA. That's the kind of level of experience and management you need to have. And when you put all that together, I'll just close with two words, nuclear codes.

This is a job that goes beyond the range of anything else in the cabinet in its power, in its impact, the number of people, the complexity, and the need to model appropriate behavior. So, Richard, you're obviously well acquainted with the federal government, with the Pentagon. Give us your sense as to Hegseth's qualifications for this job, but also considering all the allegations that are being put forth here, how is this being, would this be perceived by the rest of the world, or Hegseth to get this job? Well, look, he's manifestly unqualified for this. The one thing in his favor is he served in the military, and that's significant, but

everything else is from the character issues to the lack of management experience and so forth, is essentially disqualifying. This is not a close call. The rest of the world, particularly our allies who depend on us, they see this. This is the sort of thing that's unnerving. Look, Donald Trump has 340 million Americans to choose from. We've already been through Cash Patel and P-Tag Seth. We haven't even gotten to Tulsi Gabbard or RFK Jr.

This is the well of possibility. People who are ideologically attuned to him, yet also qualified, there's an enormous number of people. Why this? Why this sort of stuff? Is it to simply satisfy his most extreme elements? These are people who simply, they probably couldn't get security clearances in some cases, Jonathan.

The idea that they would then have this enormous responsibility. And the other part, by the way, the other thing a secretary of defense does besides manage, he's also the president's advisor. So this is often the last person in the Oval Office with the president talking about things when we're about to commit American troops to combat. And again, the question you'd have to ask here, you have to ask about Tash Patel, who would be in these meetings if he were confirmed, Tulsi Gabbard. Are these the sort of people you want at the end of the day giving advice to the president?

Do you trust their judgment? I think the answer is pretty obvious. All right. So here now is the text of the email that Pete Hexheth's mother sent him, and this is in 2018. It's rough. Son, I've tried to keep quiet about your character and behavior, but after listening to the way you made Samantha feel today, I cannot stay silent.

And as a woman and your mother, I feel I must speak out. You are an abuser of women. That's the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man and have been for years. And as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that. But it is the sad, sad truth. I'm not a saint far from it. So don't throw that in my face.

But your abuse over the years to women, dishonesty, sleeping around, betrayal, debasing, belittling needs to be called out. Sam is a good mother and a good person under the circumstances that you created. And I know deep down that you know that. For you to try and label her as unstable for your own advantage is despicable and abusive. Is there any sense of decency left in you? She did not ask for or deserve any of what has come to her by your hand. Neither did Meredith.

I know you think this is one big competition and that we have taken her side. Bunk! We're on the side of good and that is not you. Go ahead and call me self-righteous. I don't care. Don't you dare run to her and cry foul that we shared with us. That's what babies do. And it's time for someone, I wish it was a strong man, to stand up to your abusive behavior

and call it out, especially against women. We still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and lack of character. I don't want to write emails like this and never thought I would. If it damages our relationship further, then so be it. But at least I have said my piece. And yes, we are praying for you. And you don't deserve to know how we are praying, so skip the snarky reply. I don't want an answer to this. I don't want to debate

with you. You twist and abuse everything I say anyway. But on behalf of all the women, and I know it's many, you have abused in some way. I say get some help and take an honest look at yourself. an honest look at yourself. Mom. Admiral, I'll have you respond. Repeatedly, the mother talk, his mother, it is an extraordinarily painful letter. The mother repeatedly talks about him being an abuser of women, which lines up with the whistleblower report that came out last night, which lines up with the charges that I believe came out about night, which lines up with the charges that I believe came out

about this same time. Of course, the mother, as we said at the top, later recanted. As lawyers would say, the fact patterns line up from the actions that the New Yorker reports this morning that the whistleblowers of these two vet organizations talked about before, then the letter, and then of course the allegations of rape and drunken behavior after that. Admiral, again, I go back to the question, how does anybody, when his own mother continually called him an abuser of women, how does anybody in the Senate have this man run the Pentagon, run the armed services of the United States of America?

First, that is a heartbreaking letter. And I think we ought to just take a beat here and think of Penelope, the mother, and what she must be feeling as she writes a letter like that and then has to try and recant it, et cetera. My heart goes out to that family. So let's just park that.

Now let's go back to the national security of the United States of America. That's an important thing. It's a vital thing. And Richard just outlined how this kind of selection hurts us with our allies. Think about how this is being received in Moscow, in Beijing, in Tehran,

in Havana, in Damascus, in Caracas. This is not who we want to entrust our national security to. Again, character we've unpackaged, I think, pretty thoroughly at this point. The inability to model the behavior to lead at least 20% of the force, the women. And number three, I just keep coming back to it, the management of the size and scale. Three million people, $800 billion budget. These are enormous burdens we pace on people like Robert Gates, Leon Panetta. I don't see how someone like Pete Hegseth is ready for those kind of burdens on any of these accounts. So Michael, we had already heard last week before the Thanksgiving holiday that Hegseth's nomination was in trouble. Now

that Gates had had bowed out, he was the one that Republican senators were really starting to feel leery about. In the wake of these new allegations, this new reporting, where do things stand now? Do you see at least four Republican senators who would say no? I suspect that this letter in the new reporting from the New Yorker will make that possibility much more greater, right? As you mentioned before, this wasn't looking too great for Pete Hegseth before the Thanksgiving break. Senators were giving him the benefit of the doubt, saying that will allow him to come

sit for his hearing, we'll have those conversations. But there was a lot of the skepticism, right? He was receiving a lot of that scrutiny. We are hearing from senators that they wanted to see more information. I suspect that this is going to put that into overdrive. Senators obviously don't have to comment on something if it drops over the weekend if they don't want to but they're coming back to the Capitol today. They're gonna be in the building this afternoon and I know for sure they're gonna be peppered with questions about this and we've already heard from some

members for example Joni Ernst, Republican from Iowa, somebody who has been a very strong proponent against sexual assault in the military, she's already asked for more information on the 2017 allegations against Pete Hegseth. I suspect we will hear that from more people on a more vocal level. And also, let's look ahead a little bit. If this nomination does make its way to a potential confirmation hearing. It's an if right now.

We saw Matt Gaetz withdraw before we got to that point. If Pete Hegseth gets there, we're gonna be hearing about these allegations in very stark detail. Mika just read that letter from Pete Hegseth's mother. I suspect we'll be hearing it be read from senators during that hearing over and over again. It's not the narrative that the Trump transition team wants

in these waning days of the Biden administration as they prepare to head into their first 100 days. But this is taking up a lot of the oxygen in the room. And it seems that this trickle of allegations against Hegseth just continue to come out. All right. Retired four-star Navy Admiral James Stavridis, thank you very much for coming on this morning. We appreciate your insight. And still ahead on Morning Joe,

we're gonna get to President Biden's controversial decision to issue a full and unconditional pardon for his son, Hunter, and the swift reaction from Capitol Hill. We're back in 90 seconds. MUSIC MUSIC Hey, welcome back to Morning Joe, beautiful shot of Washington, DC. Is today December? It is December, guys.

Get ready for Christmas. The first day of December and what an absolutely- Second. Is today December 2nd? Yes, sir. Are we in January yet? No. There we are, looking at Washington, DC on December the 2nd. Thank you guys so much for being with us.

I want to really quickly, Richard Haas, want you to give us a final word on Pete Hegseth. I know you heard what the Admiral had to say. Your concerns given all of the information that broke overnight and over the weekend. given all of the information that broke overnight and over the weekend? I thought the Admiral about got it right. Joe, there's all the character issues and they're piling up. And even if every single, no single charge brings him down, the combination becomes really, really difficult for him to surmount. And then there's just simply the scale of this job.

My first job in 79 was in the Pentagon. And you see the scale of what you've got to deal with, and now it's, what, close to three million people, civilian and military. The budget, and this is a moment where we got real problems with the military, how we're spending the money. We don't have a force that's capable enough. In some ways, we haven't absorbed the new technologies and integrated them.

We don't have a defense industrial base. So as big as this job traditionally has been, it's going to be bigger than ever now, because we're also facing conflicts, actual conflicts in two geographies, and a potential one in a third. So the sheer demands of this job have never been bigger. And the idea that we would take a chance at this moment one and a third. So the sheer demands of this job have never been bigger. And the idea that we would take a chance at this moment on something so big and so important

just seems to me rules this individual out. Well, I mean, it seems to be far more than a chance. This is a talk about just an extraordinarily dangerous time for somebody ill-suited for the position, just based on his lack of experience. And you just start there. And David Rode, you add on top of that, again, you add on top of that the constitutional dimensions, the concerns that the military could be used against its own people, David. Your concerns, given everything that you heard from the New

Yorker that you saw in the letter that was published this weekend, the information before, the lack of experience. The United States, I think, and for American democracy to work, there has to be some nonpartisan public service. The military, the modern American military, is a model of nonpartisanship. That's one of the strongest qualities that exists there. And I think by our hyperpartisanship, this nomination is sort of an example of that. A real, again, a loyalist very pro-Trump, but lacking the qualifications. And it's a broader pattern. We can talk about it at the Pentagon and the FBI. It's just dangerous when you have politics playing such a major role in the U.S. military

where American lives are at stake and when you have politics and political loyalty again playing a role potentially at the FBI, which is again an enormously powerful agency that protects Americans. But if the FBI comes at you unfairly, it also can ruin your life. Well, speaking of the FBI, Michael, let me circle back to you really quickly because John Lemire asked you about the possibility of Pete Haggis actually getting through the Senate, which again, based on my reports, even before this weekend, he was already in serious trouble. Let's talk about, we haven't spoken to you about Cash Patel yet.

How comfortable are senators going to be, first of all, getting rid of Christopher Wray, when so I would guess the majority of senators right now think he did a good job since Donald Trump appointed him in 2017. But also how comfortable the Republican senator's going to be agreeing to the possibility of Cash Patel as FBI director after he has promised to jail reporters, journalists, editors, judges, and others that didn't go around with the 2020 conspiracy.

Yeah, well, Joe, you present it perfectly there. The conversation surrounding Cash Patel is sort of split up into two different discussions. A, it's his background and some of the things that you mentioned. Mass firings at the DOJ and the FBI, taking away security clearances of these career officials who investigated Trump during the 2016 election, shutting down the FBI headquarters. There's that background and that doesn't get into, you know, him serving during the Trump administration, some questions that he got from the January 6 committee and so forth.

And then you have the conversation about firing Christopher Wray. And that dynamic was presented, you know, by two Republican senators so far over the weekend. Again, same situation, news drops over the weekend. You only have a few reactions. There will definitely be questions about this in the Capitol later today. Chuck Grassley saying that, well, he didn't support Christopher Wray. He thinks that there needs to be a replacement there.

He said, Cash Patel is going to have to prove that he deserves confirmation in this situation. And then sort of the other side of the coin we heard from Mike Rounds, who, Joe, you mentioned earlier in the show, Republican from South Dakota, he said that he thinks that Christopher Wray has done a good job thus far. He was first, of course, nominated to be FBI director in 2017. His term isn't set to expire until 2027. And Mike Rounds also stopping short, very short, of a full endorsement of Cash Patel. So these lukewarm responses saying that he has to prove that he deserves confirmation,

are notable, because we heard from a lot of Trump loyalists in the Capitol and also some of these hardline Republicans who say that Cash Patel is going to be a great pick and he's going to get confirmed. People like Marsha Blackburn, Ted Cruz. So this lukewarm reaction and this cautious approach is notable, and those folks are going to be the ones to watch when we talk about who are going to be these potentially three or four Republicans who would take that vote to tank one of Trump's nominations.

Well, and it is notable and it reminds me of what we were hearing after Matt Gaetz was selected as attorney general. That of course ended up with Pam Bondi as a selection. All right, so let's move on because President Biden has issued a full and unconditional pardon for his son Hunter. Biden announced the controversial decision last night after previously saying he would not use his presidential powers to do so. In a statement, Biden argues Hunter has been selectively and unfairly prosecuted.

And he wrote in part this, There's been an effort to break Hunter, who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they've tried to break me. And there's no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough. Hunter Biden would have faced sentencing on December 12th And there's no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough. Hunter Biden would have faced sentencing on December 12th for his conviction on federal

gun charges and a separate sentencing on December 16th for federal tax evasion charges, which he pled guilty to in September. With this now, let's bring in former U.S. attorney and MSNBC legal analyst Joyce Vance. She is co-host of the Sisters in Law podcast. Joyce, we will get to you about this extraordinarily important news, plus your reaction to the Iron Bowl on Saturday night. First, let's go to Ken Delaney at the Justice Department.

Ken, curious, what is the reaction in and around the Justice Department on this decision by Joe Biden to pardon Hunter? Sadness, Joe, and some disquiet. Not so much about the pardon, but about the rationale that President Biden gave. If he had just stopped at saying, you know, Hunter Biden's my son and any father would do this, that would have been one thing. But he asserted that the prosecution of Hunter Biden had been political, had been selective. And DOJ officials, current and former, really balk at that

because there's no evidence that that's true. And we should remember that David Weiss, the special counsel in this case, he was the U.S. attorney in Delaware under Donald Trump. And Joe Biden and the Biden White House made the decision to keep him on to continue the Hunter Biden investigation long before Merrick Garland was ever named

to be the Attorney General and confirmed as Attorney General. So that was a Biden White House decision. David Weiss was the prosecutor. They investigated the case and the reason that Hunter Biden is facing prison time by some accounts. He was looking at three years in prison based on the two on the tax and the gun convictions is because he and his lawyers walked away from a no jail played guilty, and he was in a serious predicament, which is probably one of the reasons that Joe Biden felt compelled to pardon him,

to spare him from prison. But people are very concerned that what this does is it normalizes Donald Trump's worldview that the DOJ is not on the level, that it's politicized, that it's not nonpartisan. And that's the big concern that it's not nonpartisan. And that's the big concern that I'm hearing from my sources. Yeah.

NBC's Ken Delaney. And thank you very much for your reporting. So Joyce Vance, your thoughts on Hunter Biden being pardoned by his father. So I hate to disagree with my friend Ken Delaney. And but look, the reality here is if this was anyone other than Joe Biden's son, no one would object to a pardon on these facts. The pardon process is meant to do mercy.

It's meant to do justice. It's often used for people, most frequently used for people who are guilty of the crimes that they've committed where there are extenuating factors at work. And as I say, if this was not Joe Biden's son, no one would object. But we are clearly here because this is Joe Biden's son. While judges may not have seen fit to dismiss the cases under high legal standards for selective and vindictive prosecution, There's a clear feeling here that these cases would not have been indicted if anyone other than Joe Biden's son was involved in the conduct.

And on that basis, you can understand how this pardon makes sense under the circumstances. And I've been reporting for a better part of a year now about the weight, the personal toll this took on President Biden, the concern he had about his son and the guilt that he felt. He would tell some of his closest allies that he feels like Hunter Biden wouldn't have faced these charges or he could have gotten that plea deal where he not President and Republicans tried to use Hunter Biden against him as a political weapon here. And David wrote, I think some of the outcry is because President Biden himself and the

White House repeatedly said over and over, they would not do this. And that, I think, is fueling some of the anger, though many feel like, well, father, of course, would do this for his son. Let's talk about the Trump reaction, though, including, and I think we should be clear, he probably was going to do pardons anyway, but he's already seized upon this as a talking point that he could do the same, particularly for January 6 convicts. Yeah, that's the sort of scary dynamic here is you have Donald Trump saying, you know, he's equating January 6 with these other acts by Hunter Biden, and that's the difference

here and that what's the dangers that were normalizing January 6, that what happened there was, you there was not unusual, and those were just political prosecutions. So I do somewhat agree with Ken that the problem for the public is that they're gonna see the Justice Department and the whole kind of judicial system is corrupt. The presidents pardoned their sons. Trump pardoned the Kushners. Charles Kushner made him the ambassador to

France and so this is this pattern it seems of this corruption of Washington that Americans are so frustrated with. Yeah and to that point let's remember Jared Kushner's father Charles Kushner was convicted of crimes pardoned by Donald Trump in 2020 and over the weekend Joe Meekah named ambassador of France and we should be clear this is far from the first time that a president has used the pardon power for a family member, for a close ally. But this is one with Hunter Biden, of course,

has been such a flashpoint for Republicans for years now. And we should note, congressional investigations into Hunter Biden about wrongdoing, father and son, went nowhere. But it's no surprise they're going to grab on this now. Of course. Joyce, before we let you go, I do want to ask you about your concern about Cash Patel possibly being the FBI director. Again, a possibility. Donald Trump would have to fire Christopher Wray first, and as he said, he wants to do. But then he's talking about putting in somebody who has promised to jail judges, jail journalists, go after people inside the Justice Department who did not go along with the 2020 conspiracy theories

about stolen elections. What are the dangers of putting in somebody that has promised he's going to jail journalists if they didn't go along with the stop the steal conspiracy theory? So, Cash Patel doesn't have the experience or the temperament to lead the FBI. And it's exactly that kind of statement that you're referencing that demonstrates the fact that it's dangerous to put someone like this in charge. The director of the FBI has an enormous amount of power, enormous resources at his disposal. If Donald Trump is hell bent on engaging in revenge prosecutions, then Cash Patel is the kind of person you go to to implement those sorts

of policies. But look, I have a lot of confidence in the men and women of the FBI. FBI is, of course, one of the four component law enforcement agencies at the Justice Department. These are people who understand that they are only supposed to follow lawful orders. These are people who institutionally have a way to stand up and push back if they're asked to engage in prosecutions that aren't appropriate. I would hate to see democracy rest on the backs of these people, but I have confidence that if it comes down to that, they will push back. This is not a good pick for director of the FBI.

Well, you know, Joyce, what you just said I think is so important that the men and women of the FBI is, I'm talking to Joyce here, can we see Joyce? The men and women of the FBI, you believe the men and the women of the Justice Department will stand up and be counted and do their jobs. You could say the same about not only the generals and the admirals, but the rank and file men and women. The United States Armed Forces will do the same. We have already seen Republican senators stand up and say no to the possibility of Matt Gaetz.

I've heard reporting that they're about to do the same thing on Pete Haggith, that even before this weekend we have seen that. And I just, before we go, I want you to follow up on that too. We saw it with federal judges and Federalist Society members who became federal judges doing the same thing over four years. So the message that you're bringing here is that even in the face of these terrible challenges and terribly dangerous elections, you believe that there will be people that will stand up for the Constitution, for constitutional norms and freedoms? I absolutely do. There's a strong history, a

strong tradition of speaking truth to power inside of the Justice Department. Career employees are not political and there's a saying we used to have in my office that we were bees. We be here when they come, we be here when they go. Your job as a career justice department employee is to set the politics aside and to do the right things for the right reasons in the right way. I think we can count on the career ranks across government to do that.

And Joe, I think your point here is that we are a constitutional democracy. We have a system of checks and balances. So whether it's senators standing up and doing their job, refusing to confirm facially unfit nominees, whether it's the courts holding the line, whether it's executive branch employees checking power, that's the heart of our system. And Donald Trump and his followers seek to increase the power of the presidency. They're looking for an all-powerful, unitary executive. The battle of the next four years, the battle for the heart and soul of democracy, will

be seeing if the guardrails, these very real guardrails that are set up in the Constitution, the three branches, if they will hold against Donald Trump's abuses. Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance, NBC News National Security Editor David Rhoade and The Hill's Michael Schnell, thank you so much for being on this morning.