Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/3/24

Episode Date: December 3, 2024

Kash Patel has so-called 'enemies list' in 2023 book

All right. Good morning and welcome to morning Joe. It is Tuesday, December 3rd. We have a lot to get to this morning, including the increased scrutiny on Donald Trump's intended choice to be the next FBI director. We'll tell you who is on Cash Patel's so-called deep state enemies list. Meanwhile, Trump's selection for Secretary of Defense sat down with lawmakers yesterday following new allegations from whistleblowers detailing years of sexist behavior and alcohol

abuse will have their reaction to the closed-door meetings with Pete Hagstaff. Also ahead, we'll go through the Biden administration's last-minute efforts to get critical funding to Ukraine before the president-elect takes office. And we'll bring you the latest from the Middle East. As there are concerns this morning, the ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah may fall apart. Along with Joe, Willie, and me, we have the host of Way Too Early, Jonathan Lemire,

Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and Associated Editor of The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, Congressional Investigations Reporter for The Washington Post, Jackie Alamany, and columnist and associate editor for The Washington Post, David Ignatius. And let's dive right in.

Donald Trump's pick of Cash Patel to potentially lead the FBI is bringing increased attention to Patel's extreme views and his so-called enemies list. In his 2023 book, Government Gangsters, Patel has an entire appendix listing what he calls members of the executive branch deep state. The list, which contains 60 names, including Democrats, Biden administration officials,

and even some Trump appointees, among them former attorney general Bill Barr, former deputy AG Rod Rosenstein, Trump's former White House counsel Pat Cipollone and special counsel Robert Herr. In the book, Patel also calls for firing the top ranks of the FBI, prosecuting leakers and journalists, and replacing the national security workforce with people who don't undermine the president's agenda. Yesterday on Capitol Hill, some senators were asked about Trump's selection of Cash Patel. You know, I don't know him.

I have read some of his comments and seen them, and I think that's the reason that this process starting earlier is much to our benefit. We're going to get a chance to sit down. I'll get a chance to talk to him. I have a big FBI presence in my state. We do all the background checks for all the guns and it's an important part of the FBI's mission and I want to stay protected. If you have the power of that office, the FBI Directorate, and you're using it to go after political enemies or the press or people you regard as adversaries.

That's worse than incompetence. That's abuse of power that you have. That power is awesome. We're talking right now about potential replacement, though, for Christopher Wray, somebody Donald Trump appointed in 2017, somebody that has bipartisan support with many senators on the Republican side and the Democratic side. He's supposed to have a 10-year term that started in 2017. But there has been the signal from Donald Trump that he's going to fire Chris Ferre. And Willie, he's going to replace him.

He wants to replace him. He wants to replace him. He wants to replace him with somebody that has an enemies list, somebody who was selling boots, cash boots a couple of years ago, but has an enemies list. And he's written it out, the people he wants to go after, a lot, a lot of Republicans, a lot of Democrats, a guy who has promised that he is going to go after reporters and journalists and arrest them for not following conspiracy theories about the 2020 election that have been disproven time and time again. Stand by, we're going to be talking about Dinesh D'Souza having to apologize in a second. And also saying he's going to shut down the FBI. He's going to clear it all out.

This is this is man. If it is not the most radical pick, it's one of the most radical picks. And again, if if this is something that the Republican Party endorses in 2024, 2025, then it actually will be a Republican Party in the Senate that has reached a new low. And back to your thought about Christopher Wray, the reason FBI directors get 10-year terms is because that is supposed to be insulated from politics. By definition, it spans at least two presidencies. So Donald Trump, as you said, appointed Christopher Wray in 2017.

He's supposed to have a term that goes till 2027. He said he's gonna fire him. And Cash Patel is a guy who is really the pure distillation of MAGA energy. He is a loyalist to the end of Donald Trump, his entire being, his entire public persona, his entire life has been run in the last decade or so in support of Donald Trump in attacking his perceived enemies, as you said, in perpetuating

conspiracy theories. The job of FBI director is deadly serious because their work is deadly serious and something that should not be used as an appointment of a loyalist, a friend to attack perceived enemies. But that's what Donald Trump has chosen here. Open question whether the Senate goes along with this. David, you actually profiled Cash Patel a few years ago. For people who don't know him in the piece, you detail how Patel rose from being an obscure

Hill staffer to a key operative in Trump's battle with the intelligence community. So what more should people know about Cash Patel as we enter this process? I think, Willie, the main thing is that he is the most loyal, extreme in his loyalty member of Trump's entourage that I've encountered. When he was sent to the Pentagon as chief of staff under Chris Miller in a very brief period at the end of 2020, serving under Secretary Miller, he came with a very specific and focused agenda. This is what President Trump wants me to do.

He was not there to run the Pentagon as chief of staff in the usual way. He was there to conduct specific political goals. There was a list of them, but Trump wanted troops removed from various battlefields around the world. Patel tried his best, in most cases failed, to get those troops out of the way. He wanted to install a Trump loyalist in a key position at the National Security Agency, one of our most sensitive intelligence collection facilities. He talked with the CIA about reducing the Pentagon's support

for CIA operations, whole string of things. He made clear to the people that he was working with at the Pentagon that he was not there to do the normal job of being a chief of staff, but to do the president's bidding. And I think what's of concern when you think about him as FBI director is the FBI director has extraordinary powers to conduct surveillance on American citizens. And those powers to listen into phone calls, to read mail, so to speak, would be directed by somebody who has shown that he has a very political agenda. And as you said, in his book, he had an enemy's list. Yes, he did.

And Cash Patel has consistently pushed false claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election, including a widely debunked film by the name of 2000 Mules. And now the man who made the film, Dinesh D'Souza, is finally admitting publicly, finally, that parts of the film are simply not true. The core of D'Souza's conspiracy theory contended that Democrats hired mules during the 2020 election to collect and drop off ballots at the same drop boxes multiple times. D'Souza released a statement on his website yesterday admitting the data he used to promote that theory was not accurate and that he only recently learned of the inconsistencies. Oh please. I mean come on.

Everybody, even Ann Coulter said it was stupid years ago. It was so patently, obviously, stupidly false and everybody knew it when it came out. D'Souza also issued an apology to an Atlanta area man who sued after the film wrongly identified him as a so-called mule, repeatedly dropping off ballots. Despite those admissions, D'Souza maintains the underlying premise of his film, quote, holds true and continues to claim there was substantial fraud in the 2020 election without providing any evidence to back up those claims. Never, never, never provide, Jonathan O'Meara.

They never provide any evidence. They never do the damage. They do wild claims. Say they're sorry. They destroy people's lives. Look at Rudy Giuliani, the lives that Rudy Giuliani destroyed and the cost of it to those women and now the financial costs to Rudy Giuliani. The lies repeated over and over again.

And one of those lies lies at the center of the guy who wants to be the next director of the FBI. And what are you hearing on the Hill from Senate Republicans? Are there four Senate Republicans that are going to say, you know, it may not be a good idea that we actually put a guy in charge of the FBI who says he's going to shut down the building on day one, he's going to arrest journalists and reporters

that didn't follow Dinesh D'Souza's lies on conspiracy theories about the 2020 election, and he has an enemies list and he's promised to persecute those on his enemies list. Yeah, first on Dinesh D'Souza, the 2000 mules has been debunked now. The book version had to be retracted and re-edited. The publisher has apologized and halted distribution of the book. And now, yesterday, D'Souza himself apologizing and say that the film was based on inaccuracies. It's wrong every way about it from the start

and you're right there are some real consequences here for innocent people but Cash Patel at least so far hasn't paid any consequences for supporting these lies. In fact it's partially why he's Donald Trump's choice to be FBI director. What I'm hearing on the Hill is, look, yesterday, there's the first day senators were back on the Hill since the choice of Patel was announced. And there was even a Susan Collins who many expect will stand in opposition to this. She paid lip service to like, of course,

we need to learn more about him, do the process and so on. So senators are not gonna come out right away and say, no, I'm not for this. But we're already hearing rumblings that there will be plenty who will not be. Collins-Mercowski, we expect Mitch McConnell, others, Senator Rounds, one who has expressed the misgivings already. There's a belief that this number will grow because if you get to four it's scuttled and if you get to four you probably get the six eight ten twelve and the like because others will be able to jump in maybe if not wanting to be that decisive vote. So Jackie let's get your

sense of this because right now Republican senators do have a bit of a balancing act. They have some calculus here. How many of these can they oppose? Matt Gaetz took himself out of the running sparing themselves a no vote. We had Pete Hegseth who we'll talk more about later. He was on the Hill yesterday trying to lobby senators. We know there's real growing opposition to him because of some of the allegations that are coming forward in the New Yorker reporting in other places. And we also have some senators saying, why is Christopher Wray being fired? He's done a good job.

And let's not forget, Wray himself only in the post because Trump fired James Comey because of allegations that he was meddling with the Russia investigation. So give us the state of play there. What's got to be a stressful time for these Republican senators? Yeah, Jonathan, this is going to be a real test for Republicans who face a number of controversial nominees that that Trump has appointed to the most high profile and powerful positions in the government. Yesterday, Pam Bondi was making the rounds on Capitol Hill, who, at least compared to

the rest of the crew of picks, is one of the less controversial choices that Trump has made. But, as we've spoken about extensively, there are still a handful of others who rank up there with Cash Patel in terms of their conspiratorial and controversial views. I think that Republicans on the Hill so far, as you noted, are loathe to come out hot on this and outright deny and say that they're not going to support certain nominees. They want to at least have the appearances of going through a fair and thorough process. And that's why I think you're seeing now a number of Republicans, even some more conservative

Republicans who would be more likely to support Trump's picks unconditionally, call for FBI background checks. They're basically now rallying around process, trying to get Trump and the Trump transition process to go the more traditional route, which is a little bit of a sea change already from what we saw at the beginning of November when Trump initially won the election

and we were talking about recess appointments. Now you have people like John Kennedy who are calling for thorough background checks with the FBI, so people like Patel can be vetted. And so that Republicans on the Hill have the full array of facts on them. But you are right that there probably is some sort of internal thinking about these limits

of how far they can oppose Trump at the end of the day. But if there is this growing constituency of opposition, you know, like we've seen with Matt Gaetz, it ultimately might have the power to persuade Trump otherwise. Yeah, FBI background checks should be the bare minimum for people who want these really important jobs. But of course, you know, Donald Trump and his transition team running their own process. Joe and Mika, just one last point on the Dinesh D'Souza film, because it is so foundational when you talk to Trump supporters.

It's shorthand. 2,000 mules, the election was stolen. He did make that one apology about the information in the movie, but went on to say the underlying premise of the film holds true. He says there was fraud sufficient to call the outcome into question. There was not. I only bring that up because that is something

that Cash Patel is heavily invested in, the idea that the 2020 election was stolen and that he's gonna seek retribution against the people he perceives to have stolen him. So those will be among the questions asked of Cash Patel if he makes it through to the confirmation hearing. Well, so I'm curious. I'm curious, is he going to go after

these 63 federal judges? Right. Who said the lie was bullshit? Is he gonna go after them? Is he gonna go after the United States Supreme Court? Who said it was bullshit? Is he gonna go after Clarence Thomas and Alito, the two most conservative justices

who when they reviewed the Pennsylvania appeal said, well, we need to look at this for legal reasons but it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election. Is he going to go after them as well? I mean seriously, 63 federal decisions. The Supreme Court, you can go on and on and on. I mean, this is absolutely, absolutely preposterous. I will tell you what else is preposterous, too. You can use BS. I did. Did I not say that?

Yeah. Yeah, I thought I said that. Yeah. So anyway, I'll tell you what else is preposterous. And this next story really speaks to it. You know, Willie, you got you get these pundits and everybody going, you know, this was the worst loss of all time. And it certainly obviously, because what was at stake in the presidential race? Obviously, we said it here time and time again, most important election of our lifetime. And it went the other way from where we would have liked it to go.

And yet all of these articles about the Democratic Party is destroyed forever and, oh my God, what are we doing? Pundits sticking hands in blenders while going on blue sky and Twitter. I mean, it's if you look at how close this race was, and I've got to say this again, because nobody listens. Nobody listens to everybody that's actually getting the actual facts out there. a news story about from Fox News about the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States House on January the 20th when Donald Trump is sworn in one Republicans have a one-vote. You look at the Senate, we've already talked about how close it is there. You look at Wisconsin, Harris lost by less than a percentage point there. She lost by about 1.2, 1.3 percent in Michigan.

She lost by 1.5, 1.6 percent in Pennsylvania. Like we said repeatedly going up to the election, this race is tied. Now I could see if this was like an LBJ style blowout in 64 or a Nixon blowout in 72 or a Reagan blowout in 84. But this was one of the closest elections ever, especially if you look at the outcome of the House and the outcome of the Senate. And the only reason Democrats are not in charge of the United States House of Representatives and Hakeem Jeffries is not Speaker of the House is because North Carolina legislators rigged the process so badly that they took away three Democratic seats there in a rigged redistricting attempt that actually held up.

So again, here we are one month since the 2024 election, Willie, and only one House seat that remains uncalled this morning but is breaking Democratic makes it look like they're in a dead time. You know what they call this like in Europe? A unity government because they're basically tied. So all these people saying that this is the end of the world for the Democratic Party,

I think they may be over analyzing this just a bit. Yeah, a three vote majority in the Senate for Republicans and a even narrower majority at this moment in the House. And as you said, Joe, those swing states, all seven of which went to Donald Trump, and there are some very troubling signs inside the vote for Democrats that they're already looking at and need to adjust to to change. But let's remember he won by a point and a half within the margin of error of all the polling as we said all along.

He won by a couple million votes. He's under a majority at 49.9% this morning, doesn't even have 50%. So you can throw out terms like landslide, which his campaign and transition team likes to use. He does have a mandate in the sense of Republicans are fully behind him, but the idea that he's going to steamroll through anything he wants. He is pushing those boundaries right now. Let's be clear to see how far Republicans will go, but he just doesn't have the votes

to do at all on his own terms. So let's explain what Joe was saying. One house seat remains uncalled still this morning, four weeks after election day. In California's 13th congressional district, Republican Congressman John Duarte is trailing his Democratic challenger by more than 200 votes with 99% of the vote in. Should his Democratic challenger oust him, House Speaker Mike Johnson will likely be dealing with a one-seat majority for those first 100 days of Congress.

That's because two House members are likely to serve in the incoming Trump administration, and former Florida Congresswoman Matt Ga Gates resigned from office last month, which will leave those seats empty until special elections are held. That small majority may also be due in part because of the North Carolina Supreme Court. As Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report notes, when Republicans won the majority on the court in 2022, they had the power to redraw three Democratic seats into the GOP's hands, which may have effectively killed Democrats' chances at winning the House this cycle. So, Gene Robinson, you can take that into the fold.

It may be a one-vote majority for the first hundred days in the House. Certainly, Donald Trump won all those swing states, most of them within the margin of error narrowly. But what does it all mean for his, let's say, first few months, first year in office? Well, he has a victory, but not a mandate. This is not a mandate to do the things he promises to do. But what he is trying to do is put together an administration built on a foundation of lies, built on the lie about the stolen election, built on the lies about the deep state, the

conspiratorial deep state, built on the lies about vaccines built on lies. And that's what, unfortunately, he's going to try to push through. And so we'll see if Republicans in the Senate have the backbone to push back. Background checks, I think, will help, perhaps, sink some of these nominations. But, you know, he's going to proceed as if this were an LBJ landslide and try to get through a program that is potentially, you know, disastrous for the country. Certainly not helpful at all for the country, but look, this is what we said for months and months and months, believe him when he says what he's gonna do

if he's elected and he's trying to do it. Well, and what we've said time and time again on the show, what we said before the election is, don't listen to what Kamala Harris says, listen to what Donald Trump says, Listen to what Donald Trump says. Listen to what Donald Trump's promising to do. There's one problem with that, though, David Ignatius. He's running into basically a divided government, a 50-50 government.

You know, anybody that has been in the House or served in the House more than one minute knows you've got 435 people there and they are focused on 435 separate things, their own re-election. We saw the chaos when Mike Johnson had a four or five vote majority. A one vote majority makes one thing clear. If Republicans and Donald Trump want to get things done, they can talk tough, they can position themselves far out on the extremes, but you just look at the raw numbers. And they're going to have to deal with Democrats. And people on X can scream and shout and hoot and holler all they want to, but you got a one vote majority. Soon, maybe in six months, a three vote majority. But we've all been around long enough to know,

and I don't mean to be in politic because God knows I'm never that. And some of these members aren't going to make it to the end of their term for a variety of reasons. For a variety of reasons. They retire. They decide to go out and play golf. They want to move to Boca. You name it. They don't make it through. The rate of attrition suggests that this could go any way. And so you got that small margin, you got the small margin in the United States Senate, and if anybody wants to get anything done, they're going to have to do something that nobody talked about in the campaign on the Republican side, and that is actually work with Democrats and have Democrats and Republicans figuring out how to pass legislation. So, Jo, I don't think we'll have a unity government,

as you suggested earlier. No. Nice as that might be. That's a bit sarcastic. But I do think your basic point is right, that individual members and senators are gonna have unusual power and have an opportunity, if they have have the courage to look into their hearts

and think what's right for the country. The margins are so narrow that if there forms a group in the House and Senate who says, we're not gonna be pushed around, we're gonna choose the right nominees for positions, we're gonna take principle positions on legislation, there'll be reasonable checks against arbitrary presidential decisions. Trump is assembling a cabinet that's prepared for his revenge and retribution agenda. And what will stop that is individual members of the legislative branch saying no, we are here precisely to stop arbitrary decisions from your branch, to weigh them, to advise and consent. And so

we're gonna watch an amazing drama, true piece of American history, as we see whether people have the courage, have the emotional strength to withstand what will be enormous pressure and do the right thing. All right. Still ahead on Morning Joe, new concerns. The fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah could unravel. NBC's Matt Bradley joins us from Lebanon with the latest from that region. We're back in 90 seconds.

Almost half past the hour ahead of the presidential transition next month, Donald Trump is weighing in on the conflict in Gaza, posting on social media yesterday that if the remaining hostages are not freed before his inauguration on January 20th, there will be quote, all hell to pay in the Middle East. Joining us now live from Beirut, NBC News, International course by Matt Bradley. Matt, there's a lot going on in the region, including the very shaky ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. What's the very latest right now?

That's right, Meagan. We're hearing Donald Trump weighing in, as you'd expect, on his own social social media platform saying basically he's going to come in here and bust heads if things don't go to plan right before he takes office. It's unlikely that a lot of this stuff is going to get resolved. I think we can expect that people probably take credit regardless of what happens. But this is a situation that is worsening in almost every column, every category here in the Middle East, including here in Lebanon, a nation where there had been peace as of about a week ago.

There was a peace deal that was brokered by the Biden administration, along with their partners in France. Now it looks like that's on very, very shaky ground. This was yesterday, the deadliest day so far here in Lebanon, since that peace treaty took effect almost a week ago, last Wednesday morning, 11 people were killed in Israeli bombardments across southern Lebanon. And you know, this is a situation where both sides once again are saying that the other

is to blame, blaming the other for violations of ceasefires. But at the same time, we know that Hezbollah had fired for the first time just yesterday into Israel. That was something that they hadn't done, but Israel has routinely been firing into Lebanon. Attacking targets that they say are essentially people moving towards Hezbollah military installations or missile silos. And this has happened repeatedly.

We've been hearing from the Lebanese speaker of parliament. He said that the Israelis have violated the ceasefire more than 50 times. And we've also heard from various other groups saying it's much, much more than that in terms of the violations coming from the Israeli side. Just this morning, we heard from a top Israeli official saying that if this peace treaty doesn't come to pass, if it crumbles, then the Lebanese people can expect that not just Hezbollah will be punished, but all of Lebanon will bear the brunt. So that is a very real threat considering that nearly 4,000 people were killed in just

the past several months of fighting here in Lebanon between Hezbollah and the Israelis. And they decapitated Hezbollah's leadership. But yet we heard from the US administration last night that it looks as though despite all of this really serious uptick in violence, that it looks as though this shaky truce is still holding. That is not the case for next door in Syria. Well, we're seeing what is really the first major maneuvers for the first time in the past five years for what was a dormant civil war ever since 2011 when we've seen that country being torn apart, mass amounts of death,

foreign intervention from all sides. Now it looks as though ever since Wednesday a brazen offensive by rebel groups, basically Islamist Salafi groups backed by their allies who were backed by Turkey, took over huge parts of northwestern Syria, breaking a peace treaty that had been in effect for about the past five years. It forced the regime of Bashar al-Assad to take flight. They really, those soldiers, abandoned their positions in a startling move. And ever since then, now we've been seeing airstrikes conducted by the regime of Bashar al-Assad and their partners, the Russians, against the cities of Aleppo and Idlib. That has killed dozens of people, according to the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

Now, this was a situation that it looks as though those rebels were taking advantage of the weakness of Iran and Russia, who, to put it mildly, have been distracted by wars elsewhere. Guys? Yeah. All right, NBC's Matt Bradley reporting from Beirut. Thank you so much. David Ignatius, so much to ask you about what's happening in Syria because of the weakness of Russia, because of the ruble falling. Russia casually is just mounting at horrific

levels. Also, Iran weaker than they've been. Their air defense is basically just blown to pieces. I'm wondering, what should we expect in the future on Syria? So Joe, I think what we're seeing right now is, as your correspondent said, an illustration of the significantly weakened state of Hezbollah, of Iran, of their proxies. In a sense, Bashar al-Assad's government in Syria is a proxy regime that couldn't really stand on its own without help from Russia, Iran, Hezbollah fighters. I think we're going to see a horrific campaign by the Syrian military, backed by Russian bombing and airstrikes, to take back Aleppo, the second largest city in Syria, which was

taken in a matter of hours by these rebels who swept south from their headquarters in Idlib just below the Turkish border. There was a terrible bloody battle for control of Aleppo a few years ago that left thousands of people dead. I fear we're going to see some repetition of that as the government tries to take control again. The U.S. has been trying to explore whether some deal with Syria might be possible, in which Syria agreed to cut off the flow of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

So far, given this trouble, that discussion has just stopped, just collapsed. But I think looking forward, what we see is that, literally, one war ends in the Middle East with a ceasefire in Lebanon, and another one starts up immediately. That's sort of a description of the fundamental instability of the whole region. Let's talk about Donald Trump's threat towards Hamas to release the hostages or else.

Tell me, you had written a column in the Washington Post about Donald Trump's opening when he becomes president for peace in the Middle East. Explain that. And does a weakened state of Hezbollah and Hamas and Syria and Iran make a peace deal more possible? So Trump campaigned in part on the idea that there are too many wars in the world, it's too dangerous a world, and that those wars needed to be settled.

He was referring primarily to Ukraine, but also said he wanted to see the wars in Gaza and Lebanon over by the time he became president. Now he's making a threat. If you don't end them, then you'll have hell to pay, a threat of use of further violence. I think that Israel needs to have a clearer plan about what happens in Gaza when the war ends than it does now. Part of the problem is that the Israelis still haven't come up with a coherent day after strategy.

Senior Israeli official was in the White House yesterday talking with the U.S. officials about possible approaches to a ceasefire in Gaza. Israel has achieved its military objectives there. It's really time to end this war and end the suffering. So I think right to the end of Biden's term, we're going to see an effort to settle this war with this threat looming behind that if you don't settle it by January 20, you'll have Donald Trump to deal with. And Trump obviously is a more determined supporter of Israel than Biden is.

And obviously, David, Ukraine is another place where people are in foreign policy world. And obviously, President Zelensky are concerned about what comes next with the new administration, the Ukrainian president indicating he would accept a ceasefire with Russia if his country is put on a path to NATO membership. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that it represents a subtle shift in Zelensky's rhetoric about ending the war with Russia. He's in effect suggesting he could accept leaving occupied territory in Moscow's hands if the rest of Ukraine were given protection by allied forces.

Ukraine's Defense Ministry meanwhile says the Russian army suffered record losses in military equipment and personnel in the month of November. According to the Kyiv Independent, nearly 46,000 Russian soldiers were wounded, killed, army suffered record losses in military equipment and personnel in the month of November. According to the Kyiv Independent, nearly 46,000 Russian soldiers were wounded, killed or captured last month. Ukrainian forces also reported destroying hundreds of tanks, armored combat vehicles and artillery. David, a new assistance package coming from the Biden administration, more than $700 million

to Ukraine. This does have the feel of getting everything it can into the hands of the Ukrainians in case the new Trump administration cuts it off. So, Willie, I think that's exactly right. The Biden administration wants to give Ukraine as much leverage as possible. It's allowed them to use these so-called Atacams missiles firing deep into Russia. It's allowed them to use anti-personnel mines, which were forbidden before. It's rushing the assistance as fast as it will go to help the Ukrainians in what I think everybody expects is likely to be a period in which there is at least discussion of some kind of peace agreement.

I think it's very interesting that Zelensky's saying he would accept some loss of territory. The key point for everybody to think about, most of all, President-elect Donald Trump, is whatever deal is made has to be durable enough that Ukrainians feel their security is protected, that this isn't going to just start up again after a brief lull, that Ukraine will have security guarantees that are like NATO membership, so that you actually have a real end of the war as opposed to just a brief truce and then renewed fighting. And certainly to this point, the Biden administration has not gone to support immediate NATO membership for Ukraine because of course, if Ukraine becomes a NATO country, Russia Russia attacks suddenly Article 5 is invoked and it

becomes a massive world war but they may, Zelensky I'm told may have settled for other security guarantees but Jackie let's revisit the idea of aid here and there's no doubt officials I've talked to in the Biden administration they've openly admit they're just trying to get as much as they can to Kiev before January 20th. Talk to us about it. Are there any mechanisms the Hill may also have? And is there any appetite at all?

Because we know there are some Republicans who are stalwart defenders of Ukraine, including Mitch McConnell, who has flat out said he wants that to be a big part of his legacy. Is there any sense that when Trump comes in, that there'll be a push there from the GOP on the hill even Losing one to try to get at least some aid to Ukraine even if not at the levels we're seeing now We're not going to likely see a push from from leadership, especially house GOP leadership The White House as as Politico reported yesterday has already requested a 24 billion dollar package By the end of the year for additional supplemental funding to go to Ukraine. That's on top of what's already been dispersed and allocated to Ukraine that the administration

is scrambling to get out the door right now. But Mike Johnson has already explicitly said that Donald Trump won on calling for an end to the war in Ukraine and that they're not going to support pushing this through. Likely they're going to just go along with a stop gap that's going to put them even further behind for their spending goals for 2026 and could actually complicate Donald Trump's plans when he comes into the administration. There are still a handful of stalwart Ukraine supporters like Mitch McConnell, people who are going to have outsized power with such slim

majorities. And in the House, depending on what happens when these final calls on the election are made, there is going to be the opportunity for someone in the House GOP conference to potentially put up a fight with regards to continuing to support Ukraine. But again, it's not going to come from leadership. And right now, getting that money out the door

is squarely in the hands of the Biden administration, that money that's already been allocated by Congress. It's a lot of interagency wrangling in order to quickly get the money out before January 20th. All right, The Washington Post, Jackie Alamany and David Ignatius. Thank you both very much for being on this morning. A lot going on and coming up on Morning Joe. Following Donald Trump's election victory, our next guest

argues we're seeing quote the end of democratic delusions. The Atlantic's George Packer will join us to explain that next on Morning Joe. Wow, what a beautiful shot of New York City. Welcome back. Good morning, Joe. Nice, cool December morning in New York. Hey, Jean, we're going to bring you George Packer in one minute. But I thought before we did that, we're going to set this up and then we're going to cross-examine George. I think George is one of the best and the brightest. I don't think that's what he signed up for. I don't think it's what he signed

up for. I'd love having him on because he's very insightful. But right now I'm so glad he's on because there's a debate. I think I may be on one side of that debate and I talked about it early. I'm curious what your thought is. You know there's a lot of talk about how the Democratic party has to re-examine everything they've done. And I've talked about massive gains in Texas, in Florida, in middle America. That is true. But there is another side of that. The slimmest majority in the House of Representatives since Herbert Hoover, you got a three vote

margin in the United States Senate. And then if you go state by state, state by state, less than one percentage point in Wisconsin, about one and a half, less than one and a half percentage points in Michigan, about one and a half percentage points in Pennsylvania. That's the difference between a Democratic president and a Republican president. Also one other thing, when everybody talks about the rise of the far right and everything else, Donald Trump got less votes in 2024 than he got in 2020. Now I'm not here to say people voted against Kamala Harris in large numbers because she was a woman or because she was a black woman, even though the United States of America almost

stands alone in not electing women to the top spot, right? But you look at these states, right, you and I remember like 1972, 1984, even 1980, you remember, all of all of those Democrats that got swept out in these landslides. Kamala Harris barely lost Wisconsin, Tammy Baldwin, Democratic Senator, won. Kamala Harris barely lost Michigan, and yet Alyssa Slotkin won. She lost Pennsylvania, but man, they had to go a couple of weeks before figuring out whether Bob Casey had won or lost. So again, we're talking about the thinnest of margins. So this is one of those things we say all the time, two things can be true at once.

I believe Democrats need to examine what they've done. At the same time, let's not pretend that this was like a 1984 style landslide. This was an election within the margin of errors, and in those three swing states up north, if Harris wins, you know, gets an an extra one one and a half two percent she's president so are you going to blow everything up for one and a half percent yeah you're not I mean in my opinion you're not you're gonna you're gonna settle down you're gonna get back step back from the ledge and you're going to, yes, you're going to look at a loss because you did lose the election, but no, you're not going to blow everything up. The country is very evenly divided and these elections are close one way or the other. If I were advising the Democratic Party,

I would say one thing you really need to look at is your declining share among Latino voters. I don't think the Democratic Party understands the Latino community or Latino voters because there are actually a number of different communities. They don't understand that portion of the electorate well enough, and it's a growing portion of the electorate that needs to be understood. But no, I don't think you have to start from scratch and say, let's tear down the entire Democratic Party and build a new one.

You did, after all, go into this election with a black and South Asian woman at the head of the ticket. And while we didn't talk about that a whole lot, nonetheless, this is the United States of America. And I don't think you'll ever convince me that that had no impact on the result. And again, we're talking 1.5%. 1%. One way or the other.

So, you know. So to that point. This is what happened. Mm-hmm. Yeah, but to that point, there is some hard realities and some major work to be done to make for a resounding win so that those issues don't. Let's bring in staff writer for The Atlantic, George Packer, who writes for the publication's new issue about the end of democratic delusions, arguing the 2024 election has launched us into a new era,

one he calls the Trump reaction. I thought we were already in that era. Anyhow, MSNBC contributor Mike Barnacle joins the conversation as well. Good night, Mike. So, Mr. Packer, we have presented our opening argument. We turn it over to you, the prosecution, go. Yeah, I suddenly got the feeling as I was watching earlier that I had actually signed up for a firing

squad here. No, no, no, no, no. I will do my best. Look, first of all, don't put me in a corner where I never went. I am not saying the Democratic Party is finished and needs to be rebuilt from scratch. You've been talking about some historical parallels. I would draw an analogy. And Joe, you remember to 1968 when Richard Nixon barely defeated the incumbent vice president who had taken over for the incumbent president who had withdrawn from the race. That was a really close election, but it signaled a change, a big change, which was the end really of New Deal liberalism. It didn't happen all at once. It took maybe 12 years until

Ronald Reagan swept it away in 1980. But that's where I'm looking more a trend, which is the trend toward populism, right-wing populism. It's a global phenomenon. Yes, Mika, you're right. It's been coming in this country for eight years. But the fact that Donald Trump won again, despite being pretty unpopular, despite having tried to overthrow an election, despite being a convicted felon, tells me that that trend, that sentiment in the public to get rid of old institutions, to overthrow the status quo, it's a really strong one, strong enough to reelect this, I would say, degenerate felon. And Democrats would be foolish not to look at that

and say we may be defending a status quo that the country has had enough of. So, George, in the piece that you wrote for The Atlantic, I mean, you outline a couple of periods of time. 1964, massive Democratic majority elected the 89th Congress. That lasted, their majority lasted basically until 1980 when the Reagan Revolution began. 1980, you can argue the Reagan Revolution continued, probably ended in 2003 with George

W. Bush taking us into Iraq. But what at least I didn't gather from the piece was the impact of an outside force called the culture on our politics. Did not that change everything in terms of persuasion? iPhones, the internet, Twitter, the impact that the culture had on our politics was far more important, I think, than any candidate, any specific candidate. I think that's a great point, Mike. I did talk about the challenge for journalists in an age where facts had ceased to exist.

There's simply no way to make facts stick with billionaire-owned platforms pouring disinformation and lies and propaganda at followers and account holders every minute of every day, which is unlike anything the media has ever seen before. So in a way it's a bigger problem even than I've said because Democrats are talking about what new policies might work to bring back Latino voters, to bring back younger voters, to bring back especially working class voters. Well, what if policies and the facts that you bring to support those policies no longer matter,

no longer stick with voters and instead, as you say Mike, it's culture, it's emotion, it's images and it's lies which people are, have become unable to separate from the truth. That's something that worries me more than Cash Patel running the FBI. That worries me too. George, there's been so much talk in the last four weeks about soul searching the Democratic Party, how it needs to change the way it talks to voters, how it needs to change its message

and its appeal. That's easier said than done. That's a reputation that's been earned over decades, which is, as you write about in the piece, this anti-elitism which has been stuck to Democrats. Now, Donald Trump, the billionaire with an apartment on Fifth Avenue who lives in a castle by the beach, is the man of the people, but he has made that sale. So how do Democrats begin to pull back some of the message that the party was built on so many years ago, which is reaching out to working class voters?

I mean, I am not someone that the party should turn to for political advice. I don't like to play that role. But as I say in the piece, I think the party is strongest when it focuses on economics and on especially the economics of struggling people in this country and what they need and what they want and not on cultural issues that are divisive and that divide the Democratic Party within itself, even as much as it divides Democrats from Republicans.

And I think the gradual but really long-term change in the identity of the party from a working class-based party to an educated professional party has given it some new voters, but mostly it's lost voters. And that trend continued in 2024. In New York City, where I am right now, where I live, the boroughs that showed Trump's vote increase were the working class and non-white majority boroughs, Queens, Bronx. The borough where Harris's vote increased over Biden's was Manhattan, among white and well-to-do voters. That's not a future the Democratic Party can win on.

All right, George Packer, we thank you. The new piece, online now for the Atlantic. And we also thank the spirit of Orson Welles for providing the citizen cane-like lighting in the shot. I mean, seriously, this is very dramatic. No, this is, I mean, this is... It looks good. Seriously?

No, the room-raider's gonna kill me. You're a catacorwellian. Oh, no, room-raider? Oh, you're a room-raider zero. No, five stars, no. Room Raider. You're a Room Raider Zero. No. On five stars, you set a new standard. All right, George. Thank you, George.

We greatly appreciate this. All right. Still.