Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/4/23

Episode Date: December 4, 2023

Israel expands offensive, ordering mass evacuations in southern Gaza

Well, this week we said goodbye to a former first lady, a former secretary of state and the Supreme Court's first female justice. And also a guy who claims to be all three of those things. Elon Musk met with Benjamin Netanyahu this week and agreed that Israel must destroy Hamas. And I think Musk could destroy Hamas almost instantly by becoming their CEO. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Monday, December 4th. We've got a lot to get to this morning. Israel expanding its offensive in Gaza with ground forces moving into the southern part of the territory. It comes as Israeli officials have withdrawn from negotiations for another humanitarian pause, we'll get the very latest on these major developments in just a moment.

Plus, an update for you on the string of attacks on an American warship and multiple commercial vessels in the Middle East. Also ahead, the dangers of a possible second term for Donald Trump. We're going to go through a special feature from The Atlantic, a major effort to detail all the threats our democracy could face. Here's what the headlines look like. And I'm looking forward to seeing The Atlantic talking, Jeffrey, about their special issue. It's so important. But here's the front of The Wall Street Journal. Fighting in Gaza intensifies as talks on ceasefire stalls and The New York Times lead. Israel is urging

Gazans in South to decamp again. So a lot to talk about this morning, obviously, what's happening in Israel, what's happening in the United States. And again, talking about the growing concern about what a second Trump presidency would mean, a concern that doesn't come from the fevered dreams of New York Times editorial page writers or MSNBC hosts, but in fact, words that come from Donald Trump himself. Who we've learned to believe with us. We have the editor in chief of The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, here to talk about that very consequential issue of The Atlantic. Former aide to the George W. Bush White House and State Department's Elise Jordan and the host of way too early White House bureau chief at Politico,

Jonathan Lemire. So let's get right to our top story. Israel is now expanding its war operation into southern Gaza. The military campaign had been focused on the northern part of the Strip, but now Israeli defense forces are pounding targets in the south and ordering more neighborhoods to evacuate. Over the weekend, officials announced they have hit more than 400 Hamas targets, while the health ministry in Gaza claims hundreds of people were killed in these new Israeli strikes. The U.S. is urging Israel to protect civilians in the territory. Israel's expanded military operation comes just days after a temporary truce with Hamas collapsed. International leaders, however, were still meeting in the hopes a breakthrough could be reached. That was until Saturday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pulled his negotiators out of Qatar and called off the talks, saying they reached a, quote, impasse with Hamas.

In a statement, Netanyahu explained the terrorist group did not fulfill its part of the truce agreement to release all of the women and children it is holding hostage. And again, the media is not focusing on this right now so much. But again, we have to go back to the beginning. Jeffrey Goldberg, we're actually dealing with a group. I mean, we have Israel negotiating with a group that seized three-month-old babies while raping their mothers or shooting their mothers or burning their grandmothers or shooting their siblings, kidnapped three month old babies, this terrorist group, and took them back to the tunnels that they burrowed underneath Gaza, where they lived in terrible conditions for 50, 55 days or so. I think the most surreal part of all of this is that we ever figured out a way,

by we, I'm saying the civilized world, ever figured out a way to sit down and have negotiations between Gutter, with a lot of pressure from the Biden administration, Israel, and then this terror group who glorified the shooting of babies in cribs, the burning of babies in cribs, the continual raping of women, Israeli women to death. And for some reason, the international community, forgive me, I saw a clip this weekend. We're going to play later.

But for some reason, the international community, Jewish women in terrorist attacks for some reason is on a lower rung than it is for the rest of the world's women. But that's just a side note, a horrid side note about how the media covers this. Let's talk instead, though, about these negotiations. They've been cut off for now. But Netanyahu, who I hardly ever agree with publicly, I must say, in this case, he's right. Hamas made a promise which is worthless and they broke their worthless promise. Well, you know, first, let's go go to the concept of ceasefire. Right. Everybody's concept of ceasefire, right?

Everybody's demanding a ceasefire. There was a ceasefire until October 7th, obviously. Hamas broke the ceasefire originally. So if from the Israeli perspective and from America's perspective as well in Western Europe, et cetera, people understand that, you know, you're looking at root causes of this current conflict. It goes back to the breaking of a ceasefire with Hamas's invasion. But, you know, the odd phenomenon here, and it hasn't been discussed enough, I don't think, in the media, is that all along the way since October 7th, Hamas's leaders and spokespeople have been saying that,

in various language you hear, October 7th was just a dress rehearsal. We're going to keep doing this again and again and again. People who understand Hamas understand that its goal is the destruction of the state of Israel. So, obviously, if you're an Israeli leader or you're a supporter of Israel, like Joe Biden is, you look at Hamas and say, you know, there's day-to-day issues you could possibly negotiate with. But this group is very, very plain in its language. Its goal is to do this again if it's given the chance. So therefore, you find— Well, Jeffrey, Jeffrey, the leader said, we're going to do this again, where every day is going to be October the 7th.

Right. And so the goal of Hamas is to keep drawing Israel into Gaza. I mean, I mean, it's a kind of a it's very hard sometimes for the American mind to get it get around Hamas's tactics. But, you know, as one former Israeli prime minister once said, you know, the Israeli goal should be to limit the number of Palestinian casualties, because Hamas's goal is to maximize the number of Palestinian casualties. Now, that's a reversal of the usual way things work in warfare. You, as the leader of a group, are supposed to try to limit the number of people of your group who get killed or injured. But it's in Hamas's Hamas believes that it's in its best interest to maximize that. And of course, the challenge to Netanyahu, and I think this is where that

dialogue between Biden and Netanyahu is never ending, is don't give Hamas what it wants. But at the same time, you know, you have to recognize that Hamas is not you're not going to sit down at a negotiating table and come to a peace deal with a group that says over and over again, oh, as soon as we can, we're going to kill you. That's the difficulty of this situation. Well, and their founding documents say their goal is to kill Jews and to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. And as we've been saying here from the beginning, Elise Jordan, from the day, the Monday after this attack, we said the world needs to understand for Hamas, a dead Jew is a victory. A dead Palestinian is a victory. A dead Palestinian is a victory. Actually, what we found since then is that actually for Hamas, a dead Palestinian, they figure that's 10 times the value of a dead Jew

for their own purposes. So when you see the systematic raping of women and we most of us, I think, figured this out from the very beginning. You see the torture, the systematic raping of women. It's all broadcast live. It's meant to shock Israel into going into Gaza. And please, I don't I don't want any lectures from anybody who's too stupid to not understand this. That may be watching going, oh, this is the Palestinian civilians fault. I didn't say that. This is Hamas's fault because they use Palestinian civilians as as human shields. And they knew exactly what they were doing. Talk to that. But also, I bring that up this morning again because, Elise, I can't believe I'm stunned by the international response or the lack of outrage to Jewish women being systematically raped and tortured and killed and paraded around Palestinian towns like like like like they're just meat or like they're carcasses to be pulled apart and savagely attacked in life and in death. But that's where they are. We have international women's groups that aren't they're just there

for some reason. they're not coming out and condemning this the same way we have members of Congress not doing this. I don't understand why Jewish women don't deserve the same dignity as every other group of women across the face of the earth in the eyes of international communities and some people on the far left in America. No, Joe, it's absolutely god awful. And you look at this conflict and how rape and sexual violence are being used as yet another tool of war against women. And this is true, unfortunately, in so many conflicts throughout the history of the world and ongoing now in regions like West Darfur, where there are horrible mass rapes that have been reported. And this isn't, you know, this isn't a complex issue to talk about and to decry and to say not OK.

The fact that there's any equivocating on this whatsoever is stunning. And it shows that the politicization of so much of the lens at which we look through war, which there are things in war that are black and white, the killing of innocent civilians, the use of rape as a tool of war, the sexual violence that has been inflicted upon Israeli women deliberately. It's it really is shameful that it's come to this where even sexual violence in war is being equivocated. And it is. So Vice President Kamala Harris discussed the Israel Hamas war with Middle East leaders,

including Egypt's president and the king of Jordan at a global climate summit in Dubai over the weekend. Here's what she said about what the future will look like in Gaza following the war. I've had a number of in-depth conversations with Arab leaders here in Dubai. Specifically, I proposed three areas of focus. One, reconstruction. The international community must dedicate significant resources to support short- and long-term recovery in Gaza. Second, security. The Palestinian Authority security forces must be strengthened to eventually assume security responsibilities in Gaza. Until then, there must be security arrangements that are acceptable to Israel, the people of Gaza, the Palestinian Authority, and the international partners. The Palestinian Authority must be revitalized, driven by the will of the Palestinian

people, which will allow them to benefit from the rule of law and a transparent, responsive government. You know, Jonathan O'Meara, I think it's been fascinating over the past several days, the past week, perhaps watching the Biden administration, seeing how Kamala Harris is being sent out, the messages that she's sending, obviously, that shows, again, the complexity of this issue, but also the two sides of the Biden administration's dealing with one saying we will support Israel. We are going to support Israel in this heinous terror attack. And we're going to be with them as they try to root out and destroy Hamas. And at the same time, we are going to put pressure, as you've reported time and again,

and as Kamala Harris has talked about, as we saw the vice president this weekend huddling with Arab leaders saying, we're going to do everything we can to put pressure on the Israeli government to understand we support them in this endeavor. We will not back down, but we expect them to one, limit civilian deaths as much as humanly possible while on their mission to destroy this terror group that terrorized the Israeli people on October 7th. And two, look over the horizon to a two-state solution. And Netanyahu, who has spent the past decade undermining a, let's just say it right here, a corrupt Palestinian authority, but Netanyahu, who's worked overtime undermining any Palestinian

leadership in the West Bank, he and the Israeli government need to look to the future of a two-state solution. And this corrupt Palestinian authority needs to be replaced by a younger, more representative Palestinian authority. And that's not going to be an easy task, but it is interesting. It's what has to be done. And it is interesting that Kamala Harris is going out there and playing such an active role here in a two part process in this delicate diplomatic dance that the Biden administration is performing, in my opinion, quite extraordinarily. Yeah, it's a very difficult and challenging moment for the administration trying to manage all of these different aspects of this crisis and war.

You're right. The president had been to this COP environmental conference the last two years this year, sending the vice president instead. And she was her message there was to do two things. First, as you noted, to say, look, we're with Israel. What happened on October 7th deserves and demands retaliation. But she was pretty firm with a brushback pitch to Netanyahu, both in the public remarks, some of which we just played, but also in these private meetings. I've talked to U.S. officials who were in these meetings, who have received readouts of these meetings. They said very candid conversations from the vice president showing the U.S. breaks with Netanyahu's administration on two separate fronts. One, what they see as a post-Gaza, where Netanyahu has said, we might occupy Gaza after this war comes to an end.

And President Biden has made clear, no, that's a bad idea. The vice president this weekend to these Arab leaders reiterated that and says, no, we need to figure a different solution and you all need to be involved. Also made clear that the two-state solution is the future. A revitalized Palestinian Authority would play a role on that. Netanyahu needs to get on board. And lastly, and most importantly, probably the strongest language yet we've heard,

Joe and Mika, from this administration, delivered by the vice president about saying, Israel needs to limit the civilian casualties. That there's too many. The toll has been too high with Palestinians who have died so far. And now that Israel has moved into the southern part of Gaza, which is where so many people have fled from the north, and it's so densely populated and that bombardment has begun and begun in earnest. There's real fears in the U.S. about the number of civilians who could get killed in the days ahead.

So, Jeffrey, talk about this extraordinarily difficult balancing act that the Biden administration, as let's just say it, the guarantor of Israel's security right now, and the one country that is standing shoulder to shoulder with it. Talk about the extraordinarily difficult diplomatic situation the Biden administration is facing and the best way forward when, again, you're balancing the ability of Israel to destroy Hamas, but also to limit civilian lives and and look toward the two state solution. Add to the question the fact that the big news that came out late last week about the 40 page document, the warning that Israel had news that came out late last week about the 40 page document,

the warning that Israel had about this, that they ignored. Yeah. So so here are here are three things that the Biden administration, vice president can't say or won't say publicly. One, putting reconstruction money on the table right now is sort of cart before the horse. It's like if you don't get rid of Hamas, there'll be another war and the buildings that you're rebuilding will get knocked down again. The second is they know that there's no Palestinian Authority worth its name. It's right now, it's a sclerotic and corrupt organization in the West Bank that, you know, that the president of the Palestinian Authority is 87 years old and completely ineffective.

So there is no credible Palestinian leadership that's an alternative to Hamas right now. So that's a problem. And then the third part is, is they're dealing with a government, Netanyahu's government, they don't like, actually, right? They don't trust and they don't like, actually. Right. They don't trust and and they don't and they don't believe is competent. So that's that's the issue. Can you explain that? That final thing? Help us understand. Following up on on on Mika's insight on the reporting from this past week, what we have heard in The New York Times followed up with the reporting that the Israeli people saw this.

Yes, they're bothered with it. But again, nothing's going to happen. Netanyahu in the near term. Talk about because, yes, the Biden administration doesn't like Netanyahu. But the Israeli people, if you judge it by the polls, don't like Netanyahu either. How long does he hold on? You know, there's a cynical argument that says that the longer this war goes on, he holds on as long as the active phase of the war continues. Right. You know, the whole don't change, don't don't switch horses midstream sort of sort of argument that the government is simply too busy. The war cabinet is simply too busy to go to new elections and so on. So he's holding on right now.

He's polling in the—you know, he's polling terribly, obviously, among Israelis. And Israelis blame him—remember, Mr. Security—they blame him for the worst security mishap, failure, in Israeli history. And so, you know, he has that. He also has been playing a game periodically of blaming the intelligence and security services for this. Now, of course, they are—they suffer from many things here, including a failure of imagination. It's very much similar in some ways to the 9-11 failure. But here in Israel, with the Israeli case, it's actually there was more definitive proof, it turns out, according to the reporting, that this attack was coming. So, you know, they have they have a terrible dilemma.

And the Israeli people are dealing with a leadership they don't really want to have. So, Jeffrey, we'll get back to this as we move forward to this dimension of it all. The Pentagon says an American warship was threatened and multiple commercial vessels were attacked yesterday in the Red Sea by Iranian backed Houthi rebels. The USS Carney, a Navy destroyer, detected a ballistic missile launched from Houthi-controlled territory targeting a commercial ship. Shortly after 9 a.m. local time, the missile did not make contact. But as the warship approached the commercial vessel, it was forced to shoot down an incoming drone. Separately, two other commercial ships were hit by missiles.

As the Qarni responded to their distress calls, was forced to shoot down two more incoming drones. Joining us now, NBC News national security and military correspondent Courtney Kuby. Courtney, what more do we know about this? Yeah, I mean, the Houthis seem to wage this war against commercial shipping on Sunday. And I have to say, Mika, this is something that they have been warning about for the last several weeks. This isn't the first time that we've seen them try to fire projectiles at ships in the Red Sea and up and towards the Babel Mandeb. So as you said, yesterday morning, Sunday, local time, Houthi rebels began firing missiles at three separate commercial ships. The USS Carnia, U.S. Navy warship, was in the region

at the time. And each time one of these ships was fired on, and as you mentioned, in several cases, even struck by these missiles, the Kearney responded. As they were responding, Houthi rebels also fired off some what the U.S. military calls one-way attack drones. These are drones that are generally laden with explosives. And the idea is they come in and they just strike into any kind of a target. In this case, the carny was in the path of these drones in all three cases, the U.S. military making the decision with their right of self-defense to take those drones down. But it was a pretty remarkable afternoon, Mika, because we saw the succession of missiles and drones over the course of hours. Now, as I said, the Houthis have been warning that they would do this, and they specifically have said that they

would target Israeli ships. Now, another thing, you know, you've been talking for the last 15 or 20 minutes now all about Israel here. One thing that our viewers should know is that during this pause or ceasefire that occurred last week in Israel and in Gaza, despite the fact that these other Iranian-backed groups stopped attacking bases in Iraq and Syria, the Houthis, also backed by Iran, have continued their targeting of ships. They've tried in several cases to launch missiles towards southern Israel. So despite the fact that the other groups stopped throughout the truce, the Houthis continued. Now, one thing that I was really struck by in the course of reporting on this yesterday

is the Pentagon saying that they believe that Iran has supplied the Houthis with this. We know, of course, that Iran in the past has funded, trained, supplied the Houthis. But they specifically said in their statement last night that the Houthi rebels have been funded by Iran. And literally just moments ago, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman completely denied that, Mika. NBC's Courtney Kuby, thank you very much for that update. We appreciate it. And coming up in just one minute, we're going to talk to Jeffrey Goldberg about the special new issue of the Atlantic outlining the dangers of a potential second term for Donald Trump. Morning Joe is back From that day on, our opponents and we had a lot of opponents, but we've been waging an all out war on American democracy.

Yes, you have. Well, that was that was clear. So so so he's said he's terminated Roe v. Wade. True. That's true. He was. Check. Check. He said that he wanted to destroy Obamacare.

Jack, he did. He did say that. He said. Yeah. And now he's just saying they're waging an all out war. He's been waging an all out war to American democracy. True as well. Yeah.

All right. Check. Not all there. No, I'm being honest. I am, too. There's all this talk about Biden fumbling. But he just doesn't. He doesn't.

It was very. Yeah, I don't know. It's like, you know, again, hadn't seen him in a while. The weird thing is, like when he's saying, oh, I meant to say that I was running against Barack Obama. You look at the clips and he's just so he's just so out. He also just got some bad legal. He can't find he can't find the words to say. Yeah.

He thinks we're about to start World War Two. He doesn't know who's running what countries. And they're not like small countries, two countries, two NATO countries. And he doesn't even know the leaders. He just gets very and he seems to get very confused. Some could argue his following is more fervent than ever. Oh, it is. Maybe they want people who were sort of. No. The Biden-Harris campaign highlighted that slip of the tongue by Donald Trump there, or perhaps more of a confession over the weekend in Iowa is where that happened.

Jeffrey, today you are unveiling a new special issue of The Atlantic that features essays from 24 writers, each outlining the threats they say a second Trump term would pose to the United States. Tell us about it. Yeah, the thought was simple. We have a lot of writers at The Atlantic who spent many years covering different aspects of Trump and Trumpism. And I wanted just to pull them all together in one easy- read package, one one copy of the print magazine. Obviously, it's online right now at TheAtlantic.com. And I wanted our writers to describe as best as they could what would happen in their areas of expertise should Trump become president again.

And the theory, of course, is that the next Trump presidency will be worse. The restraints will be off. There won't be any, quote, unquote, adults in the room anymore. McKay Coppins has a piece about who would take jobs and who would get new jobs in the next Trump administration, as one example. I have, you know, a multitude of pieces. David Frum on talking, you know, who's been very, very early on writing about the threat of autocracy, writing about what this would look like. Tom Nichols. Many of the Atlantic stars of the Morning Joe cinematic universe are in this issue.

Tom has written about what would happen to the military should Trump become president again. Caitlin Dickerson on immigration and on and on and on. What I what I wanted was a package, you know, an easy to understand package. Look, this is what is going to happen. And it's not just pure speculation. It's it's as you point out, all you have to do is listen to Donald Trump and the people and the loyalists around Donald Trump. He's telling you what's going to happen. He's going to use the power of the loyalists around Donald Trump. He's telling you what's going to happen. He's going to use the power of the Justice Department to persecute, not prosecute, but persecute his enemies.

We know what's going to happen to the civil service. We know what's going to happen on immigration. We know that the generals that we count on to be apolitical when they run the military, we know that they're in danger and that they're on to be apolitical when they run the military, we know that they're in danger and that they're going to be replaced by, I think the technical term would be nut jobs. This is all, this is all apparent. And so I wanted to put it one place early and, and with any luck, you know, at Christmas, maybe people could read it and bring it to their relatives who are on the fence and say, look, here's what's going to happen.

Do you want this or do you not want this? That's very simple. And again, let me just let me just say, because it's really important. This is not partisan. Right. This is not about Republican ideas, conservative ideas versus liberal ideas or Democratic ideas. This is about this is about standing up for democracy. This is not about Republican ideology. This is about Trump's predisposition toward autocracy. Well, and the thing is, I mean, you look at an Applebaum, a conservative. You look at Tom Nichols, a conservative. You go down the list, the K-Pot, there's so many of these people who have probably voted Republican in the majority of their elections throughout their lives.

And Elise Jordan, I would I would just guess that you would be one of those as well, like me. But when you look at a Republican nominee, a potential Republican nominee that's talking about terminating the Constitution, he said, terminate the Constitution, arrest political opponents using the Justice Department, assassinate generals that weren't sufficiently politically loyal to him, saying that he was going to take the on and what networks were not on. Talking, continually talking about trying the leaders of Comcast for treason and shutting down this network because I don't know. Doesn't like Joy Reid. I'm not sure. Maybe it's Lawrence O'Donnell that that irks him. But, yeah, his answer is that's next president of the United States. I'm going to try them for treason.

This is, again, for me, it's it's just staggering that people that I know, people that I grew up with could still even consider voting for this autocrat. Joe, I'm glad you went through the litany of authoritarian intentions that Donald Trump has for a second term, because any one of those items just as a standalone is jaw dropping and unacceptable and illiberal and put together as a whole. It's so disturbing and is why this Atlantic essay collection is so important. What you see of Trump big picture, though, all of these ideas that he's pushing, it's the reasonable outcome of the move into political extremism and how Donald Trump is trying to radicalize his followers to the extent that he can do pretty much whatever he wants to. And so far, he's been pretty successful in that, you know, there's some polling that suggests that one in five Americans, that they are radicalized to the state of an extremist by the same indicators that we would have used when we polled post 9-11 extremist extremism and terrorism in the Middle East. And it's incredibly scary that so much of the country

is being divided in this way for political expediency and for power. And that's why it's important for those who do care about democratic institutions to keep speaking out. And we have learned over the years to take Trump at his word and that some of his followers will do what he says. Over the weekend in Iowa, he asked for his followers to go into deep blue big cities, Philadelphia and the like, and watch the polls to protect the vote, which sure sounds like voter intimidation to me, Jeffrey. So talk to us, if you will, though. There's so many of the guardrails, not just within an administration, but within our democracy, within our society, have fallen away since 2016. Trump has plowed through a number of them. And yes, the courts in 2020 held barely.

But talk to us about the real threats that if he wins and if he wins again and assumes power again, what is left to really stop him from being what could be a borderline dictatorship? Right. You know, in the first term, there are a lot of people in government who held on, right, held on in their jobs, the Justice Department, the State Department, Defense Department and so on. Right. But in a plausible second term, I think that what you'll see is a direct attack very early on, on the civil service, on the idea of apolitical government service, right? And, B, a lot of people who would gum up efforts by Trump and Trump's people

to subvert democracy will just simply quit in disgust or horror or whatever you want to call it from places like the Justice Department and so on. So once—look, look, as president of the United States, you are the de facto chief law enforcement officer of the United States, right? You appoint the attorney general. And the idea of Donald Trump under 91 felony counts right now, facing 91 felony counts at this moment, returning to a role as chief law enforcement officer is absurd, obviously. But here we are. And so the number one goal, the first goal, before immigration, before everything else, right, the first goal is to make sure that

the mechanisms of government can't be used to prosecute Trump or his allies, right? So, it's going to be a direct frontal assault on the independence of the Justice Department and, by extension, the independence of the entire judicial process. And, you know, there's not a lot to do when you have somebody who's autocratically minded. And again, remember, this is the key difference. This is not going to be a situation where, as in the first round, he brought in people like Jim Mattis and Rex Tillerson and John Kelly and so on. Right. The adults. No more adults.

Right. Right. They're starting with Stephen Miller could wind up being the chief of staff of the White House. We don't know. And so the point is, is that they've been working for years to plot their revenge. And that's what the David David Frum's piece in this issue is about the revenge presidency. That's what this is. Yeah. And again, you say

this is not Republican or Democratic. David Frum, I mean, a George W. Bush speechwriter, a guy who was sufficiently hated by the American left in a past life. I mean, it's just it's a lovely guy. Lovely guy. Lovely guy. We love him. I'm just I'm just saying all of these people, so many of these people that you were writing that are writing in this piece, proving that it's not a Republican or a Democratic piece, are people that the American left used to, we'll just say, did not tolerate very well. And I do want to say also, I get it. You know, I get it. It's very interesting. I got a call on Friday from somebody who said, I feel like I'm your spudsman because any time people are angry at Morning Joe, they call me.

And I said, well, who would ever be angry at Morning Joe when you're beloved by everybody? And this person said, well, this was somebody on the left who's very angry that you had Santorum on to talk about PEPFAR. I said, well, we had him on because he supports PEPFAR. It's like it's preaching to the audience you want to reach. But then the second thing was, he said, well, I said, well, who else would ever call you and say they don't like Morning Joe? And he said, well, most of the complaints from people who think that you were too anti-Trump. And Jeffrey, I asked this question and I'm deadly serious here. When you have somebody that says, he says, he writes it down on Truth Social that he wants to terminate the Constitution, that he wants

to jail political opponents. Let me say this again. This is not this is not Trump hatred. This is using Trump's words, just like saying he wants to terminate. He was one who terminated Roe v. Wade. When you have somebody who's running for office that said they want to terminate the Constitution, they want to jail political opponents, they want to execute generals who are insufficiently loyal. They want to create mass internment camps to send immigrants there. They want to take networks off the air that are insufficiently loyal and try their executives for treason. That's what he says. How am I being too difficult? How are you being too difficult? How is anybody who loves American democracy being difficult by pointing out the danger that that is in front of all of us if this guy gets back into the White House?

You know, I'm about to engage in a bit of constructive media criticism here and which is the following. You know, we're so inured to his statements that we tend to ignore them. But I think that every time he says, well, use the General Mark Milley issue, right? He should be tried for treason. That should be banner headlines the next day. The former president says chairman of the Joint Chiefs should be tried for treason, right? When he talks about dismantling the Constitution, that should be banner headlines. That should lead the news. That should be tried for treason, right? When he talks about dismantling the Constitution, that should be banner headlines. That should lead the news.

That should be everywhere. It's a sleepwalking, as Liz Cheney says. Why is it not, Jeffrey? And why is it that when Hillary Clinton says the word deplorable in a speech, it's banner headlines for a month, it seems, when Donald Trump uses Nazi terminology to degrade human beings, uses vermin,

you hardly hear anything about it. Why is that, Jeffrey? I think it's normalization. I think it's this process where one of the great attributes of human beings is that we can get used to anything, right? And so we got used to this this and we just accepted as background noise. I mean, he does have these this this particular superpower in that and that he goes he goes further than anybody in rhetoric. And we kind of go, yeah, it's just Donald Trump. And I think we have to reverse that and just say, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is a former president. Look, if a former president, if Barack Obama, if George W. Bush said the things—as a former president, not running for president again—said the things that Donald Trump said, we would have huge stories every day about, former president loses mind.

Right. Right? You know? And says—and meanwhile, Donald Trump is the putative nominee for the presidency, and here we are, you know, and we act like it's normal. That's why this issue is so important. And what Jeffrey just said, it's normalization and we need to reverse that because normalization is exactly how it starts. And it is dangerous. I mean, Barack Obama had said that generals should have been executed. Come on. Yeah.

How long would that be? How long? How long? How long would that be? Like banner headlines on the front pages. Everyone would have thought there was something wrong with him. Well, there is something wrong with Donald Trump. And I'm serious. He doesn't look right up on stage. He just doesn't. And you look at him. We've known if you like democracy, there's something very wrong with him. The first eight essays of the new special issue are available now online at the Atlantic dot com editor in chief of the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg. Thank you so much for coming on this morning and thank you for this issue. Thank you. And coming up, something perhaps just as controversial. The college football playoffs are set with one undefeated team left on the sidelines.

I'm really, I am angry. Liberty went 13-0. Liberty went 13-0. Why aren't they in the playoffs? We'll talk about that when we come back. The final rankings from the selection committee, the number one team in the country is. We are seeing these when you do. And it's Michigan.

Who's number two? We assume it will be the Washington Huskies. And it is indeed. What a job. Who's number three the texas longhorns steve sarkisian's team winning a conference championship for the first time since 2009 who's number four and alabama returns to the playoff. And so we have another unprecedented situation as Florida State winds up at number five.

And Florida State is the first undefeated champion from a power five conference to fail to make the field. And so it begins. The Division I NCAA college football champion playoff is set. The Alabama Crimson Tide is going to take on the Michigan Wolverines in the Rose Bowl. And the Texas Longhorns are going to be playing the Washington Huskies in the Sugar Bowl. So let's bring in right now New York Times bestselling author and ESPN commentator Paul Feinbaum, host of Pablo Torre Finds Out on Metal Arc Media, ESPN's Pablo Torre, and longtime sports columnist and New York Times bestselling author Mike Lupica. Paul, you and I were both at the game.

I've got to say I've been going to Alabama games since 1981. It may have been the most intense, extraordinary Alabama game I've been to. And I couldn't figure out why until my older son called me later on. He said it was an era-defining game. You know, every two years, you have people saying, Oh, Clemson's about to overtake Nick Saban. Then it's somebody else is about to overtake Nick Saban. Then it's Kirby Smart's about to overtake Nick Saban. Then it's Kirby Smart's about to overtake Nick Saban.

Nick Saban shut that door quickly. He is now, Kirby Smart's now 1-5 against Nick Saban. And Alabama's won eight out of the last nine versus Georgia. Talk about this game and then the playoffs. Joe, Nick Saban will never admit this, but Saturday's game may have been personally one of his most satisfying for a lot of reasons. And you laid them out. Here is the greatest coach in college football history at a school that used to have the greatest coach in college football history suddenly changed, chasing his protege.

Kirby Smart was part of countless national championships, and he's on the verge. Kirby Smart is on the verge with a win against Saban and two more of doing something that hasn't been done since the 30s, win three straight. And what that would have done, it wouldn't have ended the reign of Nick Saban as a great coach, but it certainly would have shattered the dynasty. And I spoke to someone about this in great detail last night, and he told me that Saban cared deeply. And it opens up a whole other story that we'll get to in a minute.

But that win against a team that looked invincible at times, it was truly remarkable and perhaps era-ending. Kirby Smart will win more national championships, but the odds in the 12-team playoff, which begins next year, of winning three in a row, impossible. You know, and I've got to say, I was there, and again, I've been going to Alabama games since 1981. So I'm not a newbie here.

When Alabama walked onto the field, I actually turned to Jack and I said, they're going to win today. They look bigger. They look meaner. They look more focused. And I've never once said that. And they controlled the line. We had Pablo there shaking his head. I know this. I'm expecting bitter, bitter tears, melting snowflakes coming from his eyes. The underdog. We get to celebrate Alabama as David as well as Goliath simultaneously. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Joe, I understand that you are.

This is exactly. This is exactly. This was the secret sauce. And thank you, Pablo, for leaning into my question to Michael. I'll get back to you. But Mike, Mike, this is what's so crazy. Every two years, we hear that Abbas Sweeney is now the new Nick Saban. We hear Kirby Smart is the new Nick Saban.

Every two years. I want to give you these stats again really quickly. Saban's now 10-0 against higher ranked teams in conference championships and BCS National Championship games. He's 5-0 against number one teams in the CFP era, soon to be 6-0. He's 11-1 in SEC Championship games. He's won 17 straight games in the Mercedes-Benz Stadium, Georgia Dome. This is Saban's 13th straight season with fewer than three losses. Alabama has won eight out of nine. These are numbers, and I've never said this.

I have never said it in my life. And we'll get to FSU in a second and also Liberty. I'm outraged. Liberty went 13-0, and they're not going to be playing. I can't believe I'm going to say this, Lupica, and you shoot me down if I'm outraged. Liberty went 13-0, and they're not going to be playing. I can't believe I'm going to say this, Lupica, and you shoot me down if I'm wrong. I can now say for the first time, Nick Saban is entering John Wooden territory,

and I never thought I'd say that about another coach. I think he's not just the greatest college football coach of all time. I think he's the greatest football coach of all time. And because of the turnover of players, it used to be every four years or three years, and now it's every year in college football. And, Joe, I know we're going to get to the elephant in the room, which is Florida State. And I'm not going to say anything except complimentary things about Florida State today. It wasn't fair what happened to their quarterback.

It wasn't fair to them that their quarterback. It wasn't fair to them that an unbeaten team didn't get into the playoffs. But whoever said that sports is fair, you want to ask Jets fans and Aaron Rodgers if they think football is fair. The committee got this right. I told you

Saturday night there was no possible yardstick that this Alabama team could be kept out of the playoffs. It got proven out yesterday at noon. And the committee, they were charged with picking the best four teams. And by the end of the year, Florida State was not one of the best four teams. Well, I would argue they weren't one of the best four teams at any point during the year, just again, just to make me walking down streets in Florida even more difficult. But Pablo, that said, it is really hard when you're a coach and you take a team,

and what an extraordinary job he did. What an extraordinary job the FSU team did. And, you know, there are a lot of Alabama haters. I mean, it's just like Duke and basketball. There are a lot of SEC championship SEC haters. I understand that. But there, in my opinion, and Vegas would agree, there are two levels of football being played now in America, one in the SEC, one outside the SEC. Is that unfair? Is that just because I went to Alabama and grew up in Mississippi and Georgia and Florida? Yeah, because you're personally responsible for the hiring of Nick Saban. I appreciate you introspectively wondering these things, Joe. I think, though, that it's worth it.

It haunts me. It haunts me. They should put you on the parade float, honestly. I've done some research into that story. It's actually disturbingly close to the truth. So the college football playoff committee, I want to make this clear, it's a 13-member body that acts like strict constructionalists, okay? Joe Scarborough has the Potter Stewart view of the college football playoff in terms of, I know it when I see it.

OK, you see the kids coming off the bus. You're like, that's what a champion looks like. They're considering a rule that says if there's a loss of a player, the materially changes how good this team is going to be. We got to consider it. And that's the Vegas standard that you also just alluded to. Jordan Travis, the quarterback of FSU, got hurt. He wasn't going to be playing in the semifinal.

So they're a worse team. Now, to Mike's point, it's infuriating. The reason why Florida legislators are threatening to take this to the legislature is because it feels unjust. They won every single game. The human body is an imperfect meat sack. You can't do anything about that. So what do you do? You have to, at this point, what they have left is to declare themselves national champions, which in a way is a politically resonant concept these days. Just stand in your corner and say that you won, no matter what the body that decides these things might say. Well, and by the way, just so younger FSU fans understand this, by the way, this is the magic of college football,

weirdly enough, that goes away next year when we have 12 teams in there. But Paul, I was explaining to a big FSU fan who called me yesterday, talking about how unfair it is to the team. And he said, I totally agree. I said, and let me tell you something, it will be the fire for FSU to be even better next year.

And I said to him, I was a very young kid. I still remember in 1977, 1977, when Alabama beat number two Ohio State 38 to six, number five Notre Dame beat number one Texas, and they jumped Texas over Alabama, we were shocked. We were outraged. We never got over it. And we were so angry that Alabama went out and won the national championship the next two years. Paul, talk about it.

And, Joe, that Notre Dame team lost to a mediocre Ole Miss team in the middle of the year and everybody disregarded it. Let me get to the FSU situation, though. How many times do I hear on this program from your guests about elections have consequences? So do decisions in the ivory tower. And the ACC made a decision two years ago through its commissioner you remember the 12 team playoff was supposed to start this year joe but the commissioners of the acc big 10 and pac-12 got all upset when oklahoma and texas announced they were going to the sec

so they threw a hissy fit and they said no no, we're going to roadblock it. And now it has cost them. And there's one other thing, and I know this is not the show for conspiratorial theories, but remember four months ago, Joe, the board of trustees at Florida State stood on their high horse and said, we're too good for the ACC. We're better than that. We're going to pull out of here. And I'm not saying that one equals two, but it doesn't have to. They downgraded their own league, and they needed a great ACC for them to get into the playoffs, and they didn't have it. Their best win over an ACC team this year was Louisville in the conference championship game.

And heaven help you if you got through the end of that game and a four-loss Clemson team. Well, and you know, the the thing is they had the 55th and by the way, scheduling has consequences too. They had the 55th strongest schedule in America. Alabama had the fifth. And, and that has consequences when you're, you're looking at non-conference wins and you've got North Alabama as one of their non-conference wins when they were down in the first quarter. I'm dead serious. I'm not being – I'm saying the truth.

I will say this too, Mike Lupica. As paranoid of an Alabama fan as I am and still thinking everybody is out to get us because they are, at the end of the first half – And I want Pablo, you're laughing. I want though. And if anybody disagrees, I'm going with you first loop. If anybody disagrees, tell me. But at the end of the first half of the Louisville FSU game, I turned to Jack.

I said it was three to nothing. I said, this is the worst college football game of any consequence. Y'all are laughing because you know it's true, like Krusty the Clown. It's funny because it's true. But I said, this is the worst college football game I've ever seen. And I knew that people on the committee were watching this game. And I knew that after the first half, they said, there's no way we can put this team in the playoff. Joe, Joe, the committee was watching until even they turned that game off because they found it unwatchable. Wow. Yeah.

But it just, yeah. Pablo, go ahead. Jump in. Pablo, first of all, let me ask you, if you had the four choices to pick the four best teams, I'm dead serious. Who would those four teams be? Joe, I think they got it right. As much as I am laughing at your unrepentant Homerism, I believe the committee got it right. And look, I interviewed a member, a former member of the College Football Playoff Selection Committee on my show.

Pablo Torre finds out. John Urschel, who's now an MIT mathematician, the only NFL player to be an MIT professor now, and he walked me through it. It's pretty boring. Like what they do, there are a lot of principles. There are these textualist sort of fealties they have to the actual constitution that they're governed by. And I think they got this right. Texas beat Alabama to start their season. An incredible victory. Of course they got to be in. They destroyed Oklahoma State in the Big 12 game. And Alabama, the only question is, was it FSU or Alabama?

And in this case, yes, I say this a bit reluctantly, your eye test was also the right answer. And so congratulations on calling this and feeling it in your bones more than anything else. And, guys, we have video evidence that the committee made the right pick. Yesterday, during that selection show, the camera was running at the University of Michigan. Their football team was watching the selection show as it was happening. And they built a suspense. And the final choice was, as we just played, number four, Alabama. And when they flashed on the screen, the number four was going to be Alabama.

And therefore, Michigan was going to play Alabama. You could hear the groans in the whimper and the fear from the Michigan Wolverines. They desperately wanted to play Florida State. They instead got Alabama. That ties us up. We've got the right four teams. Well, listen, it is. And I would say, Paul will tell you that we in Alabama, Alabama fans are toughest on Alabama. This is this is really the first year I said I said after the LSU game, I said this is the best team in the league in the nation. I still believe it. Jalen was really off. He could not pass the ball on Saturday night. He had one of his worst games. We still won. I want to switch gears really quickly. We've blown past the top of the hour,

but everybody will understand why we have blown past the top of the hour. What I want to get everybody really quickly to talk about, an NFL game last night that really changed the complexion of the season. Talk about thinking that a team was losing a step. We heard people disrespect Brock Purdy. Colin Coward said he's no winner because he puts his baseball cap on backwards. I say that because I love Colin.

But he also got Jalen terribly wrong. Maybe when it comes to the Eagles and the Niners, Colin should just talk about how great Alabama is. But that game last night was a revelation. I mean, probably going to be the NFC Championship game if we're lucky. But, man, what a performance by the 49ers against an Eagles team that is just, I think, just a great team. Oh, man. If I can just jump in by pointing out, we have been watching mediocrity in the NFL all year, Joe.

And so here we have a team that declares itself by beating, blowing out the Eagles, blowing out the Cowboys, beating the Jaguars by by a whole lot. Here you have the 49ers saying if Brock Purdy is our quarterback, even if he was the literal last pick in the draft a year or so ago, we have the ability to scheme open any defense. And that's what you're watching right now. It was incredible. The Eagles were supposed to be the Super Bowl favorite. Now everything's changed in a matter of about two hours. It really, it really was an incredible performance. And Paul, it seems that these two quarterbacks, more than the other two quarterbacks, just get absolutely no respect. And they prove their doubters wrong every time.

Joe, I can't tell you how many times I know Mike's and Pablo as well. When we sat at the NFL draft and listening to the experts and the obsessive conversation. And we know how disrespected Jalen Hurts was and Brock Purdy. I don't even need to go on. I was most glad to see Taylor Swift back on the Kansas City. Thank God. There it is. I felt relieved that she was able to get out of South America in one piece.

Yeah. Mike, we can finish it off and talk football. Go ahead. I heard my old friend Pablo talking about MIT and mathematics. Brock Purdy, the 262nd pick in the draft. And we got a guy in New York, Zach Wilson, who was the second pick. That math is still kind of confusing for us. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's rough.

All right, Pablo. Tore, Paul, Found, Found, Mike Lubica, thank you very much. Mike's new book, Robert B. Parker's Broken Trust, is out now. And this conversation has taken us to four minutes past the top of the hour.