Morning Joe - Morning Joe 12/5/24

Episode Date: December 5, 2024

Hegseth continues critical meetings with Republican senators

Are you ready to vote for him? Well, I am... I give him the benefit of the doubt. I am ready to be supportive of getting him to that point. Senator, is he currently drinking or is he just saying he's not going to drink, touch alcohol if he becomes... Well, I didn't ask him if he's had a drink today or if he's currently drinking. My commitment that I was looking for was that he won't drink, you know, he won't touch alcohol. And that he'd be ready for a phone call at 3 in the afternoon or three in the morning and every hour in between. That's Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota yesterday offering some support

publicly for Pete Hegseth. Those comments come as Donald Trump's pick for defense secretary spent a third day on Capitol Hill meeting with Republicans to address years of troubling allegations against him. We'll show you what other lawmakers had to say about Hegsath's meetings. And Hegsath was going around making the John Tower pledge. If I'm Secretary of Defense, I will not drink. Inside reporting suggests that the key meeting was Joni Ernst.

That didn't go the way Hegsath's team wanted it to go or the Trump the Trump team. So heavy, heavy questions laying over whether he's going to make it through or not. Right now, most Republican insiders and Democrats that I'm talking to and others are talking to on the Hill still believe this is a nomination that will not make it through. We shall see. As for the president-elect, he is lashing out at the Wall Street Journal for its reporting on a cabinet pick that withdrew their name from consideration earlier this week. We'll dig into that.

Also ahead, the manhunt continues this morning for the suspect who shot and killed the CEO of United Health Care yesterday morning in Midtown Manhattan. We'll bring you the very latest in that investigation. Good morning and welcome to Morning Joe. It is Thursday, December 5th, along with Joe, Willie and me. We have the host of Way Too Early, Jonathan Lemire, the president of the National Action Network and host of MSNBC's Politics Nation Reverend Al Sharpton.

Shall we dive in? What do you think? I don't know. I want to talk about something that happened yesterday. You can. Is that all right? Absolutely. Point of personal privilege?

Point of personal privilege. So yesterday we had a good friend of ours on the show and a guy who's been a guest for some time, a guy who he knows, he's been one of my heroes for years now, a great writer, David Frum. He writes for the Atlantic. David came on the show yesterday, and we're having a good conversation, but we were talking about the Fox News employees that actually talked to Courtney Kubi

and other people at NBC News and said that he'd been drinking too much there. And it was devastating. It was a devastating report. And David flippantly said, was joking, he said, if you're too drunk for Fox News, you're very, very drunk indeed. We went on with a segment. And just to let you know how things work here,

I was asking Mika, should we address that or not? Because if somebody had said that about any news outlet, would usually say something about it to reference the entire network. So at the end, and I want to get the words right, Mika said this, the comment was a little too flippant for the moment we're in. We disagree with Fox News, but there's some good people over there. And we of course were...

A lot of worried about Pete, Hegseth. We're also, of course, talking about those people so worried at Fox News about America's national security that they were talking to an NBC News reporter. Coming forward. Coming forward saying Hegseth was not qualified. So Mika said after the comment was a little too flippant for the moment we're in. We disagree with Fox News, but there's some good people over there, including of course those talking to NBC News about their concerns. This got turned into a column and a headline that said that, let's see, what was the headline? The sound of fear.

Now, that wasn't the sound of fear. That was the sound of civility. And saying that Mika had apologized, Mika didn't apologize. No, I didn't. She simply said, it was too flippant. Now, I would recommend that if we're at a stage where a comment like this causes a meltdown,

and I saw George Conway, another guy we have on the show. Who we love. We love George saying, read this article. It's going to make you very sad, but you must read it all. Oh, because of the fearful times we're in. Well, there's some problem with the times that we're in. You can't be fearful. You can't be fearful just because some people have said that we're fearful, let me

tell you something. You can talk to anybody that's worked in the front office of NBC and MSNBC over the past 22 years. I'll tell you, I'm not fearful. You talk to anybody who served with me in Congress, they will tell you, not fearful of leadership. Now, not fearful of leadership. Now, not fearful. And I will say, I had a wonderful conversation

with David Frum. He was supposed to be on today. He said he was gonna be on today. We are actually going to tweet back and forth, talking about having him back on today, just to talk through this, to say, again, I don't know, maybe it was the right call. Maybe it wasn't the right call.

I didn't know exactly how to do it after he said, if you're too drunk for Fox News, you're very, very drunk indeed. Now let me tell you, that's something they certainly would never let in the pages of The Atlantic or in The Washington Post. But this is all about the media. Or in The New York Times. They'd never do that. So I just, I actually asked an editor over the Atlantic when he was so shocked what we did, I said, would you allow me in writing a column at the Atlantic to say, if you're

too drunk for the New York Times, you're very, very drunk indeed. If you're too drunk for the New York Post, you're very, very drunk indeed. In the context of talking about somebody's alcoholism. Talking about somebody's alcoholism and people from this news organization that were actually stepping up to help the cause to get a guy who's grossly unqualified to be sacked death. Is that the time to say that? Now, I understand David. We talked, and David Frum said, that was just a joke. And I said to him, I said, well, you know, David, I appreciate that. And who knows,

maybe I made the right call. Maybe I made the wrong call. I'm really sorry if I made you feel uncomfortable. We tried to give it enough distance. Didn't even say his name. We waited for the entire segment. We thanked him, went on, and then Mika just generally talked about a flippant comment. And I am telling you, the sound of fear, the apology, none of that is true. But guess what? This is what's been going on now for several weeks. We went down to talk to the President-elect. And people wrote articles that were just false, but you know what we did?

We did the corporate thing. Corporate said, don't say anything. Just keep your head down. What did the Royals say? Never explain, never complain, whatever. We did that. We enjoyed our Thanksgiving. We're like, you know what, people are upset with some of our guests, some of our friends. Maybe we

snuck up on them too fast. Maybe we should have given them more of a warning. Whatever. It's fine. But guess what? The main complaint was that we called Donald Trump's rhetoric fascist during the campaign. And then we went down to have an off the record comment with him. Guess who else does that? Let me see. From the New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street. You know what?

I even think folks from the Atlantic. I think actually, probably, if they have a chance to talk on the background with the incoming president and president-elect. Yeah, they were doing in fact, as somebody wrote during this outrageously stupid, immature series of articles that lied time and time again about us. Reporter said, well, I'd be fired if I had the opportunity to go in and talk to somebody who's incoming president of the United States. And I didn't do it.

Ask any journalist at the New York Times, the New York Post. And that's the funny thing, people at the Washington Post especially, hair on fire, media report, how dare they, how dare they? At the same time, that the Washington Post is doing the same thing, trying to speak to the president on background, trying to speak to people around the president. That's what reporters do. And by the way, guess what?

That's what I've been doing for years. When I go speak to Middle East leaders on background, some who are not good people, Guess what? I do it to get information and background to give it to you. I bet you didn't know because I didn't tell you because it was a background conversation. When I went to Lize Palace last summer and I spoke to Macron for about an hour in his office about Ukraine, about the EU, about the ability of NATO, about his problems with the United States. I did that, but I didn't report it. The only difference between what we did on that visit and what the New York Times, Washington

Post, Wall Street Journal, everybody else is doing is, we were transparent. We actually told you. And so I understand if you don't know how the media works day in and day out, and you're just like watching this show day in and day out, I understand that you'd be like, wow, okay, man, man, that's sudden. But for media reporters to lie, to pretend that this is a shock, to try to get clips,

for Washington Post reporters and columnists say, how dare they go see him after they said he was a fascist? And that's exactly what the Washington Post is doing. That's exactly what the Wall Street Journal is doing. That's exactly what the New York Times, yeah, you know what you call it? You call it their job. And let me say this, let me say this. Two things, you can do two things at the same time.

You can say he had fascist rhetoric and still go in and talk to him. You know why I do that? To get the read of the man. You know why I went in and talked to Macron? To get the read of the man. You know why I went in and talked to Macron? To get the read of the man at a crucial time in EU funding and NATO funding. You know why I went to leaders in the Middle East who were angry at the United States and I sat there and I listened to them attacking me personally for 45 minutes because of U.S. policy. You know why I do that? To get the read of the leader, to get the read of where the country's going. So I can come back here and talk to you and let you know what

the hell is going on. With context and insight. And give you context, insight, and background. You know everybody we have on this show that's a reporter. It's what they do Every day they speak on background now listen David David from I'm gonna say this again. I Love David from He's a dear friend of mine. I

Can even see why David felt blindsided by what we did. And you know what? That's a call we do. But we do a four-hour show, right? And it's going in real time. I had to make that editorial call over the course of about five, ten minutes. I couldn't sit in the Atlantic office and go, hmm, let's see, no, let's change this word here. Let's change that word. No, I couldn't do that.

Because that's not the business that we're in here. So first of all, a couple things. I wanna apologize to David from, for making him feel uncomfortable. And I wish David would have come on the show today, he said he will come on Friday, I'm going to be in Little Rock interviewing Bill Clinton so I can't do it by the way guess what Bill Clinton may tell me something on the background that's going to give

me insight on where the Democratic Party is going or where it needs to go. I may not be able to quote that on the record, but I will bring it to you and you will be smarter because of it. You will be smarter and you have been over the last several weeks because of what we talked about with Donald Trump for an hour, hour and a half. We got information on where they're going and I I do report that, just like great reporters at the New York Times, the Washington Post,

the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, just like they do it. And again, yet to talk to a journalist, said, oh, you shouldn't talk to the president on background. And again, the complaint that we said he was a fascist, that he talked like a fascist, yeah, he did during the campaign. Guess what?

And we're watching. Guess what? That means it's even more important we go there. That means it's even more important we go talk to people in the Middle East, our people in Europe, people we disagree with. That's part of our jobs, and we don't do it for ourselves, we do it for you.

And one final thing, Mika. Yeah. David told me something else. David from yesterday and I really do hope he'll, I actually texted him last night and said, hey, listen, we're not on Friday, but please, if you could come on anytime today, please come on. We really like him. We love the guy.

He means the world to us. And I'm so sorry, he's the guy that was kind of caught in the middle of this I wish it had been somebody we don't like and love and respect so much But he said something and I've wanted to talk about it for a couple of weeks, but again, I understand the front office they're like Let's just be quiet. Let's we respect down. Yeah They're like, let's just be quiet. Let's just keep this down. We respect.

Yeah, I get that. And I was like, OK, I get it. We saw it. We'll just go through Thanksgiving, enjoy being with our families. Let it go. And it was dying until this. But David said, you know, I guess, Joe, one of the things that concerns us is that if you're, if you have fear, like, what does that say about the rest of us?

Well, a couple of things. First of all, this is what's so crazy in this sort of era we're in where Democrats are shooting at each other, Republicans who were never Trumpers are shooting at each other instead of coming together and not giving up the ship together. Everybody's like firing. It's your fault. It's not your fault. You're Democrats lost by a point and a half. The House is tied. The Senate is almost tied.

But he said, if if you're fearful, what does that mean for the rest of us? Well, listen, we're not thrilled with these nominees. We think a lot of them are just absolutely horrible. Cash Patel is promised to arrest journalists. That's a problem. But let me tell you something. I wasn't fearful in Congress when Newt Gingrich and leadership said they were going to destroy me, run people against me, and said, go ahead, make my day.

Wasn't fearful on this show. Nobody in the front office. By the way, I always have Republicans say, oh, they're telling you exactly what to say in the front. No, nobody's once told me what to say here. Well, actually, one person did one time. Okay. One leader did one time.

I said, I'll tell you what, if you think you can do such a damn good job, why don't you come here and do the show four hours a day? I'm fine. Oh, that's hilarious. I'm fine quitting, but I'm going to do my show. I'll do my show the way I want to do my show. And I say this now to people who watch the show and love the show, people who are fearful

and concerned, let me tell you something. We should have no fear. We should be deeply, deeply concerned about the constitutional norms. And we are. We should be deeply, deeply concerned about Madisonian democracy. We should do everything we can to encourage those three,

four, five Republican senators to hold the line against nominees that would destroy the Pentagon, that would destroy the intel community, that would destroy the health of America, that would destroy...we should hold the line. Accept what we accept with Marco Rubio and other appointments like that, but hold the line. Accept what we accept with Marco Rubio and other appointments like that, but hold the line in these other areas. But not show fear. Not be fearful.

Because we saw what happened in South Korea. Hell, they only had like 20 years of democracy at their backs. You know at the wind at our backs that we have, we have like 230, 240 years of Madisonian democracy, of checks and balances. We've got people that will not give up the ship. So we need to stand shoulder to shoulder and keep fighting and have no fear, show no fear because as Zeph D.R. said, the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

So I just I wanted to say that this morning and really what triggered it more than anything else was David's concern, a guy who we love and who loves us. David's concern that we did something because we were fearful. First of all, first of all, we weren't talking about Donald Trump. We're talking about Fox News. Secondly, if we get to a state in our media culture where civility is confused for fear, if by simply saying, hey, let's not say that about an entire network, and that somehow will equate you to Vichy France, then we're

in trouble. And again, again, let me underline this. David meant nothing by it. It was just a throwaway line. It was just a throwaway joke. And I do hope he comes on the show to talk about it. But I am. Or other things.

I gotta say, Meek, at this point, I'm sick and tired of the nonsense. And I wish we'd all just get to work doing the things we need to do, which is our job, which is talking to people who are going to determine where this country goes over the next four years, and to do the reporting and have the people that will come on, as we have done with Matt Gaetz, as we have done with Pete Hegson,

as we have done with Tulsi Gabbard, and as we will do for the next four years. That's what we need to do. That's what we've been doing. That's what we're going to do. So maybe, just maybe, everybody can catch their breath, stop freaking out about a loss of like one percentage point, and stop having this circling firing squad that we see the

Democratic Party in and this media sphere where people are just trying to get clicks. Well, and that to that point, two minor points, and that is, again, the meeting that we went to was not kissing the ring or bending the knee or all your other ridiculous headlines. It was a serious meeting. And quite frankly, if we hadn't told anyone about it, if we hadn't shared it with our viewers to be transparent, and that was our call because it was a meeting on background, nobody would have known about it. Nobody would have.

We weren't flouncing in there and doing a big show of it. This was a private meeting on background. One more thing to those that you were talking about here who were still kind of pushing this narrative and saying this article is so sad and oh my God, fear has taken over. Good job, good job. Because you're so stuck in your hatred.

You're so stuck in your hatred mode that you can't see that you are doing exactly what negative forces at play here want, which is causing us to fight. We should not be fighting for doing our jobs, for doing what the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, they are doing right now. Yeah. And if they are not meeting with the president-elect and talking to him, then they are not doing their jobs. But we know they are. They are.

They're talking to him. And again, I just want to say again, and this is not to media reporters who know what they're doing. They're lying and they're lying to get clicks. They understand exactly what people at their own newspapers are doing, which is the same thing we're doing. This is actually about the fact that the New York Times is talking to Trump, meeting with Trump, talking to people around Trump, meeting with them after calling him a fascist. The Wall Street Journal is doing it.

The Washington Post is doing it. CNN is doing it. CNN is doing it. The Washington Post is doing it. CNN is doing it. CNN is doing it. Do we judge CNN for doing it? No. You know why? It's their jobs. Grow up. It's their jobs. The only thing we did that caused this Twitter storm is we told you. Now, if you'd prefer that we don't tell you everything that we do, that's fine. But we just thought in this case, transparency was best. Now, as Casey Kasen would say, on with the countdown. All right, let's get to our top story this morning. Pete Hegseth says he will be back on Capitol Hill today to meet with Republican senators as he tries to salvage his bid for

defense secretary. It will be his fourth straight day on the Hill amid mounting allegations of sexual assault, alcohol abuse, and other misconduct. He told CBS News yesterday that he had spoken to President-elect Donald Trump, who told him to keep fighting. One of his key meetings yesterday was with Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa. She is a combat veteran who is also a sexual assault survivor. She gave little insight about her sit- with Hegseth. A Democratic senator was very blunt about where the former Fox News host stands with lawmakers. Here first is the

exchange. Senator Ernst had with reporters, followed by the assessment from Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal. Senator, will you support Mr. Hexett's nomination? It was a great and thorough conversation. Did he ask you for your vote specifically? Thank you. When you met with him at Gates, you said he brought up some of the allegations against him. Did he bring up any of these things? It was a very thorough conversation.

And also frank? He gave you concerns, he immediately gave you concerns. Guys, we need a pathway! It was a very thorough conversation. And also frank. You're good. Guys, meet up halfway. Meet in the middle of the walk. Any chance here? Up for consideration as Defense Secretary, Senator?

I've talked to five to ten Republicans who have said to me, they're just waiting for the right moment to say no to Pete has said and for very good reasons. Why do you think so few Republicans, none by my count, have been willing to come out and say they will definitively not support this nominee? Nobody wants to defy Donald Trump if you're a Republican. The power of the presidency, not to mention this president-elect and what the retribution might be, I think is pretty daunting. And so I think

Republicans are reluctant to step forward and be the first one, but I think privately they're much readier to advise the president that the better part of wisdom would be the urge withdrawal of this nomination. I'd be surprised if we still talk about Hegseth at the end of the week or by Monday. So a couple things. Senator Blumenthal telling us actually what's going on in the Republican caucus. Also my contacts in the Republican conference. Of course I could tell everybody that if you would

like and then they'd never talk to me again. I could do that. But let me tell you, Willie, they're saying basically the same thing, which is he's not gonna make it through. There just aren't enough people to vote for him. And I will say, the meeting that was the most important to them yesterday was the Joni Ernst meeting

for a lot of reasons. She's been a champion of women in the military. She has talked about being sexually harassed herself. That was a meeting they were hoping that he would be able to get through with her support. And I must say it was a frank and a thorough conversation is the southern equivalent of well bless her heart. And because as one Republican said, you know, he's not going to make it, said he needed to hit a grand slam.

He may have hit a triple yesterday, but too late, it's just not enough. And I'm hearing word that he may be going down to Moro Lago. And it still looks like one, two, or three people, including Ron DeSantis, who may act, or Joni Ernst, who may actually get this position. Yeah, hearing the same thing, I think you're right, that Senator Blumenthal was giving voice to Republicans

who don't feel like they can say that out loud at this point that he's just not gonna make it. That exchange between Senator Ernst and Garrett Haig, frank and thorough conversation, frank and thorough conversation tells you a lot. There wasn't a lot of praise in her comments about Pete Hegseth. Now he's saying the right things in the halls of the Capitol saying these were great meetings.

Uh, you know, they were Frank and thorough conversations, but in other places, like on social media, he's saying, I'm going to keep fighting. I'm going to never back down. The left is afraid of me. The left is afraid of what Donald Trump wants to bring, I'm going to keep fighting. I'm going to never back down. The left is afraid of me. The left is afraid of what Donald Trump wants to bring to the military and to this country. So showing, I guess, for Donald Trump, one last gasp of that fighting spirit. But as Senator Blumenthal points out, it looks at this moment like there are enough quiet

Republican votes against him that he may not make it. Let's bring in NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Ali Vitale, who's been up on the Hill chasing those senators around as well. Ali, what are you hearing about this potential nominee? I think your conversation is really capturing the tone on Capitol Hill right now. There does seem to be this air of inevitability. We felt it sort of a mood shift in the halls of Congress

happening earlier in the week on Monday when Hegseth came back from the Thanksgiving recess and continued with the meetings that he was having with senators who are taking this advise and consent process, of course, quite seriously. But what we're watching, I think, and while the Gates example was the first nomination

that we saw sort of start and then stop when Gates' nomination itself was pulled, I don't know that it's the right example because of the very specific profile that Gates cuts on Capitol Hill, the fact that he didn't have very many friends from within the House Republican conference to sort of back him up with senators, the fact that he had sort of this long string of controversies, the ethics report, of course, still following him. Maybe we'll end up seeing something happen today on Capitol Hill as the ethics committee meets once again to figure out whether or not they're going to release

this report. But the Gates example is not, I think, the right one. The Hegseth nomination is its own specific case, in large part because this trail of controversies that we still are seeing reported on, I mean, he was having to defend against serious allegations of sexual misconduct well before Courtney and the rest of our NBC News team

was able to put forward a very detailed report about concerns at Fox News over his drinking habits. The fact that he's now going into these meetings with senators and having conversations, promising them that he won't be drinking on the job if he's given this defense secretary role. It gives us a sense of the way that these conversations are going.

And they're not focused from a policy and leadership perspective on past things that he said about women serving in the military, for example. Instead, they are focused on details of his character. And those are the sorts of things that are harder to explain away on Capitol Hill. So I think we're watching in real time.

Let's consider this the first test of how the Senate is going to react to a problematic nominee that for now has the president-elect's backing and watching the way that they are maneuvering, not publicly, not airing their grievances on other networks or in the halls with reporters, unfortunately.

Instead, what they're doing is a quiet signaling game, saying in the halls that it's a frank and thorough conversation, but what's really happening is a between the lines reading. And our unofficial whip count, even, Willie, puts this at least six Republican senators at this point who are likely nos. That's how we're going

to watch the Senate, it seems maneuver in a Trump Washington. Maybe not saying no to the president elect to his face, but certainly signaling it behind the scenes. Yeah, Ali, you're right. Senator Roger Wicker of Mississippi came out of his meeting with Pete Hegseth and said, I got a pledge from Pete Hegseth that he would not drink while he's a secretary of defense. That's kind of where things are. And we do have to underline, as you said, Pete Hegseth has said not not drink while he's a secretary of defense. That's kind of where things are. And we do have to underline, as you said, Pete Hegseth has said not as a one-off, flippant

comment, but in his books and in different interviews, that he does not believe women should serve in combat. That does not sit well, obviously, with Senator Joni Ernst, who served in combat. So if he is pushed to the side over the next few days, what is looking like the likeliest next choice? Could it be Senator Ernst, given her background? Is it in fact Governor Ronda Santis of Florida who's been floated by several media outlets talking to people around Donald Trump?

What does the next choice look like up on the Hill? And that's what I've actually had senators say to me in the past on background even just yesterday saying It's not so much that they think that the focus should remain on Hegseth many people are viewing his nomination as done Whether or not he's officially been pulled yet or not the fact that you've got a list of names kind of waiting in the wings Also, imagine how awkward it is not just to have a meeting that you know is gonna be tense with a senator, but to also have that senator be on a list of names

that could replace you. Frank and Thurow, I think, is the nicest way. I love the comparison to saying it's a bless your heart moment, because it really is. When you look at the list of names, you see, of course, DeSantis is the one that I think many people were initially drawn to, but Bill Haggerty, the Senator from Tennessee,

he has been consistently on this list of names of people that Trump seems to wanna get into the cabinet in whatever position, of course, a former ambassador and now a Senator himself. I do think that there is a view on Capitol Hill that certainly Senator Ernst, Senator Haggerty, these are people who are respected and could be confirmed in bipartisan fashion. I think that Governor De Ernst, Senator Haggerty, these are people who are respected and could be confirmed in bipartisan fashion.

I think that Governor DeSantis, someone who knows the Hill, but might have a little bit of a taller order sort of explaining some of the things that he's done in Florida and how that might apply to a role at the Defense Department. And then of course, Michael Walz

is someone who does seem to have the respect not only of his House colleagues, but in a sense that it could translate to the other side of the Capitol. I do think that there is a sense, much like with Pam Bondi, that the reception to whoever comes next will be much more palatable

and potentially even bipartisan once it actually gets there. But look, once you start saying, okay, I'm gonna pull these nominees because people don't like the profile of the person that I put in to disrupt this agency, that then becomes, you know, do you want to make that a pattern? We know that Trump doesn't like backing down from things like that.

I mean, when they start making the first move to pull people, that could be a sign that, you know, they they are open to pulling people who are controversial in the future. Right. We certainly have seen that already. NBC's Allie Vitale, thank you so much. Jonathan Amir. So, New York Times article this morning, you look through it. It adds to his list of concerns specifically.

First of all, we have the sexual misconduct, including rape allegations in a police report. You've got the public drunkenness that came out yesterday, NBC News, and then you have financial mismanagement. So these are the numbers that the New York Times brought out today. He went to Vets for Freedom. They had an $8.7 million budget in 2008. 8.7 million.

Four years later, by 2012, it was in debt. And then as the New York Times said, it, quote, fizzled out. He then was at Concerned Vets for America, who, as the Times said, continually spent more money than it took in. And then the last year he was there, it was $37,000 in debt. That's for these two smaller vets organizations. And then you add on top of that, forget the financial mismanagement. Then on top of that, you have the New Yorker piece that talks about the whistleblower complaints

of his activities while he was there. So, sexual misconduct, public drunkenness, financial mismanagement, these whistleblower reports, and all of that is on top of the concerns that a lot of Republicans have that he just doesn't have the qualification to be secretary of defense. I've got to say, as Allie and other people are reporting,

this looks like, you looks like a failed PR attempt yesterday as sort of a last gasp, but it looks like the Trump transition team is already ready to move on. Yeah, there are a few things at play here. First, there's still anger on the Trump transition team that Hegseth wasn't fully transparent about some of this in the early stages of his nomination, though, of course, the Trump transition team should also be blamed for its inadequate vetting process, the fact that it wasn't using FBI background checks and the like. The financial concerns are real.

These are relatively small organizations that he ran. The Pentagon, the biggest bureaucracy in the country. Nearly three million people work there. And certainly a lot of reports about concerns about his personal conduct. I'm told yesterday that yes, this was an effort, a last-ditch effort to do a media tour, to get back on the Hill. He will go again today to try to try to salvage this. But the odds are stacked against him.

I talked to a couple people close to the process who said this is deeply unlikely. They wouldn't be surprised if this disappears in the next couple of days. So Reverend Sharpton, what this does do, if this nomination goes away, if Trump pulls it or he steps away because he's a distraction or however he wants to frame it, this gives the Republican senators though another opportunity to defy Donald Trump, to say, look, this person's not qualified, I can't support him. Do you think this is the beginning of a backbone being formed? Do you think that this would give them, embolden them, perhaps, to insist on Senate independence

going forward? I think that we should look at this in the context of that maybe some Republican senators still want to do what's best for the country. To have someone who clearly never managed anything of this level in terms of you have three million enlisted men and women and staff, the lack of any kind of examples of him being competent enough to handle that should raise questions. And then you have the allegations of sexual abuse and alcoholism and all. I think that for the senators to stand up and say, we're in a world where we're dealing with Ukraine, the Middle East, we're dealing with potential problems that could become

military engagement for the United States, we need somebody that can handle that, rather than say it's them just standing up to Donald Trump. I think that, you know, a news flash, the world does not rotate around Donald Trump. We need to get out of making Donald Trump the son, and we all rotate around it. People ought to stand up on what they believe, and these senators ought to stand up

on what they were elected to do. And that's not based on reaction to Trump. All right. Still ahead on Morning Joe, we're hot. The latest on the search for the gunman who killed the CEO of UnitedHealthcare in New York City, including the surveillance video that shows the moment the suspect opened fire. Plus Republican Senator Mitt Romney of Utah delivers his farewell address. We'll play for you some of that speech. You're watching Morning Joe.

We're back in 90 seconds. This city police still are on the hunt for the gunman who killed the CEO of United Healthcare. Brian Thompson was shot yesterday morning in Midtown Manhattan just before he was set to speak at a conference at the Hilton Hotel. Surveillance video shows Thompson walking alone from a nearby hotel when the suspect approaches him from behind and fires multiple rounds. The shooter who was wearing a jacket, a face mask and a large gray backpack, then fled on foot, got on a bicycle and went into Central Park just a few blocks north.

Police say he was also spotted at a nearby Starbucks just minutes before the attack. A motive has not yet been established. The slain CEO had been receiving threats recently, but had not been altering his travel routine. That is according to his wife. Let's bring in NBC News national law enforcement and intelligence correspondent, Tom Winter. Tom, good morning. So what more do we know about the search for this gunman and about the possible motive here? Well, on the possible motive front, it's a little bit up in the air right now, Willie. It is definitely, according to the New York City Police Department, a targeted killing.

This is not somebody who is looking for any individual to shoot yesterday. This was not some sort of an active shooter. Obviously, he very clearly, the video shows it. We're looking at it, approaches this individual from behind, clearly knew which direction this person was coming from, what a Brian Thompson was staying at what hotel He was going to to speak at this conference had been in the area And then these still photos that were now looking at coming from the NYPD yesterday And according to people we've spoken with from a Starbucks prior to the shooting you can see there

We actually even though he's masked up and masked up in the video That's a pretty clear photo perhaps not enough for the NYPD's facial recognition unit but a pretty clear photo to perhaps help them along or to get some tips at the number on the screen. So new information we're getting this morning as well Willie this individual who the NYPD believes is obviously responsible for the shooting apparently left behind some writings on the shell casings the police found at the scene the The senior law enforcement official here in New York City was briefed on the investigation. Says the messages on the

casings were, quote, defend, deny, and depose. So three separate writings written on shell casings. Doesn't really help us much with the motive, but the idea that perhaps this is a professional hit versus maybe somebody who had a motive to do this on their own maybe shifting more to the to the theory that somebody had a motive to do this on his own but it's still far too early to get to the bottom of that and perhaps not until this individual is in handcuffs are they going to be able to do that they've uncovered a number of items of evidence and right now this individual is not under arrest, but there are some very good leads that police appear to be following.

That's what we're told and that's the latest on the investigation here as we've been working the phones all day. Tom, you know the inner workings of the NYPD so well and I think a lot of us who live in New York City always marvel at how quickly they apprehend suspects just because of all the technology now available to them and all the intelligence that they can gather so quickly. So what would this process look like beginning at, say, seven o'clock yesterday morning when the calls came in? Sure.

So immediately what they're going to do is conduct what they call a video canvas. They're immediately going to go to the hotel. One of the first things that the responding officer does, even before the detectives get there, look up, look around, listen to the 911 call, they'll put out very detailed information, we'll go right to NYPD smartphones, it'll go out over the air, and those initial responding officers are going to look for witnesses, they're going to look for anybody else that's around with a gun, and they're immediately going to look up what cameras are around, what type of information can we get right away, get that with a gun, and they're immediately going to look up what cameras are around, what type of information

can we get right away, get that to a supervisor, and begin to pull the types of video images that we've been looking at, and presumably quite a few pieces of video that we haven't seen yet, because those have been turned over to law enforcement from businesses in the area. And that's what they'll do. They'll track this individual.

And then they'll also see if they're on NYPD cameras and is there any way that they can track this individual through the NYPD's domain awareness system and the various technologies that they have. So all of that work is going on. There was a cell phone that was recovered at the scene. They executed a search warrant on that, see if there's information that might be relevant to this specific individual or to the shooting. They also conducted a search of the victim's hotel room and see if there's anything in there that could have helped them with that as well.

So I'm just looking at a couple of things. First of all, I want to ask you about New York City and CCTV across New York City, specifically Central Park. We know in London there are cameras all over the place in London. And I just wanted to ask you about New York City, how it compares. But also, defend, deny, depose on the casings. Certainly that sounds like somebody who, again, we don't want to jump too far in conclusions, but that may line up with what his wife said yesterday that perhaps it was threats pertaining to somebody who was denied coverage.

Any thoughts there? You know, I think that's a piece of the puzzle, Joe. Certainly appreciate what you're saying there, what you're going with and kind of putting it all together. I've been doing this long enough to know that sometimes a case looks like it's going down one specific track and you think you're right there and then all of a sudden it shifts to something completely different. And I think that's something that the NYPD in particular, its current chief of detectives,

Joe Kenny, preaches a lot to the detectives as far as keep your mind open. You don't know what's happening. Could that be writings that could try to throw police off? So that's something that we always keep in mind. As far as the cameras go, Joe, the Central Park has a tremendous amount of surveillance camera coverage. It is not complete. I'm not going to get into areas where they don't have great coverage of. It's kind of impossible given the entirety of the park, but they do have a lot of capability with that. And you know there

is in this country certainly a you know a constant battle between yes if we had surveillance cameras everywhere could we find this person instantly some CSI type thing? Yeah perhaps, but on the other hand you know we're Americans we have a right to privacy, Fourth Amendment, etc. And that's something that there's always that kind of give and take with law enforcement and people that are certainly concerned about privacy. Great coverage and context. NBC's Tom Winter, thank you very much for your reporting this morning. And coming up, Steve Ratner says the massive budget cuts proposed by Elon Musk and Vivek

Maswami are part of their efforts leading a new government efficiency panel will likely prove impossible to achieve. Steve joins us with charts on that next on Morning Joe. And I want to emphasize the individual federal employees are mostly not bad people actually because most human beings are not bad people. To the contrary, most people who are federal employees are doing what they do because they believe they're serving their country. And I respect that. I'm hopeful it's going to be even good for many of the individuals who may make a transition

from government service back to the private sector. That was Vivek Ramaswamy, who is part of a newly formed Department of Government Efficiency with Elon Musk and has pushed for making mascots to the federal workforce, insisting those very cuts will be beneficial to government workers. Joining us now, former Treasury official and Morning Joe economic analyst, Steve Ratner. Steve, let's just cut straight to this

and I know you're gonna go through these charts, but this is something that when I hear these two guys talking about how they're gonna get $2 trillion from the budget, it's a joke. And it's a joke because this is something you and I have been obsessed about for a very long time, the national debt, getting the deficit under control. And I just, you know, just looking at your first chart here,

I mean, people need to understand, Social Security and Medicare make up about 50% of what the government spends. You add defense and veterans benefits, that's another 20%. So you're up to 70%. You then add debt and how much it costs to service that debt, that's another 10 percent. So Steve, before they even start talking about cutting these so-called federal employees that are bankrupting us, the United States government has already spent 80 percent of of its budget on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Vets, Defense, and

interest on the debt. So I just I love some of these other numbers and again forgive me for like killing Hamlet in the first act here but oh let's cut law enforcement that's 1% of the budget. Oh, let's cut sciences and medical research. We spend too much on that, they may be saying. 1% of the budget. Ag, 1% of the budget. Transportation, those pork barrel projects, it's going to bankrupt us. It's only 2% of the budget. Again, I will actually let you explain this far better than I am right now, but this is a scam. And lester going to slash Social Security and Medicare and the and and Veterans Affairs. They're never going to get the $2 trillion.

So they need to just stop pretending. You know, Joe, I feel like Vanna White. I'm just turning letters up here and you're actually a Jack. It's just like, It makes me so mad. It's so disingenuous. I'm happy to be your letter guy. But you look, you said it exactly right, Joe. This is a completely disingenuous, unrealistic, ridiculous idea for the reasons you all said

that only 25% of the budget can really be cut. And even that you rattled off a lot of programs that most Americans would say are really important to them. And so you're trying to cut... I can do a little bit of math. You're trying to cut $2 trillion, but you've only got $1.5 trillion of stuff that you can cut, and that would be cutting all of it. Now, I would say Trump has intimated about cutting some money from Medicaid.

We're going to talk right over here about veterans, where there's some stuff on the chopping block. But what Musk and Ramosami have done as a first approximation is they've identified about $500 billion of spending that through a complicated legislative quirk, which I'm not going to get into, they think they can actually cut without Congress. But let's just give it as an example of the things they would like to cut. Veterans health care, 119 billion, eliminate health care for veterans. We're going to talk about the impact of all this stuff in a second.

NIH, $47 billion. Pell Grants for education, $22 billion. Head Start, we all know what that is, 12 billion. The FBI, maybe they'd actually like to cut that, 11 billion. These, by the way, would zero all this stuff out. These are not just trims. This is eliminating this stuff. Federal prisons, the SEC, and so forth. And all of that adds up to $516 billion, and so they're still a long way, a long way from their $2 trillion target, even if they got all this stuff, and even if people

accepted this. So yes, Joe, your opening premise is right. It is ridiculous. So Musk and Ramoswami are heading to the hill today to start pitching these cuts. We should note though by the time they arrive late afternoon the Senate will have gone home by then. So they're still learning on the job I suppose. Steve you mentioned the VA and NIH are targets here. Talk to us about those cuts and what they mean. Yeah, I just want to give these as examples of how heavy the political lift would be to try to get this done.

You're talking about 6.2 million veterans who are receiving health care from the Veterans Administration. And that number, this is a 2021 number, the most recent one we have. But that number is only going to grow. For example, they passed the PACT Act, which is to protect veterans who are hurt in burn pits and things like that. That passed by an overwhelming bipartisan consensus. So imagine the idea you go back then, a year or two later, and you say, I know you passed

this thing by a bipartisan consensus, now we want to eliminate it. It just doesn't stand the test of reality. Then you talk about the NIH. The NIH is a truly great organization. It funds basic research that the private sector won't fund because there's not obvious commercial use for it. Put aside lung cancer, which had a lot to do with smoking, taking up smoking, secession of smoking.

But the NIH's impact, and it's not just the NIH, but they played a big role in all these different cancers that have come down, down, down in terms of incidence, deaths from these cancers from colon and rectum, breast, prostate, lung cancer we talked about, cervix and stomach. All these cancers have come down, and you have the NIH to thank for a lot of it. Yeah, no question there. And Steve, let's turn to chart three and four. It's not just the Trump administration. For decades now, Republicans are the ones who blame Democrats saying, hey, you're increasing

the size of the federal workforce. Your response for the bloat, but your chart there shows it's actually exactly the opposite. Yeah, this really surprised me when we put these numbers together because they have been talking about cutting 50 to 75 percent of the federal workforce, another ambitious, if you want, ludicrous more realistically proposal. But what's interesting about this, two things. First of all, the size of the federal workforce, $2.3-ish million when Reagan came in, is actually only very, very slightly higher today than it was

then even though the population of the United States has grown by 47%. So these 2.2 million, these are civilian workers, are servicing 50% more people with the same number of government employees. Number two, if you look at the red ones, which is where we had a Republican president, this is Reagan, the famous Reagan Government unemployment went up under Reagan. Clinton, it dropped like a rock with help from Congress, as Joe will remind me if I don't say that Came up again. It came up again under George Bush 43 And these spikes by the way are COVID, the general financial crisis, the dot com burst,

and then the recession that did in Bush 43. So you have some spikes. But generally speaking, even under Trump, federal employment went up. Under Trump, 1.0. And so the record of the Republicans, they talk a good game, but the record of the Republicans in actually cutting spending is pretty small. The other thing Musk and Vivaswami are attacking is federal pay. And people have this idea that these federal workers are wildly overpay.

Let's look at the facts on that. If you go back to 2011, it is true that the average federal worker, this guy in blue here, made about 6% more than his private sector counterpart if you adjust for the different levels of jobs and skills and so forth. But Congress has held down federal pay now pretty consistently for those 20 years, the result of which now is that the private sector pay is substantially both federal pay by 8%. So the average private worker, again, adjusted for skills, makes about 8% more than a federal worker.

So the idea that these are government bureaucrats who are way overpaid is just not supported by the facts. All right, Steve Ratner, thank you very much. We appreciate your coming on this morning.