Morning Joe - New apparent Epstein files trove posted, disappears

Episode Date: December 23, 2025

New apparent Epstein files trove posted, disappears To listen to this show and other MS podcasts without ads, sign up for MS NOW Premium on Apple Podcasts. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

We're bringing down drug prices, like at a level that has never even been thought of, by thousands, think of it, by 1,000 percent, by 1,300, 1,400, 1,400, in some cases. A drug that sells for $10 in London is costing $130 in New York, we're bringing it down to $20, and they're going to go up to $20. So they're going from $10 to $20, which is a doubling. it's a doubling it's a lot but it's a doubling but we're going down to 20 so we're going down if you can do your own math but it's it's uh

2,000 percent 3,000 percent it's pretty amazing it's pretty amazing 8 billion percent he's saving you no they're giving you that's good buy some aspirin they pay you $8 billion.

Believe me. Jonathan Lemire, this is incredible. Nobody's explained that to him yet. It's extraordinary math. That's really extraordinary that. Nobody's explained that in the White House yet. Yeah. Give me your White House reporting

on why nobody's explained to him that his math is literally impossible. His uncle did go to MIT, as he's fond of saying, so perhaps he is an expert in the field. But no, but it's actually a telling little moment that, again, this is something that's so obviously just wrong. And yet, there's no one in there who can say to him, sir, and whether or not there are tears in the person's eyes, as they say, sir, as I'm clear. But you don't have this right, because no one tells him, no, no one tells him wrong. And that's by design.

And even when his advisors or Commerce Secretary is on TV and asked about this, they can't just say, ah, he slipped up, he made a mistake. Here's what he meant. He just said, well, what he's trying to say, like, nobody could just say he messed up, he's wrong. about that because they fear the consequences. Yeah, yeah. And we're going to get to Grandpa playing football last night, but before we do, I just, I, the New York Post,

Communist Party. Now, they've got Mom Donnie. Yeah. They've got AOC. They can bring it, but they don't have Donald Trump who said the largest communist takeover of any company in decades,

with seizing 10% of Intel, seizing control other companies. He, it wants to invade Venezuela to seize their oil. I mean, that is just, I mean, that is just pure, pure, you know, Tony Montana had pure cocaine that he like, like, you know, moved around Miami. I mean, Donald Trump's seizure of these companies, pure communism. It's pure socialism. This would make Britain in 1974 blush. State capitalism at best, but more like communism, probably. State capitalism is generous.

We hate to play the game too often, but imagine if President Barack Obama had said, Oh my gosh. The United States government is taking over and will take 10% of your future earnings. Invidia, whatever the company is, what would be the reaction, do you think? They're worried about lettuce. Momdani may have the city come in and help grocery stores open up and sell lettuce. He's taking over the biggest tech companies in the world. The United States government

taking over the biggest tech companies in the world. I just remember when Kamala Harris said that she wanted to attack the problem of price gouging and people said that's communism, that's socialism, and now here we are with this complete upside down view of what conservative economic policy is supposed to look like. Yeah, yeah. Did you either you see the game? I was asleep, but we've done sports already. We have done sports already. On my show. Yeah, well, see, here's

thing at six o'clock, it becomes my show. Correct. And amen to that. If Meek is not here, and then it's Mika's show. But here's the thing about Philip Rivers. I'm for him. There's no doubt about it, right? But he doesn't look 44 when he throws the ball. He looks, and I say this with all due respect, he looks 64. He looks like your dad coming out after Thanksgiving dinner like saying, hey, can I throw with you guys? And you notice, like the three. throwing motion. He gets it there. Don't get me wrong. He gets it there sometimes.

Sometimes if it's past 30 yards, he'll underthrow it. But I'm looking, I love the story. This is a great story. I love it. But the thing that I just can't get over, and it was kind of like Barack Obama when he'd throw out the opening pitch or when he'd bowl.

You know, it's just the motion, the stiff motion. And look at this. Look, he just kind of, huh? Huh? He comes from the side down here. TJ, you've got to show it down here. He comes from the side down here. It's almost like he's got a shoulder problem.

There's a pig six. Almost like there's a shoulder. You know, he throws it like that instead of, you know, boom. You know what, though? He's always had that throwing. Has he always been, when he was 24, he threw it like that. Has he always carried the geritol in the side pocket, though? And somehow he became one of those prolific passers in the history of the NFL.

Now he's 44, a little bit less zip on that pass. Yeah. When he throws, he did throw for him, was 300 yards, a couple of touchdowns. It's pretty amazing. They lost the game because Brock Purdy was great last night, and the Niners could win the entire conference with the way they're playing. But Rivers, for people don't know, 44 years old, came out of retirement coaching high school football in Alabama. One of the best stories. Has a grandson.

Oh, come on. And now he's playing in a Monday night football game. Great story. But Brock Purdy was a little bit better last night. And Paul Paul is kicking at old school, so let me ask you, Willie, since you weren't here yesterday, and we talk sports for about 45 minutes. We can't figure out who's going to win, who has the best shot of winning the Super Bowl, because everybody's so genuinely bad in the NFL. And every time you think it's the Denver Broncos, oh, well, the Broncos are at home. There's nobody that's going to be.

And then of a sudden Jackson will just absolutely torches them. You think it's the bills, and the bills almost loses to the Browns. Nobody's good out there. Like, who has the best shot of winning the Super Bowl? I like the Patriots, and I'm not just pandering to the mayor. Oh, this is old Yankee dipsy. No, no, no, no. You know why?

I think Drake May is MVP caliber, but also he's just got that, like, low heart rate thing going that you look for those assassin quarterbacks who are going to win Super Bowls. I also never count out, though they won't have home field advantage. Josh Allen, if he gets rolling in the playoffs, the bills could be right there, too. I don't know if I'm a buyer of the Denver Broncos necessarily. I don't think I am yet. I mean, they had a great season, but I'm not sure. I'm a buyer. Bills look good to me. And the Niners are hot right now. If they win these last

two games, they get the number one seed. The road of the Super Bowl goes all the way through them. They could play at home in the Super Bowl. Yeah, I think it's whoever. I think it's whoever gets hot. And I mean, you'll also look at coaches. And the bills just have one of the best coaches in football right now, along with one of the best quarterbacks. Yeah, I mean, Alan is the best player in the league. So that might at the end of the day just be what it's about. And we talked about this yesterday. The path has never been clearer. Their arch nemesis, the chiefs were already out. I mean, yeah, Pats have been wonderful,

but that's still a very young team, as I've said all year long. There's a season away, I think. That said, they're going to win the division, so they'll have some home playoff games. But Vrabel, though. An extraordinary coach. So you've got really, I think one of the best coaches in the league against the best player in the league

when that showdown. First of all, the Vrabel May combo, sign me up for the next decade. The Patriots are extraordinarily lucky. Vrabel sat, Nostia, without a job. Any team could have hired him, including the two teams here in New York, who are desperate for coaching and no one did. Sorry. But yeah, it is a wide open season.

I do think the NFC West is probably going to produce, I mean, whether it's the Rams, the Niners. I actually believe in the Seahawks less, even though I understand they're the top seed right now, just because we have seen Sam Donald in big games not come through. And then there's the Eagles, who have been so weird and so torturous to watch all year

long, but they're playing better of late. And the Bears at some point to say, wait, are the Bears? For real? I mean, Caleb Williams I'm not ready. He's been very good. And they have a good coach. It's exciting when the Bears are good. I'm not ready. They beat the pack. Chicago's hot right now.

What's happening in New York? They've gotten rid of everybody. What's happening? What's he doing? They say there's a plan. They say there's a plan. I don't know what the plan is. I do think there's an effort here to really reshape the team's identity. That's the sense that they have underachieve the last few years, but they're shipping out fan favorite after fan favorite. Pete Alonzo, Edwin Diaz, Jeff McNeill yesterday. NEMO. Right. Four key guys who've been there, a long time. You know, there's rumors of some clubhouse tension last year. They're trying to deal

with that. Obviously, they still have Juan Soto. They still have Francis School indoor. And they've got money to spend. They just got to do it. Which sounds like another team. It sounds kind of like our Boston Red Sox. They always end up blaming whoever the poor sucker is that they named general manager. And then at some point you realize it's not the general manager that's not signing the checks. We'll leave it there. Also with us today, we have managing editor of the Bullwark, Sam Stein. He doesn't follow sports. But he doesn't follow sports. But If you want to know about a great needle point pattern to get your parents for Christmas, go to Sam on that one.

We also have senior writer at The Dispatch. And call on this for Bloomberg opinion, David Drucker. He's all about football, man. No needle point for him. That's just Sam Stein. Sam, it's good to see you. I have no clue what you're talking about at all. Zero.

What are you talking about? What are needle points? Oh, don't. We monitor that interest board. Yeah, and also, like, you go to commercial break, and he immediately takes it out, and he starts doing patterns. He's a big Etsy, guys. He loves Edcy. Anyway, Willie, why don't we go to news now?

And maybe Sam will show us, he did the Washington Monument at sunset, a needlepoint. That's what he's been working on. A little throw pillow? Yeah, a little throw pillow. He could reveal it at the end of the show. But first, more chaos around the Epstein files, a new batch of tens of thousands of documents that appeared to be from the Epstein files. briefly were posted on the Justice Department's website yesterday before then disappearing without explanation.

They got this down, Willie. Cold, calculated, ruthlessly efficient. They have thought through this like for months. It's incredible. The materially included thousands of additional government documents and emails, as well as several dozen videos from the Bureau of Prisons. The files contain wide-ranging references to President Trump, but mentioned, of course, does not.

demonstrate criminal wrongdoing. The just being mentioned doesn't mean you did anything wrong. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to questions about why the documents had been posted and then apparently removed. Did you see what Bill Clinton's spokesperson did yesterday? It was

great. They're like, okay, yeah, all right. You want to show like a picture or two randomly? How about a little context? Release everything. Yeah. Why don't you release everything? Why are you just... It was so clear they were trying to embarrass Bill Clinton So out of all of the tens of thousands of documents, they release these two or three that'll get everybody talking about Bill Clinton.

It's a whole look over there. Look at the bird over there. Don't look at the documents and see what's not in there. References to Donald Trump, all this stuff blacked out. Pay attention to Bill Clinton. So Bill Clinton, spokesperson, comes out and says, I'll tell you what, here's a great idea. You are required under the law, which you're breaking, to release all the documents. release all the documents. We're fine. That's what Bill Clinton said. It was a great, strong response.

And smart, right? Because they're trying to say, we have nothing to hide here. And the rolling production from the Department of Justice doesn't seem to have a rhyme or reason behind what's being released first, second, third, hasn't been released yet. And so I think they're calling that out in a pretty smart fashion by also saying that we haven't actually yet learned anything truly substantively new, right? We knew that the Clinton, that Bill Clinton ran in this orbit. We knew that Donald Trump ran in this orbit. We've seen pictures to that effect before. What has really been lacking is the underlying context. And again, when you see hundreds and hundreds of pages just fully blacked out, you have questions about what the redaction method actually is. And if there is some kind of new

ongoing investigation that will continue to stymie what kinds of documents are actually released going forward. You know, it's so preposterous. I mean, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump both hung out with Jeffrey Epstein. I don't know if Bill Clinton ever said he was a great friend like Donald Trump did, but they all hung out with him. They're all pictures there. And for some reason, they think they're going, they think people are stupid enough that they can just release Bill Clinton's pictures. And people go, oh, that's a real big skin. No, not even Donald Trump's own supporters are buying this. Do you notice how muted it was? They understood what he was trying to do, what Pam Bondi was trying to do.

What Todd Blanche, you actually, wow, I bet that was kind of humiliating. We took down the picture of Donald Trump because we wanted to protect victims who were in the pictures. Oh, I wonder how we explained that one on the way back to the Justice Department. Yeah, yeah, kind of tied himself in knots there. Bill Clinton's office, by the way, said he needs no protection. He said clearly this selective release of documents, the photos of him, for example, is an act of protection for someone or something.

That is the statement from the Clinton office. And he says, I need no such protection. Put it all out there. Let's see all of it. And we haven't seen that yet. Let's bring an MS now legal affairs reporter Fallon Gallagher. She's been digging through the latest material since they were posted and then taken down. Good morning.

What have you found so far? Yeah, Willie. So that material, I believe, is actually still back online. It went down and then it went back up. This is the largest batch of actual information. that we've gotten since these files started dropping Friday night, and we're still not learning anything substantively new. So most of those files that we got on Friday and over the weekend were pictures. Some of them had already been in the public domain for a while. We had court documents

that had definitely been in the public domain. Now we're starting to get some of those internal communications from the Department of Justice, but it's still not the ones that I was hoping to see. So I want to make it clear. We're still going through this material. There's about tens of thousands of pages of documents here. But from what I can see so far in the batch that I've personally been going through, there's emails with the Department of Justice, but it's not about, you know, should we charge this high profile person or this high profile person? They're planning their travel to go to Los Angeles to interview victims. This is like very mundane sort of procedural stuff. There's certainly no smoking gun. There's no new evidence of any wrongdoing from anybody

who's not named Jeffrey Epstein or Galane Maxwell. And really not a whole lot of new information yet. I want a caveat, though, we are still going through this information. This is the largest amount of information that we've gotten yet. Because if you've gone through the files, when you saw them on Friday, it's like a JPEG here, a JPEG there. And they're mostly pictures. They're mostly pictures of his Manhattan home and his Virgin Islands, his island. This is singular files of like email PDFs. So every single document here is at least five pages, sometimes more.

So there is a lot to go through. but the headline at this point is that there's no new information and there is nobody else who has done anything wrong, including President Trump. So Fallon, is there an expectation that this entire trove of documents, as was promised, as is required by law? Now you have Chuck Schumer saying they're going to sue the Justice Department to release all the files. Is the expectation that at some point the public will see the Epstein files because that's not what we're seeing to this point? Yeah, and this is really tricky because they are objective. breaking the law, the law was abundantly clear that Friday night by 1159, they needed to release

these documents in full. They have not done that. They signaled Friday before 1159 that they were not going to be able to meet that deadline. So they're not in compliance here. I know that Schumer has floated suing. It seems like nothing would happen there until January when Congress is back in session. Yesterday, the House floated inherent contempt, which is a very rare procedure that basically allows one chamber of Congress to bypass not only the other chamber of Congress, but also the White House and the judiciary to do anything. But really, the enforcement there is also thin. They can fine Pam Bondi every single day that they don't release, but they've already signaled there, too, that, you know, they're willing to give her a 30-day grace period. So it seems

like there's no enforcement here. But at the end of the day, that's up to the Department of Justice, and they're not going to prosecute themselves. All right. And it's now legal affairs reporter Falling Gallagher. Thank you so much. Greatly. Appreciate it. Drucker, anybody pleased with this? Anybody pleased with, like, hundreds of pages completely blacked out? No idea whose identity they're hiding? Because it's certainly, it's not a hundred or 200 or however many pages were redacted. Those aren't all victims or alleged victims.

Are Republicans just as upset about this as Democrats? Well, some are. But, you know, Joe, leave it, leave it to the federal government to create a conspiracy where there is none, by mishandling a document release and ignoring the law. But that's to be expected with this administration. Look, there are Republicans that are upset about this. Additionally, this really makes no political sense because it's one of those issues where the party has been divided, where Donald Trump has fomented infighting among his typical allies on Capitol Hill. And this is just more of the same, right?

And so you give Democrats another tool with which to, from a political standpoint, divide House and Senate Republicans. You give House and Senate Republicans who have some disagreements about President Trump, another issue with which to disagree about him, disagree over him publicly. Right. And this is the last thing they need heading into midterm elections. It also serves as a distraction from the number of what issue affordability. I think you'll see some action to try and do something about this around the edges, probably from the usual suspects, Thomas Massey, and Republicans like that.

But look, there's a pattern here. The Republicans on Capitol Hill can support a law as they did with the TikTok ban and then allow the president of the United States to break the law, to ignore the law. They don't do anything about it. So what has he learned over the past year? He doesn't have to follow the law. Yeah, and that's with the Wall Street Journal editorial pages saying this morning, he broke the law on TikTok, just like he broke the law on the Kennedy Center, the Wall Street Journal editorial page saying, you know, we're thinking about just ignoring this because this is just so Trumpian, just like Donald Trump trying to name a class of destroyers or battleships after him. Now the Wall Street Journal is saying, you know, we were going to ignore this because this is just so dumb. This is so Trumpian. But we can't do it because we can't do it because Because wait a second, he's breaking the law.

And there's a congressional law that he is breaking. The question now is will Republicans in Congress allow him to continue breaking the law like they did with TikTok? Are they going to step up and try to force him to actually follow the laws of the land? That is actually the open question. It has been, though, for the entire last year, right? Because it's stunning to watch the way that these Republican members seem perfectly fine seating the power spaces that they have always had, whether it's on appropriations and

rescissions or something seemingly silly as changing the name on a building that you know is not going to last and that some Democratic president is going to come in and take off as soon as they come back in. But it really is that balancing act of what to point out as completely contrary to the norms and completely disruptive to the way that Washington ultimately works. And so it makes sense that the journal is calling it out. I think when it comes to the Epstein of it all, there is a question. of when they come back in January, enough of them voted to compel the release of these files because of the political pressure when it actually- There's like 427 to 1. Oh, yeah. Just the one

Clay Higgins in Louisiana was hanging out there as a lone person. Two interesting dynamics. One, all House Republicans except for Clay Higgins voted for it. Why wouldn't they compel the release of the thing that they said should be released? That's an open question. Two, the Senate never actually voted on this. And so when Chuck Schumer says he's going to put forward something that tries to compel the release of these documents, we actually might see people have to put their names on votes, which is not what they did when they compelled the release of the files. They did it by unanimous consent. They said, this is good. Just send it to the president's desk. They didn't want to get bogged down and putting their names to something. So maybe we learned something in

January about where people actually stand. Well, again, I just want to outline again that there has been reporting from this network and others that there's nothing in the files that that prove Donald Trump broke the law, nothing. So the question is, why does Donald Trump, why does the White House continue to drag their feet? Why does the administration continue to drag their feet and keep this story alive? This number one law of like crisis management, rule of crisis, get it behind you. Admit to what you admit to and get it behind you. They've let this story continue to drag on and on and on over the past six, nine months. And it's, their own base that they're pissing off the most. Here's Donald Trump, saying something yesterday

about something. This whole thing is with Epstein is a way of trying to deflect from the tremendous success that the Republican Party has. Like, for instance, today we're building the biggest ships in the world, most powerful ships in the world, and they're asking me questions about Jeffrey Epstein. I thought that was finished. I believe they gave over 100,000 pages of documents. And there is tremendous backlash. It's an interesting question because a lot of people are very angry that pictures are being released of other people that really had nothing to do with Epstein. But they're in a picture with him because he was at a party and you ruin a reputation of somebody. So a lot of people are very angry that this continues.

A lot of Republicans are angry because of the fact that it's just used to deflect against a tremendous success. You know the footnote there. Like, we tried to ruin Bill Clinton. reputation but nobody bought it you know sam this reminds me though about them just lying this drag on and on and on and not just releasing it that panda bear that you did that that needle point on that said we've met the enemy and it is us yeah that was very good i i gave that to my my daughter when she was younger she does it um but anyway yeah very good sam but anyway sam yeah why why don't they just release all of this get it behind them again if don't

Trump is not in these files in a way that causes him any legal problems. And again, that's been all of our reporting. And who's he trying to protect? Because he don't care about friends. Who is he trying to protect by continuing to drag his feet on releasing these files? Before I get to that, would you like a needlepoint of the Trump cargo ships as well? Because I'm taking requests on this holiday season. I actually think Lamere wanted that for his younger son. I'm gonna get down. Lamere, shit. Gotcha.

Your mom must be so proud of you. Yes, I'm proud of myself. So how many customers do you have on Sam's needlepoint on Etsy? How many customers do you have by now? As of this morning, two, you and Lamarer. But we're building. We're building. We're going to shark take this thing.

All right, to your point. The real admission, we're building one stitch at a time. I like it. That's his, that's his motto. Go ahead. I'm going to steer this back. So, if you remember for months, the defense from the Trump administration over that, for not releasing these files, was that, well, if there's anything nefarious or bad about Donald Trump in these files, then the Democrats would have released them already, right? That was always their line. And to me, that was such an omission.

It was an admission that these files would be used by them as a political. that if there was something in them that could embarrass a Democrat, they would use it. And of course, conversely, that they would protect Donald Trump if there were stuff in there. And that's exactly what we're seeing right now. And so when you ask, well, who are they hiding? What are they doing? Why are they not just putting it all out there? The only logical explanation for that is that they're trying to protect their client. This is the Department of Justice, Donald Trump, and they're trying to hurt Democrats, which is why you got all those photos about Bill Clinton. And frankly, I don't think we can assume they're operating in any good faith.

I mean, this is an administration and the Justice Department that fought the release of these files. And then when they were compelled to release the files, said, look, we're the most transparent administration in U.S. history. And Susie Wilde told Vanity Fair point blank. Pam Bondi lied about the files. She gave them a file filled with nothingness. And then she said there's a client list on her desk because there ain't no client list. and it ain't on her list. That's Susie Wiles, the chief of staff,

talking about how the attorney general is acting in bad faith and has from the beginning with Epstein files. And I'll just add, I think David hit it on the nail on the head here, which is the way they are handling this is not going to ultimately benefit them in the long run because either you put everything out all at once when you're ready and when you've redacted it,

or you don't. And they haven't, and that's just going to feed conspiracies that more people are getting preferential treatment and that Trump's enemies are not. And it's going to fuel a lot of chatter and conspiracy about what they're trying to do. It's going to start a lot of conversation about what's actually in the files.

And then when you say at some point in time down the road, I assume they're going to say, all right, we've released them all that we can release. No one's going to believe you. And so they've handled this very, very poorly. And legally. And legally and other redactions also, again, the thing is, if this were a left-wing scandal,

If this is what lefties had been writing about on Twitter for the past 15 years, there'd be one thing. This is a MAGA scandal. They literally have made this pursuit of Epstein and all the gangs of pedophiles, the powerful pedophiles on the left and right and in Hollywood and everywhere. They've made that like a core belief in the MAGA Bay system. So when the White House covers up, it's just what I was saying before, why? Why? If Donald Trump hasn't done anything, and that's all of our reporting, he hasn't done anything that is illegal, release it, get the story behind you. But they will not. They will not. And there is a reason they aren't. I don't know that reason. You don't know that reason. Nobody in Washington knows that reason. But Donald Trump knows that reason. And his followers are going to keep pushing him. until they figure it out. Yeah, I reported it a few months back when this story flared to life again that no one even in the White House knows really what's in these files,

why President Trump is so upset by them. As you've said, there's nothing in there that we know of that indicates criminality, obviously deeply embarrassing. And maybe that's all it is, but that's fueling this. And because it's a MAGA conspiracy theory, that's why this is the moment. Trump got rolled. He told Republicans to knock it off and they didn't.

And he got over the summer when MAGA influencers defied him. And then a few months back, when the House and Senate said, we have to push forward on this. Now, they voted for it. You know, they're clearly, though, unhappy with what's come out. So now do they buck Trump again and say, look, this isn't enough. Go back to it. And, Willie, the sort of the incoherence of this, of this whole plan is, let's remember, we thought the administration was going to, they opened up this new investigation, so it would slow things down.

So they couldn't release things. That was the theory, right? Well, we can't release stuff because we're opening the investigation. Trump's order to Pan Bondi was to investigate Democrats. Bill Clinton is in there by name, and yet they release all of Bill Clinton stuff. It's so incoherent. It's keystone cops. And you can see, Joe, how uncomfortable the president is, even in that clip we just played.

Oh, I thought we'd stop talking about this. You keep asking me about this. Let's put this behind us. And as you point out rightly, it's not left-wing organizations calling for this. It is MAGA. It is conservatives, along with some progresses, but largely this has been a MAGA-driven story, and rightly so. I mean, it's appalling the stuff we've seen come out from Jeffrey Epstein, but they are saying, no, no, no, no, don't insult us. Right.

Don't hold us in such contempt and think where it's stupid enough. We're just going to accept some redacted partial documents and move right along. We want to know what happened here. Yeah, and the cover-up continues, and the question is why, again, if Donald Trump hasn't done anything. which is all the reporting. But, you know, the problem with doing this to the Maga Base, treating them like their idiots, is you really start to lose their support along with the independent support. There was a poll yesterday in Drudge. I think American research sat him at 35 percent. Gallup came out later. He's got a 36 approval rating. You don't get a 36 percent approval rating without losing a hell of a lot of your own people. And that's what's happening here. That's right. Some of his own people and hemorrhaging. independence now, as every poll shows. Still had this morning, on

Morning Joe, the U.S. military says it has carried out another deadly strike on a suspected drug smuggling boat in the eastern Pacific. This is President Trump, now threatening directly the president of Columbia. We'll do you know what this means as the conflict in that region continues.

And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning. Bernie. From Acuweathers. Bernie, Rano. Bernie, how's it looking out there? morning, Willie. How about some May and April weather across the South, the exclusive weather forecast, sunshine, Atlanta, 70. How about 78 in Dallas, 80 in Houston? Could be a little fog in the morning, though. We have some rain and snow mixed this morning in New York City,

rain this afternoon, rain and snow in Boston, maybe some minor delays, slippery travel, New York State Thruway, Interstate 80 across Pennsylvania. Delays this afternoon in Boston all day in New York City, but only this morning in Philadelphia. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the Accuather app today. The United States military says it has carried out another deadly strike on a suspected drug smuggling boat in the eastern Pacific, killing one person deemed a narco terrorist. According to U.S. Southern Command, the vessel was traveling along known trafficking routes

and was involved in drug operations. No evidence was produced to support those claims. Since September, more than two dozen U.S. strikes in the Pacific and the Caribbean have killed more than 100 people. President Trump would not say whether the end goal is regime changed, but did warn Venezuela's president, Nicholas Maduro, against retaliation. He also said the operation might not be limited to Venezuela. He could do whatever he wants. It's all right. Whatever he wants to do. If he wants to do something, if he plays tough, it'll be the last time he's ever able to play tough. anywhere drugs are pouring in anywhere not just Venezuela they make cocaine in Colombia and he's no

friend of the United States he's very bad very bad guy and he's got to watch his ass because he makes cocaine and they send it into the United States of America from Colombia we love the Colombian people I love the Colombian people they're great people energetic smart great but their new leader is a troublemaker. That's very interesting. I still am fascinated by the fact that we've been spending all this time and money blowing up Venezuelan boats to protect Europe from Venezuela's cocaine because of course all the

cocaine there goes to Europe. So I, gosh, I wish somebody would put America first instead of always bailing out J.D. Vance, always bailing out Europe with these strikes. This wing right now, columnist and Associated for the Washington Post. David Ignatius is also a senior national security reporter for MS now, David Road. So David Ignatius, the president just, oh, I don't know. He just may go after every country in Central or South America.

I mean, let's talk, first of all, again. Let's just underline once again what a radical departure this is from what the president promised he would do. following up on the last segment with Amagabase being upset with him continuing to drag his feet on the Epstein files. Talk about how this actually cuts right at the heart of the American first philosophy, which is stop foreign wars. So Trump is taking us deeper into, you still can't say exactly what this is. They say it's not a war, but it's not a police action either. It's going after drugs that are killing Americans, but the drug boats they hit are actually killing Europeans. I was thinking, as we were watching the video a moment ago, if you don't know what

direction you're going in, any direction will work. You're going to go after Venezuela one day, Colombia the next. You know, next week this is really going to turn out to be about Mexico, I have a feeling. And you have the sense of flailing for a way to make a stronger U.S. imprint on Latin America. I think that in the end is Trump's goal. But these small operations, this was, again, another tiny boat hit, I believe, again, in two strikes like the September 2 attack. And at the same time you have the president talking about grandiose naval strategy with battleship. ships, surely the most outmoded weapons category on the planet. It's just a sense, to me, Joe, when I hear this from retired military officers, a sense of drift and uncertainty in our

military in this crucial area of actual military operations. It's also diametrically opposed to the FIFA Peace Prize that he got. So I'm more curious about the oil element of this, because obviously we're all sort of trying to divine what exactly is the strategy here. Is the regime change war? Is it actually about the drugs? But more recently, we've been taking over these oil tankers, and Donald Trump has been saying we're going to keep the oil. We're actually going to keep the ships. We're going to keep the oil. It's ours. And of course, there's a lengthy history. You can just pull up any clips of him talking about foreign interventions specifically with regards to oil. And deep disappointment that we didn't take the oil of Iraq

when we invaded Iraq under George W. Bush. So I don't know if there's any more to say about that, but to the degree, do you think some of this is just about pure natural resources? You know, I think the oil gives you a tangible benefit. You can say we seize the Venezuelan oil. I've tended to think, Sam, from the beginning, this is really more about American hegemony in Latin America, that the oil is a corollary benefit.

It's a way to show strength. It's a way to tighten the squeeze on me. Maduro. As I mentioned the other morning, I find people taking bets on where Maduro is going to end up spending the rest of his well-in- What's the one of the top lists here? You know, I mean, I hear there's a nice apartment next to Bashar al-Assad in Moscow that he could probably get for a pretty good price. The Hotel Nacional in Havana, he's got some nice suites overlooking the ocean. You know, if they keep ratcheting up the pressure, taking ships, taking other steps, you know, I think it would be surprising if they didn't end up with

what they can call a success in Venezuela. I just don't see Venezuela's fighting to the last man and woman to save him. But in general, this policy, I think, just doesn't have clarity. Even after the national security strategy, it's hard to know just what they're doing in these operations. So, David, another boat strike, another splashy video that the Department of Defense makes public, no evidence given that this person was, in fact, a narco-terrorist. And the broader justification is that this is effectively a war. We're at war with narco-terrorists and their weapon of mass destruction or the drugs that are coming to the United States. You follow the argument along. But there are many people, including members of Congress, saying, hang on a second,

we get a say in this. If this is actually a war, Congress should be involved. I won't ask you whether the Trump administration cares about that criticism because they don't clearly. But is there any movement there for Congress to say, let's put a halt to this until we have some say in the matter or at least see some evidence? I mean, broadly, it's also another failure to sort of sell this to the American people. The latest polls show that 70% of Americans oppose the U.S. going to war with Venezuela. So there is an opportunity for members of Congress to go after this. There was a moment, though, last week, Senator Roger Wicker, the chair of the Armed Services Committee from Mississippi, said he didn't want to hold hearings about the second strike, the one where the shipwrecked two individuals were killed. And that was a sign of Republicans stepping back from accountability. So we'll see what happens over time, but they got a pass on the second strike.

I mean, FIFA, Sam jokes about the FIFA Peace Prize here, but it does run contrary, Lemire, to the way that the president has tried to position himself as this harbinger of peace across the world. And the other thing that I found myself thinking about a lot is the first campaign that we covered and the way that he seemed to take such pride in being one of the earliest people to speak against the Iraq war, it just feels a little opposite of that kind of person and the foreign policy doctrine that he's tried to portray this term, now saying that he potentially could leave open the idea of regime change and going after the oil, so many parallels to the Iraq war

now in Venezuela. Yeah, there's an overlooked part of the 2016 campaign. It's just how popular that was when he denounced the forever wars of Iraq and Afghanistan and said he would not do the same. I think we're also, there's certainly Western Hemisphere strategy here, the oil fuels a lot of this, but I think it's also a president who's leaning into the, well, the things he can still do. Like, you know, foreign policy, he can do this unilaterally. He's fallen, I've been told he was really enjoyed the way the strike in Iran was received. Like, he can basically push a button, bang, and this is a huge thing. And now he's doing the scene here, pushing pressure in realizing he doesn't need Congress, at least it seems

to be Congress, giving him a pass. He's got a secretary of defense who's certainly not going to speak back to him and tell him this is not a good idea. So he's going to push forward. He's got a chief of staff so saying this is about regime change. And he knows, as David said, this is highly unpopular. Yeah, he's, he is, it is striking how he's willing to defy his It just doesn't care how unpopular this is with the MAGA base? It seems at this point, no, because he's gotten most, there's not only Republican lawmakers who are expressing reticence about escalating in Venezuela, but we know that much of his base, particularly some very loud voices, Steve Bannon-on-down, have said this is not a good idea.

And it does also, as a side note, show the growing influence of Marco Rubio, Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, especially here, as we've been talking the last couple days, these oil tankers in that blockade, that's not just hurting Venezuela, it's hurting Cuba. Right. And those are two things that Rubio has long sought. Yeah, and if it cripples Cuba, then who knows, maybe the percentage of people who support

the actions goes up. Hey, David Nixians, before you go, obviously some news in Moscow, one less Russian general, because apparently the Ukrainians are taking the war to the streets of Moscow. You know, I

think you'll remember a decade ago and everybody said the Chinese were going to overtake us in a couple of years and they're going to be so powerful da da da da da I was a skeptic I said well I heard the same thing about Japan in 88 89 color me skeptical too about people saying oh Putin can stay in here as long as he wants he can still you know go to hell we're Russia and we're going to continue no they aren't no they can't I mean you you mentioned it last week they're having trouble getting people back up to the lines they tried the North Koreans for God's sake uh oil Even though it's gone up a little bit, it's still hovering around $60 a barrel.

That is just horrific. That's terrible bad news for the Russians. Their economy has been shattered. They've lost over a million troops. This whole idea that somehow our negotiators go in there with the belief, well, the Russians can keep fighting on and on and on, but the poor Ukrainians are on their last leg. I'm just not seeing it. What are you saying? I'm not seeing it either.

There was a moment, Joe, when it looked like the Russians were about to break out of a town called Pokrovsk in western Donetsk. And it's a big railroad junction. It would have opened a lot of territory for them. But the Ukrainian lines held there. I've sat with people who were deeply involved in supplying consulting to the Ukrainians, looking at maps of that front, some weird front. But the Ukrainians rushed in some of their best troops, and they did manage to hold. As we said last week, I'm told by intelligence officials from another country that the Russians seem to be having as much trouble filling up their lines with recruits to make up for the losses as the Ukrainians do.

That's a bad sign for Russia. We're now looking at the likelihood as the peace process begins to unravel. of this war going through a very cold winter into next year Europeans are beginning to assess can Ukraine survive the end of 2026 answer yes they think they probably can this going on a long time and I think Putin's difficulties mount month by month next year his economy

is exhausted by this diversion toward war production and all it would take is a little bit of a tilt you know if the United States really decided to go after his shadow fleet do the things to the Russian fleet that we're now doing to the to the Venezuelan fleet so that these these illegally registered vessels were vulnerable in ports to U.S. sanctions or even seizure. Things like that next year could really crank up the pressure. So it's a terrible winter ahead for Ukraine. But there is a prospect that if they stay in the fight,

They're not going to be forced to collapse under pressure next year. Yeah, and a tough winter for the Russians, too, going into the spring, especially economically, because Vladimir Putin artificially boosted the economy at the beginning of this war. Over the last six months, the effects of that have started to wear off, that adrenaline rush wearing off. And economically, they're just in a horrific position right now. they can't withstand this for another year. Just part of why you see Zelensky holding his ground and saying, no, we're not giving up our territory.

We're not agreeing to the terms of this deal coming up on four years of this war. The Washington Post, David Ignatius, David, thanks so much. David Rode, we love having you here because you can talk about anything. So let me switch you back to the legal realm in the Epstein files, some of which were posted again this morning, taken down, and apparently now back up on the DOJ website. What strikes you as a reporter who understands this stuff so well and has covered about the way that this has been rolled out?

I think it's, excuse me, I think it's fear of the president. I think the people in Justice Department are terrified of angering Donald Trump. And so they're going through these. What about these files would anger Donald Trump? That's a big question. That they somehow release something

that embarrasses Donald Trump. And I'll pivot over to the battleships that David Ignatius was talking about, fear of the president there. It's the Golden Fleet is the name. The Navy proposed that as the nation. new name of these new ships. And then Trump himself wanted this Trump-class battleship. And I just, I watched the announcement, maybe you watched it live, but it's the largest ship ever built. It's

not the largest ship ever built. It's going to be like these World War II battleships. It's half the size of a World War II battleship. And a former admiral said, this is exactly the kind of ship we don't need. And they cost five billion apiece. So it's, look, I don't want him to be I said, I don't want the President of the United States to be, you know, not making good decisions. But there's just this pattern of, you know, I'm not going to talk about Epstein. His staff seems to be afraid of him. And then he's coming up with these projects that just don't seem to fit any long-term strategy here. Branding exercises.

That's the threat all the way through them. MSNows, David Rode. David, thanks so much, as always. Appreciate it. Coming up, CBS News, editor-in-chief, Barry Weiss further defends her decision to pull a 60-minute segment on Venezuelans deported to El Salvador. What if you pull a segment, and the whole world saw it anyway? Yeah.

We saw it last night. Found its way online. Yeah, we saw it last night. It was deeply disturbing, and after looking at it, you wonder why in the world they pulled it. We'll dig into Barry's explanation when Morning Joe comes right back. Beautiful live picture, United States Capitol, just before the top of the hour. CBS News editor-in-chief Barry Weiss is defending her decision to pull a 60-minute's report on the Trump administration's use of the notorious Seacot prison in El Salvador.

In a call with staffers yesterday, Weiss said she decided not to air the story because a quote was not ready. Weiss said in part, the public knows that Venezuelans have been subjected to horrific treatment at this prison. To run a story on this subject two months later, we need to do more. This is 60 minutes, she said. We need to be able to get the principles on the record and on camera. Our viewers come first, not the listing schedule or anything else. That is my North Star and I hope it's yours too, Barry Weiss said to the staff. Weiss has faced backlash for

her choice to abruptly pull the piece over the weekend, despite it already clearing legal and standards hurdles in CBS News already promoting it. CBS News has said the segment will air after additional reporting is done. Sixty minutes executive producer Tanya Simon told staff yesterday, she stands by the story and that Weiss, quote, had a different vision. She said she had no choice but to comply. However, the network that airs the show in Canada ran the original version of the program and subsequently released it online,

where it quickly has gone viral across a variety of platforms. You know, Willie, your dad worked at CBS. A lot of people worked at CBS, and are really upset. Amika worked at CBS. A lot of people really upset by this decision. I saw the original piece last night. It's one thing to read about it in the New York Times.

One thing to read, like if ProPublica or somebody else is doing documents, it's another to do what 60 Minutes did. An interview, like, for instance, a young man that came to the United States, tried to do things the right way, got thrown on that plane, got sent down, explains the torture that he and others went through. And, you know, here's a guy that didn't even have a traffic violation. And it was extraordinarily moving. And this argument somehow, let's get perspective on the eight people that did commit violent crime.

I'm sorry, the burden is on the Trump administration that said we're all sending Carolyn Levitt said, we're all sending the worst of the worst rapist, murderers, all the horrible things she did. You know, it's sad they did out of like 250 or so. It ends up being only eight. At that point, I'm sorry, the burden is not on the newscaster to talk about the eight that they got right out of 250. The burden is then on the administration to say, how did you screw up so badly? How did you lie so badly?

let me ask you this. Would Mike Wallace say, oh, Nixon wouldn't talk to me, so we're just going to scrap a 60 minutes report. Holderman wouldn't talk to me, so we're not going to do that story on Watergate. John Mitchell, oh, he refused to return my call, so we're not. Mike Wallace is like, I can't do that. I can't. Oh, come on. This is, this is the most ridiculous thing, and conservatives have always complained. And I think a certain person, that used to write at the New York Times complained that whenever liberal editors wanted to scrap a conservative op-ed, they would scrub every single line. And that's exactly what happened here, except now, of course, the shoe once again on the other foot. And of course, 60 minutes again and again

approach this administration for comment. They would have loved to have all these people sit in the chair, be on camera, and answer these questions. But as they say in the report, the administration declined. I know you guys talked about this yesterday, but it can't be said enough that particularly 60 minutes, but all news organizations running a piece like this, whether it's television or print, they're not hoops. It's just a gauntlet of weeks of lawyers and standards and reporters and editors and producers and then the executive. And Willie, nobody is tougher as Mika saw herself. Yes. And Mika's always told me people would run out. Fager, I love him, man. And and all the other guys, Don Hewitt, before that,

people and reporters would run out in tears, men, because it's such a brutal process to get your package on 60 Minutes. Especially with a story like this, especially with legal concerns, especially with this administration, you don't want to get a single word wrong. You don't want to expose yourself in any way

and you want to get the story right. That's what 60 Minutes does, and they did it on this story. And the idea, John, that they didn't get Steve, Stephen Miller in the piece so you can't run the piece. Well, surely they asked Stephen Miller to sit and explain all this. And as they say in the piece, the administration didn't comment. They asked repeatedly for requests for comment, which is what we all do all the time.

And if they don't want to cooperate, you simply add that to the piece. And if that's now the new standard, you give the administration to get it a jail-free card. Well, well, we're not going to cooperate, so therefore you can't run the piece. And also the idea, part of Barry Weiss's explanation was, well, people know about this. We need to advance the story. Now, like, first of all, journalistically, that's somewhat true, but at the same time, these are very different audiences. Like, there's 60 Minutes audiences different than the New York Times often audiences. And by the way, what Barry Weiss said could be said about every story 60 minutes has ever done.

It's one thing if it's in black and white on the front pages of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Financial Times. It's another thing if on Sunday night, after an NFL game, you've got millions and millions of people exposed to hard journalism that aren't usually exposed to hard journalism. That's why 60 Minutes is 60 Minutes. So don't say, oh, it was in the New York Times. We need to build on it. 60 Minutes doesn't have to build on it. They need to get the story out there to a bigger audience. They have images and people.

It's television. It's not print. different. And Sam Stein, of course, the backdrop to all this, well, it's a corporate one. You know, just yesterday, as this story was really exploding, Paramount Skydance, which owns CBS, which is now trying to buy Warner Brothers Discovery up their offer, their hostile takeover bid to try to do this. And President Trump has expressed preference for Paramount Skydance and not Netflix to make this acquisition largely because he wants to have a say in the CNN programming. And we have to... By the way, after working the refs twice on 60 minutes,

saying they shocked. Repeatedly. And complaining, Sam, about this new ownership there, thinking like, oh, I thought they were going to treat me better, and they haven't yet. And with this decision has to be viewed through that lens. Was this an attempt to curry favor? Yeah, I'm not sure how much that's the backdrop, honestly.

You cannot remove these two stories. One is the editorial decision made by Barry Weiss and the other is the corporate politics here, which is you have a family, Ellison family that is close to Trump. You have them trying to make another acquisition this time for Warner Brothers, which has CNN. You have Donald Trump complaining openly about his treatment by 60 minutes specifically, and you've had him praise at various points, the acquisition by the Ellison's of CBS. So, I mean, this is all entangled. And look, I'll be honest, the decision to hold a piece, putting aside 60,

minutes or whatever. The decision to hold a piece very close to publication does happen in newsrooms. It's not abnormal for an editor to come and say, hey, hey, wait a second. This is not quite ready. But you can't separate that decision from all the political and corporate theatrics that are happening around this. And then on top of that, to then leak to the public is probably the worst situation possible for CBS and 60 Minutes in Barryway. because now we have an example of what actually was set to air and we'll get to see every single decision that she made editorially to water it down or to change it.

And I'm with you guys. You know, go to for comment, of course, ask the administration, desperately try to grab someone on camera. That's exactly what you should do, journalistically. And if they don't comment, then you go with it. I don't really see necessarily the value in holding it until Stephen Miller gets to go on camera. and frankly lie about what's happening,

what does that service to the readers? So there's a lot of different parts here. But Jonathan, you're right. The corporate stuff absolutely is a huge element of this story. Well, the corporate stuff's in the foreground. It's not even the background. It's in the foreground. So obviously in the foreground.

And right after she cancels the story, then you have Larry Ellis and saying, hey, I'll step in. Don't worry. Take care of my son. We'll pay all the money you need to pay. Don't worry. I'm guaranteeing all of it.

So gives some excuse to do this. But again, let's just talk about the preposterone. of all of this, that Mike Wallace, Morley Safer, you know, Ed Bradley, those guys wouldn't run a piece on the Nixon administration because H.R. Halderman, our Ehrlichman, or John Mitchell, or Nixon, or Spiro Agnew wouldn't talk on the record. That is the most preposterous standard ever. And by the way, we have this dead to center, dead to right. Like, this isn't like 60 Minutes 2's

piece on George Bush's National Guard Service, where they really did need to do more reporting. They got the people in front of the camera that were in that jail telling the story. And they just, they balked on it.

And there's no good reason they balked on it. And as Sam says, at some point in the next few weeks, we'll see how they arrive at their ultimate piece and be able hold it up next to what we saw from the Canadian version of 60 minutes that's out for the public, what changes were made, what Barry Weiss thought was appropriate, perhaps under great pressure. Sam Stein, you've got a busy week in the workshop the next couple of days, so we'll let you go, loosen up the hands and get in there. John and Joe, await.

We really are excited. Christmas presents for all. Thank you, Sam. Thanks, guys.