Morning Joe - One of the saddest performances in Capitol Hill history: Joe stunned by AG Bondi’s hearing

Episode Date: February 12, 2026

One of the saddest performances in Capitol Hill history: Joe stunned by AG Bondi’s hearing 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.

How many of Epstein's co-conspirators have you indicted? How many perpetrators are you even investigating? First, you showed it. How many have you indicted? Excuse me. I'm going to answer the question. I answer my question. No, I'm going to answer the question the way.

I want to answer the question. You're going to answer the question the way I ask. You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. Not on our time. No way. And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you started. You don't tell me anything. Yeah, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the Senate.

Not even a lawyer. I'm going to teach you the rules again. You're the attorney general of the United States. We have rules here. You're the attorney general of the United States. We're obsessed with Donald Trump. You have Trump derangement syndrome. That's just one of the many contentious exchanges yesterday.

It's just like I've got to say there was an Atlantic piece a couple weeks ago asking what happened to Pampondi. I mean, a lot of people in Florida that worked with her, liked her very much, that respected her. And this Atlantic piece, Willie, goes through all of it. And we're going to get to just the humiliation that she allowed herself to be a part of yesterday. Just really one of the saddest, most pitiful, just cringe-inducing performances on Capitol Hill history. I've been around for quite a while. But old friends of Pam Bondys, and I've known Pam for a very long time. Well, as one person said, who said they knew and loved Pam Bond, he said to the reporter,

you know, we're all asking what the F happened to Pam. There's another one who said she's tried to forgive her. She's tried to look past it. She's tried. And her quote is, she went cheap for power. Was it worth it, Pam? Was it really worth it? And yesterday was just the low light of it was.

When she was being asked, there's so many. There's so many. But for me, and I think for a lot of observers, the low light was, she was asked, or are you going to start protecting these women who were raped as young girls? Are you going to start arresting the men, the powerful and rich men who you're protecting right now, who raped these young girls? And she responded by saying, didn't talk about it. the raped girls, didn't talk about the rich and powerful men who were evading justice because of her

and because of this administration, she said what we really should be talking about, not the raped girls, not the rich and powerful men, but what we should really be talking about is the Dow industrial. You cannot make that up. That is so offensive. so repulsive that anybody would actually say that. But there it was. That times 20 throughout the day yesterday, and I've got to say is somebody that as an owner for a long time, I just feel sorry for her. And I asked the same question her friends are asking, is it really worth it? What is worth doing that to yourself and your reputation and your country? And this, really, of course, comes on the hills of her.

And this is one of those Rubicon moments that we have every day. But here's another Rubicon moment. Trying to charge six United States senators for exercising their First Amendment rights and simply restating military law, simply restating what Pete Heggzith had said before, simply restating what Pam Bondi had said the year before in a court filing about service people breaking the law. But she lets it move forward without thinking that that continues, Willie. Yeah, and a grand jury rejected that argument a couple of days ago in federal court in Washington. I mean, you're right.

It's a question we have asked and could ask about so many people over the last decade. or so, has it been worth it? Was it worth it to give up everything you said you stood for, everything you did stand for in many cases to be close to power? And you're right. I mean, the insults, the talking points, the performative outrage that we saw from the Attorney General were all outrageous and ridiculous, but what they mask is the fact that she would not answer any questions about the Epstein files, which raises the question, and again, I don't know why they're doing all of this, raises the question of who she, the attorney, General is protecting and why she is protecting that person or those people, not answering

basic yes or no questions about indictments, facts inside the Epstein files, redactions in the Epstein files, wouldn't answer them instead went to her notes and attacked the person asking the question, including, as you pointed out, this is the moment, Pam Bondi, the Attorney General of the United States responded to a question from New York Congressman Jerry Nadler, asked her about how many of Epstein's co-consigne's co-consuming. conspirators have been indicted. Here's how she responded. None of them, none of them, ask Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why? Because Donald Trump, the Dow, the Dow right now is over, the Dow is over $50,000.

I don't know why you're laughing. So, Attorney General, United States. We do. We're laughing. About the rape of teenage girls, Joe. Yeah, we're laughing because she's making a fool of herself. Complete full of herself. Like, she actually thinks.

So brutally obvious. She actually thinks that everybody's a five-year-old in that room. Mm-hmm. Like, she's exposed. Making a fool of herself. The question is about young girls who have been raped, not about the S&P 500. The question is about people.

all around Donald Trump. I could list the names, those in government, those in his family, those around him that are all over the Epstein files, all over the Epstein files. And yet the richest and the most powerful among them, the people, the Epstein class who is running this government is still being protected by Pam Bondi. Her buying. full of information. Yeah, nothing was in that. And now they're desperately trying to continue to keep this from the American people. Who is in the Epstein class that they are trying to protect? You've got a Commerce Secretary who's been caught lying through his teeth saying that he stopped seeing Epstein in 2005. He took his family to rape Ireland like seven years later. He lived

next door to the guy. But nothing happens. Nothing happens. And by the way, this is a Republican issue. This was a MAGA issue. It was. This is what all of them, the FBI director, Pam Bondi, everybody was talking about the Epstein files. The Epstein files, when we're in charge, we're going to get rid of all of the hidden rapists and all of the hidden pedophiles out there who are in powerful positions. Instead, they're just, they're cover, it's a cover up. It, it keep, they keep covering up. And it's not, it's not just the Democrats on the committee saying it. Thomas Massey of Kentucky, who by the way, Thomas Massey of Kentucky is saying the same thing now, the cash Patel and Pam Bondi and all these other MAGA supporters were saying before the election, before they have,

the power to actually release the Epstein files. Now that they have that power, it looks like a cover-up. So Massey, of course, co-sponsored the discharge petition for the release of the Epstein files. And this is what the Republican had to say to Pam Bondi yesterday. Are you able to track who in your organization did make this massive failure and released the victim's names? Are you able to track who it was that obscured less wexed, less wexed, name as a co-conspirator in an FBI document. Do you have that kind of accountability? I believe Wexner's name was listed more than 4,000 times about, I had...

Yeah, I already told you that. This is where he's listed as a co-conspirator. Can I finish my answer? Come on. Let me finish my answer. We corrected that within 40 minutes. He was already... You're acting like everybody's trying to cover up Wexner's name. Reclaiming my time. answer this question. Reclaiming my time.

He was, Mr. Chairman. This isn't how this works. Can I have my time? He was, he was. Mr. Chairman. The gentle lady can, can give her answer? The time belongs to the gentleman from All right, I'm reclaiming my time. Can I give my answer? So, I'm going to put the language of the bill up on the screen. Chairman, may I give my answer

on that? Here's a political joke, and I need to give my answer on that. We'll let the, Attorney General respond, and then the gentleman can move to his next question. Within 40 minutes, you ask me a question. Within 40 minutes, you ask me, minutes, Wexner's name was added back. Within 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed.

Red-hand, there was one redaction out of over 40,700. And we invited you in. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. He needs to get, you're a failed politician. Chairman, please restore his time and remind the witness of the rules here. There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday.

that he trafficked to other individuals. Is that your position as well? My position is any victim who comes forward. Of course, we would love to hear from them. 1-800-call FBI. Did you ask Merrick Garland that the last four years? Did you talk about Epstein? I'm reclaiming my time.

I'm glad you're asking about Merrick Garland. You don't give a reclaim time when you don't. When I don't answer her question, This goes over four administrations. You don't have to go back to Biden. Let's go back to Obama. Let's go back to George Bush. This cover-up spans decades, and you are responsible for this portion of it.

Yeah, the cover-up spans decades. Basically the face of it. She thinks she's now the face of the cover-up for this administration, and she can keep trying to talk over people, but that doesn't obscure the fact that she's part of a huge cover-up. It was a very helpful display. There's all these redactions. It took them forever to do it. She wouldn't even let him read.

Think about this. She would not even let him read the law. She started into her petty little insults because she did not want a United States congressman to read the law that passed the House of Representatives 427 to 1. And she said she was ready to hear from the victims? No, the victim stood up and she refused to turn around and even look at them.

Let me say that again. The victims, there were many victims who were there. And Pam Bondi refused to turn around and even look at them. Instead, she comes with these literally five-year-old insults. If I'm that, what does that make you? Basically, is it a failed lawyer or burned out whatever or Trump? derangement? No, no. Those that have Trump derangement syndrome are those who've basically thrown all of their professional careers overboard because they're so deranged at trying to get

into the good graces of Donald Trump that they will literally ignore child rape victims when they're right behind them. So if we could put that shot up where it's Bondi to with the victims. I just think it's interesting because here was her moment on the national stage as the Attorney General of the United States to be a woman who stands up for other women. She won't turn around. She decided to turn her back on victims of repeated sexual abuse. some of them at the time in their lives when they were children. That right there is who Pam Bondi is now. And I mean, for Republicans who remain silent,

who continue to follow in these footsteps, it's going to get harder. As you could see yesterday, as you could see yesterday, it's getting harder to do what you do because it looks terrible. It looks so obvious. It looks so brutally. obvious that you are not working for the American people at all.

Are working for these women who as young girls were trafficked, were abused, were molested, were passed around. I just can't believe as a woman, she would put herself in that position. And so now we have the image of her turning her back on child rape victims. and she's doing it literally and in her work as the Attorney General. And these victims even say now they would go back in and work with the Justice Department with her after that. And nothing. They don't work.

Let's bring in co-hosts of our 9 a.m. hour and our 9th hour, I'm sure, staff right of the Atlantic, Jonathan O'Meer. 10th, 11th, and 12th. As a reporter for access, Mark Caputo, President of the Historian and Pulitzer Prize winning author, John Meacham and MS now congressional reporter Michael Schnell. John Meacham, it was a sad, pathetic moment yesterday on Capitol Hill. You know, as I've been saying all along, there was this feeling before, hey, we're owning the libs. We're way past that now. Now they're owning themselves. And my general attitude is pity the compliant.

They are so weak. So weak in so many ways. And also so terribly exposed now. Yeah. You know, on one level for the facile thing to say is what you saw yesterday was the Attorney General using a kind of Fox News, Newsmax, chat GPT, right, to kind of push back with this, if I may, cable news vernacular of you don't answer a question. You just make your point.

And that's true. It's culturally really interesting, I think, that the pugilistic style has just infected everything. But that's to some extent, as you say, a side point. You know, what these folks have to decide is, is this who they want to be? And is this how they want to be remembered? You know, and my own sense is that God knows I've, you know, we've all made a billion mistakes in life. But at a certain point, if you're the Attorney General of the United States, if you're a member of the cabinet, if you're a United States, if you're a member of the cabinet, if you're a United States senator, if you're a member of the House of Representatives, if you're a member of the House of Representatives, representatives, if you're a judge, you've sworn an oath not to one particular man with an

active cell phone, but a ticking clock on how long he's in office. But she swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. And at some point, that has to matter. You know, Michael Schnell, you were on Capitol Hill yesterday around this hearing talking to members in the hallways. These are many of the same congressmen and women who have been talking about the Epstein files for years and years and years and rightly so before, frankly, much of the country was even aware of it. What is the reaction when you have the attorney general behaving like a press secretary, lobbying insults, but more importantly, not answering any questions and what every day looks more and more like a cover-up, like they're protecting someone or some people in these

files, how are the members on the Hill reacting to all this? They're bringing it back to the survivors and the victims, Willie. I mean, throughout this entire exercise that has to do with the Epstein files and bringing that resolution to compel the Justice Department to release them, which was a massively uphill battle waiting for those files. Now the fallout from that dealing with the redactions and the delayed release, it's always come back to the victims and the survivors. Lawmakers I speak to, including, and most of all, Thomas Massey and Roecona, who were the

Republican and Democrat. leading this effort have always said that they're doing what they're doing to get the survivors justice, to help those victims receive justice. So the split screen and the image that we saw yesterday of Pam Bondi beginning the hearing by saying that the FBI is willing and able and looking forward to talking to any victims who want to bring information forward about Jeffrey Epstein and then seeing those victims in the room wearing shirts that showed the redactions on the files and saying that they haven't been contacted by the DOJ to talk about it, it was just such a split screen, and that's what lawmakers continuously come back to, because, again, that has been their why throughout this entire process. So, you know, the fallout from now,

remember saying that the DOJ is looking at their search history when they're in there, the fallout from the redactions, and if they're being done properly, and if enough information has been put forward about those, that's a separate issue, and it comes second and third to the number one issue, which making sure that the survivors receive justice. I think a lot of lawmakers are looking at that split screen yesterday. of Pam Bondi saying one thing, and then the survivors themselves in the room saying a complete different thing. You know, Jonathan Lemur, a little commentary before you take it to Markaputo. I mean, I just was watching this all day yesterday.

And I thought if her goal, as some argue, was to protect the president from some information that might be damaging to him, she did the worst job you could possibly do because she has just re-energized all the people who might be exhausted at this point, including some of the victims. If anyone was thinking of walking away or thinking, oh my God, I just can't take it anymore, she was infuriating, number one, but that wasn't the worst thing that she did. If indeed she was trying to protect someone in her performance, she appeared to be dishonest. And if she was working for an audience of one, she failed because she just re-energized the entire movement because she was so unlikable, inept, infuriating, and completely incompetent

every step of the way. And, you know, her demeanor even was, I'd say if, I will say the the women who are fighting for their lives right now, the victims, and those supporting them, this morning they are re-energized to take this to the very end. Yeah, John, all she did was re-energize them, and I wouldn't say,

for me, it wasn't infuriating, it was embarrassing, it was inept. It was, it looked like a total, it was, it was the opposite reaction. She made it look like a total cover-up and will obviously, she has just multiplied Americans' interest in the Epstein files because now everybody is asking, what are they hiding?

What's going on? What is she hiding? And this leads to, again, Howard Ludnik. May, could this White House do more to gen up more interest in the Epstein files than keeping on a guy caught lying red-handed, who admitted that yesterday or the day before? red-handed on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. It seems that every move they make is calculated to generate more interest and more intensity on the Epstein files. And that's been a through line for a year now.

It was last February when Pam Bondi, they handed out those binders from the Epstein material to the right-wing influencers, and there ended up being nothing there. And every move they've taken along with, the way to try to down, to try to reduce interest in the Epstein files, has backfired. Every move they've made to try to shift the conversation or to push it aside has only reignited questions about just what exactly are they hiding? What is bothering the president and his family so much that they're doing this? And we have, Pam Bonnie, the attorney general, like so many in Trump's cabinet, always deeply concerned about her standing in the

president's eyes. We know, we've reported, president has not always been very happy with how DOJ has handled the Epstein matter. So we have seen Bondi try to overcompensate in other ways, like being involved with the election interference probe with Tulsi Gabbard, talking about your political prosecutions of Trump's foes. Now, most of those haven't worked out. We saw that again this week when a D.C. Grand Jury refused to bring charges against those lawmakers who all they did was speak out against, speak out against the need to not follow lawful orders. But Mark Caputo, I mean, you're deeply sourced in MAGA politics. You're deeply be sourced also in Florida politics, where Pam Bondi is from. So what is your sense, the people you're

talking to, reactions in both camps? Like Joe said at the top of the show, people in Florida, like sort of can't believe their eyes, what they're seeing here, but also do you think what Bondi has been doing, in particular yesterday, is it being looked upon favorably by the only set of eyes that matter, President Trump's? I don't know the answer to the last question. In the end, Donald Trump, pardon me, has been the guiding force on how the Epstein files have been released. So while the reports have come out that he's lamented that, oh, you know, this is so bad and Bondi's screwed up or DOJ screwed up or the FBI screwed up, they've done it because they're doing it at the direction of the White House and at the direction of the president.

This is ultimately his call. But that piece that Joe would mention earlier by your colleague in the Atlantic did hit the nail on the head is a lot of people who have known Pam Bonnie for years. I've known her for years covered her in Florida. they have seen her in a different light. And the different light is she serves at the pleasure of the president. And that is what matters most to her. I know from others who have told me that after Matt Gates had been the attorney general nominee for Trump and that had fallen by the wayside, the president asked Bondi to be his attorney general and she said no. She didn't want to do it and he insisted on it. So in the back of her head, from what I understand, she probably understood what it was. was going to take and how difficult it was going to be. And now you're seeing the results of it.

It's just been a shambolic mess. Yeah, John Misham, before we got a break, I don't want to be distracted by the shit show that went on yesterday. I'd rather talk about an extraordinary moment that shows, I think, the low point thus far through today, the low point of this administration. Lawfare campaign against Donald Trump's political enemies. Think about this just for a second. Take a deep breath and tell me the last time a United States president tried to arrest six United States senators from the other side of the aisle and congressman for simply stating facts, in this case, military law, and exercising the First Amendment rights. Again, I want to repeat that. A United States

president tried to indict and jail. Six United States senators, congressmen, for simply stating facts and exercising their First Amendment rights. I mean, I would say how far do you have to go back, I don't know that that's ever happened before, and that's just how bad things are getting right now inside the White House. Yeah. When I say something is unprecedented, it's against my business model. So it's worth noting that's uncharted territory. It's the worst kind of, I don't even want to say it's authoritarian adjacent. You know, it's, it's authoritarian. That's authoritarian. Yeah, that's authoritarian. And, you know, this is where arresting opponents, canceling elections, rigging elections, these are the trouble signs. And anyone who doesn't think this is worth noting and heeding simply isn't paying attention. And let's be very clear, we're not banging on our high chairs here.

This is not just, oh, what did the Attorney General say, the Trump derangement syndrome. At a certain point, the United States of America was founded, as Alexander Hamilton said, to see whether deliberation and reason could take a stand against force and accident. And right now, this is reason against force. And that is a fundamental question as we've ever faced, I think. and we face it at this hour. We sure do. Yeah, there is, there, there is derangement here, but it is coming from the side of the White House

and those who are desperately trying to defend the indefensible. And speaking of that, yesterday, Michael Chanel, the Speaker of the House, lined up with the President of the United States when you caught up with him and suggested that members of Congress should be indicted, arrested, indicted, jailed, for exercising their First Amendment rights and restating what military code is.

Were you surprised by that response? Is there any backlash from other members of Congress saying what sort of precedent do you think you're setting that a president can just arrest us, have us arrested by his justice department because he doesn't like what we're saying? Yeah, I mean, Joe, it's been just this fascinating comment from Speaker Johnson, the person who is in charge, the highest-ranking lawmaker on Capitol Hill, in charge of the 435 members of the House, four of whom had filmed that video,

and then alongside the 100 senators, two of whom were in that video as well. And for the speakers need your reaction to learning this news and commenting, to be that those members, again, four of whom work under him in under his ranks in the House that they should be indicted. I'll play the audio for you and then we can talk about it on the other side. And just to put into context, this was on Monday night, literally just minutes after this extraordinary news story had broken that the grand jury had rejected indicting these six Democrats.

I caught up with the Speaker in the halls of the Capitol. I asked him, do you believe they should be indicted? And he said yes. I listened to him in his own words here. Federal prosecutors tried to indict the six Democrats in the disobey illegal orders video, but a grand jury in Washington. Do you believe that those six Democrats should be indicted? I'm going to reserve comment on this until I review that. So first I've heard of it.

I mean, look, I think that anytime you're obstructing law enforcement and getting in the way of these sensitive operations, it's a very serious thing. And it probably is a crime. And yeah, they probably should be indicted. But they were just reiterating the law that members of military should not have to obey illegal workers. Yeah, but I think they went further than that. I think they were suggesting that they disobey the orders, and I think that crosses the line. And now, look, guys, I'll note that Speaker Johnson yesterday spoke on the topic again and sort of tried to walk back a little bit saying this. He believed that these lawmakers deserve to be in jail, no, but he does believe that the conduct should be called out as inappropriate.

But again, I mean, let's set the scene. It's as you mentioned. telling members of the military that they don't have to obey illegal orders, that's already the law. And if you hear Speaker Johnson, it's the law. He said that he hadn't already, he hadn't heard about this story and he wants to reserve comment. But then he went ahead and did comment. And it was interesting that his knee-jerk reaction was to side with President Trump on this issue that has been center stage for weeks now in Washington. That's been explosive in the Capitol, that that was his decision to align himself with the president.

I'll note that there have been. Some Republicans who have pushed back. We heard from Tom Tillis yesterday, the Republican from North Carolina, a senator who said that, you know, that political lawfare should not be right in any circumstance, essentially saying he was relieved that the grand jury had rejected these charges. Senator Lisa Murkowski said similar things. And even Chuck Grassley, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee,

which has jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, said that the department should be focused on taking out real criminals and, you know, essentially saying that these six Democrats, are not within that category, but just certainly a fascinating response there from the Speaker. Again, his immediate knee-jerk reaction to side with the president. It just shows that there's such little room these days between most members of Congress, Republicans up on Capitol Hill, and President Trump. It's so sad and pathetic that he's so scared of one man that he's willing to say that people he works

with and Congress should be sent to jail for restating the law. MS. Now, Congressional reporter, Michael Schnell. Thank you so much. By the way, the speaker is saying, John Meacham, we're going to thank you too. Hey, John, listen, I don't know what your schedule is, but on Presidents say on Monday, why don't you come join me and talk about your three or four favorite presidents, including the one you're working on right now, one of my favorites. Love it, love it.

And that will, I know the audience is now really excited about this, and so they're probably blocking out the moment. And Mika looks like she's just about to. crazy with joy. Well, you know, my feeling is it's President's Day, and I think people that watch should be able to turn on our show and sleep through it at the same time. And so we would love for you. Come on the whole four hours.

That would be great to have you. Look, it's a dork Super Bowl, and I just, I think we should all be. Yeah. Yeah, it's our version of the puppy ball. Quite an alternative to better money. Thank you so much, John. But again, again, the speaker, his gut reaction to try to get in the good graces of Donald Trump is to say, members who work with him should go to jail. Senators should go to jail for restating what the military law is, what the military says the military law is, restating what Pete Heggzett said repeatedly on Fox News before he worked for Donald Trump.

what Pam Bondi put in a legal briefing a year before she became Attorney General for stating the obvious. And again, stop and think about this. Pam Bondi's Justice Department tried to arrest members of Congress for restating a law that Donald Trump doesn't like. Yeah, he didn't even have to answer. I mean, that's. That's really how you want to spend your time in Washington, because this will be remembered. This is, and I just want to say it again, this is just a blip in time. Like Reagan's eight years, like Obama's eight years, like Bush's eight years, we think back in it blip in time.

But we remember those who held themselves high, and we remember those who shamed themselves. Please, please, think about what you're doing not only to your country, but what you're doing to your political party, which is suffering because of this, and what you're doing to your own reputation. You don't need this. You just don't. Still ahead on Morning Joe, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Jamie Raskin will be our guest on the heels of Attorney General Pam Bondi's testimony yesterday.

Plus, we'll explain the communication breakdown that caused a brief closure of the airspace over El Paso, Texas. Also ahead, global leaders are set to attend the Munich Security Conference tomorrow. As officials warn, the world has entered an era of, quote, wrecking ball politics. We'll have a preview of what to expect. Can we see what Bernie's saying? We're going to go to Bernie. I need to know what Bernie's going to say. The Travelers Forecast is.

A quick look at the Travelers forecast this morning from Accu-Weathers. It's been cold in the Northeast. Bernie, how's it looking? Meek, it's brisk and colder across the northeast, as we've been telling you all week. Your exclusive acuether forecast, 36 in Boston, 37 in New York City, 40 in Washington, D.C., some sunshine. High temperatures below the historical averages, a few flurries near the lakes today. Across Texas and Florida, sunshine and beautiful, 58 in Charlotte, acuether says 63 in Atlanta with sunshine. And as far as travel delays, not many, but the week.

can cause some minor delays in New York City in Philadelphia. To help make the best decisions and be more in the know, download the Accuether app today. Immigration enforcement officials caused the closure of El Paso's airspace for more than six hours yesterday after firing an anti-dron laser and not coordinating that with the FAA. That's according to reporting from the New York Times that cites several sources briefed on the situation.

The Times writes that custom and border protection officials deployed the weapon on loan from the Defense Department without giving aviation officials enough time to assess the risk to commercial aircraft. The paper added that administration officials claimed the closure was in response to drones from Mexican drug cartels that required a military response. But multiple sources contradicted that claim, telling the times the shutdown came after immigration officials used the laser earlier this week without coordinating with the FAA. sources telling the Times, border officials thought they were firing on a cartel drone, but it turned out to be a party balloon.

Mark Caputo, you've been reporting on this all day yesterday. We woke up, we're discussing on the show. Yesterday, there was some concern about, is there about to be a military operation? We're going to strike drug cartels, the United States military. Very confusing, contradicting claims by different departments of the government. and the FAA saying, we had to do this because we didn't know what the heck was going on. What did you find after sifting through all this? Well, I kind of found what you just found is I'm having to reconcile contradictory accounts.

The best I can tell is this is they have this super duper weapon and they deny it's a laser. It's some sort of direct energy weapon. So when I asked, were drones shot down? They said no drones were downed, whatever that meant as far as a distinction. and that they had gone out in this exercise actually looking for drones that make incursions with some regularity. They wouldn't tell me the frequency. And here's the rub. Customs of Border Patrol had borrowed this super duper secret weapon from the Department of Defense or Department of War, whichever you want to call it. And at a certain point, the FAA is like, hey, what are you guys doing?

Not only can this thing shoot down drones or down drones, it could possibly take down airplanes. And allegedly, I was told by one source, the Department of War, the DoD General, wasn't very clear on exactly what was happening. And FAA, unable to get any answers, then made the decision to shut it down for 10 whole days and didn't coordinate that with anyone. Now, why they had to shut it down for 10 days, no one can explain why the Department of Defense, General, whoever this is, wasn't clear on exactly what they were doing because there was a big airport around. and FAA was worried about down planes. No one can explain. What we do understand is Customs and Border Patrol is sticking by their story, which is like, yeah, sure, we borrowed the weapon and we pushed the button, but it was always in control and under the supervision of the Department of War. So everyone is sort of doing the Washington blame game, and it does look like there's enough blame to go around. But essentially, the administration here hit the rake stepping part of a crisis management, where everywhere you turn, you step on a rake and you get bashed in the head with it, it just becomes a sort of positive feedback loop of negative consequences, and nothing got better, and the explanations at the end of the day didn't get any clearer. Great. With that, let's turn to international events, and this year's Munich Security Conference

set to begin tomorrow. It comes amid ongoing tensions with Iran, and as Vladimir Putin's war on Ukraine nears its fourth anniversary, Secretary of State Marco Rubio will lead the U.S. delegation is slated to speak on Saturday. We'll be following that. Joining us now, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, Richard Haas, also with us from Munich, is the executive director of the Aspen Strategy Group, Anya Manuel. Good to have you both. Richard, I'll start with you. Your piece, latest piece on your substack, the new nuclear challenge. I'm just curious as we get ready for the Munich Security Conference, how are our transatlantic Atlantic relations holding up at this point?

I think that was a rhetorical question, Mika. This won't be, you know, Greenland-centric like Davos was. But I actually think for Europeans, the degree of alienation from the United States is profound. The bottom line is European confidence that they can depend on us to come to their defense against Russia has faded significantly. And that's the big story. the transatlantic bargain, if you will, the relationship that's worked for eight decades. Europeans are now looking to themselves.

They're worried about the U.S. tilt towards Russia, the latest pressure on Ukraine to sign a questionable deal. I mean, Marco Rubio will be more welcome than J.D. Vance, but it doesn't change the basics. So, no, this is a relationship that is essentially broken, and it's relationship that's based upon confidence and faith, at least it ought to be. Near, of course, as you mentioned, you know, it was last year at this conference when Vice President Vance came in and berated the Europeans, really starting relationship for the president's second term off on a very poor footing. You know, there would be so many topics of conversation. One of them would be, will of course be Iran.

The Wall Street Journal reporting that the U.S. is sending a second carrier group to the region. Impossible. Yeah. So that, you know, talks last week happened. The president portrayed them as sort of a success, but didn't really offer any detail. He met with Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday. Again, said no decisions made. What's your read on where things stand there?

Well, yesterday's meeting was really interesting for two reasons. One is the president said, I insisted that we not stop trying to find a deal with Iran. One, it was his way of saying the United States and him, rather than BB Netanyahu, was going to decide what the policy was. That was a pretty clear dig. And the second thing was this president has not given up on reaching a negotiated outcome with Iran. The Israelis want to have an outcome. whether it's military negotiated that solves, quote-unquote, the Iranian ballistic missile

challenge. President seems more fixated on dealing with what remains of the nuclear challenge. Nobody's talking, by the way, about the Iranian opposition and all that. And the most recent news out of Iran is gruesome. The idea that these security forces are going into hospitals and killing patients and doctors who are associated with the opposition. So it's really gruesome sort of stuff. But I think the president is still.

despite putting it together this armada, I think he very much is wary of a large military encounter with Rod. So maybe something small, Jonathan, a strike, but not a war. But I think actually a narrow negotiated outcome that he then claims the success, almost like he did in Gaza, we'll get a narrow deal, and then we're going to claim we got peace, even though we didn't. I would not rule it out here. Anya, you there on the ground in Munich for the security conference, Secretary of State Marker Rubio will lead an American delegation there tomorrow. How will he and that delegation be received, given the last year more than that, but really the last year of how the Trump administration has frayed all of its transatlantic

alliances? Yeah, it's great to be with you all here from Munich, where the weather is fine and the politics is really turbulent. Lots of conversations here on the ground about whether the Kodil can even come, because, of course, the government may be shut down due to ISIS, unmentionable policies. I think Marco Rubio is going to have to really talk about how our relationships continue to be important. A lot of, you said it, wrecking ball politics. I think there's going to be a lot of conversation here behind the scenes about how U.S. can continue to be a strong ally to NATO, not out of nostalgia,

but because our own security and prosperity depends on it. And that's what I'm seeing. in all the side events already. Anya, we've heard from American allies in recent weeks at months at conferences like this at summits a real change in tone saying out loud in public now, not just behind the scenes. We have to change the way we look at our relationship with the United States. Prime Minister Carney's speech comes to mind, but he's not alone. What do you expect the tone to be there in Munich this week? I think there's resolve and there's a lot of standing up to do the right thing.

If you saw Europe has committed $90 billion to Ukraine between 26 and 27, the NATO allies are stepping up, buying arms from the United States to send to Ukraine. So it's unfortunate that it's happening through American bullying, but NATO and Europe are doing what they need to be doing all along. These are all positive developments, actually. Executive Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, Anya Manuel, thank you very much for coming on the show this morning. We'll be watching. So coming up on Morning Joe, the search for 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie continues this morning. We'll get a live report from Tucson, Arizona, where authorities are combing through thousands of tips from the public. The very latest ahead on Morning, Joe.

Time now for a look at the morning papers. The Minnesota Star Tribune reports that local Girl Scout troops are making it easier for its members to sell cookies online in order to avoid immigration. enforcement actions. Think about that. Starting today, those wishing to purchase Girl Scout cookies from the Girl Scouts River Valleys can do so on a new website that will direct all the proceeds to support their programming. A spokesperson for the Girl Scout says the change is meant to make sure its members can still participate in a way that makes them feel safe and empowered, which is not the way a lot of people feel, especially. in Minneapolis right now. The Chicago Tribune is following a proposed law moving

through the state legislator that would regulate the rapidly growing AI data center industry. The measure would require data centers to cover the full cost of their energy use including any new infrastructure needed to power their facilities. The bill would also incentivize operators to use renewable energy resources and require them to track and report their water usage. And out west, the Seattle Times reports hundreds of thousands of fans turned out for the Seahawks Super Bowl parade and ceremony. City officials say organizers were forced to extend the roughly two mile parade route after a higher than expected turnout. Fans packed the streets to celebrate the Seahawks victory over the New England Patriots, scoring their second Super Bowl win in French.

franchise history. Ahead of the parade, the team hosted a trophy celebration at Lumen Field where quarterback Sam Darnold thanked fans for their support throughout the season. Who got this right? Alex? Who knew? Who's always right? Mika. Thank you.