Morning Joe - ‘This is what you said the morning after the strike’: Morning Joe fact checks Hegseth

Episode Date: December 3, 2025

‘This is what you said the morning after the strike’: Morning Joe fact checks Hegseth 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.

I didn't know about the second strike. I didn't know anything about people. I wasn't involved. I knew they took out of boat. But I would say this, they had a strike. I hear the gentleman that was in charge of that is extraordinary person. I watched that first strike lot.

As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs. So I moved on to my next meeting. very compelling yeah obviously yeah president trump and defense secretary pete haggsath yesterday both distancing themselves from the deadly boat strike in the caribbean that has been the major story gripping washington this week we'll have a lot more of their comments on that military

operation and the ongoing bipartisan criticism it comes as the president has been on a truth social tirade that is extreme, even by his standards. He posted nearly 160 times over three hours on Monday night. Sounds like Jonathan Lemire during a Red Sox playoff game. Yeah, he took it easy.

Then resumed early yesterday morning. So, you know, and it's, it was all online, Jonathan, there were all these stories about Donald Trump and his health because he was asleep. It looked like he was asleep during parts of the cabinet meeting. You know, Marco's talking and his eyes are closed.

Well, I mean, I don't know that it's health so much as a sleep habits. I am. I'd be just tired. If you're up the entire night before rage tweeting, then, you know, none of us are going to be, you know, looking like Borisnikov the next morning dancing across the stage. No, I would say not. President Trump likes to brag about how little sleep he needs. But we have seen this was an extreme moment. He was a very late truth-socialing or re-truthing or however the nomenclature is.

But you're right. There's been a couple of moments down the last few weeks. where he's been captured on camera appearing to doze off during public events at the White House and this one comes just what's interesting about the timing here is the White House, the New York Times

did a story last week, examining his schedule saying he's working fewer hours than he used to White House pushed back furiously and said no look he's working all hours the day and he's tireless and then yesterday he falls asleep. Well again and the thing is if you're again, if you're sitting there going oh this must be a health problem caddy

I mean it's I don't know that it's a health problem maybe it's a health problem but chances are good, it's because he was up all night, rage tweeting. Like, that's, I think to me, that's a more concerning thing that the President of the United States was up all night, rage tweeting, and, you know, just spinning out one conspiracy theory after another conspiracy theory after. So it's not what happened in the daylight that was so concerning.

It was what happened the night before. Do you remember after killing Charlie Kirk, Governor Cox of Utah came out and said, put your phone down and go out and touch the grass. That's certainly not what the President of the United States was doing the night before last. I think you're right. It's the fact that he's up all night.

What are you doing up all night on your phone? I mean, I like to boast about how much sleep I need. How much sleep do you need? I really try to get eight hours. Really? Can you get eight hours? Seven if I'm pushing it. But I'm in bed so ready to get up. I mean, eight hours.

I haven't done that since. That's, uh, I was. Six years old. I'm not up on this at midnight. Yeah, I get eight hours per week. What about you, Richard? Seven's a really good night. Seven, you know, the health, you know, the health, that you say eight hours was what you needed.

Now they're more like seven. I need it. But not you, John, you've been spending the last couple of years, like actually a schedule that was as brutal or more brutal than ours because you're getting up for way to early. But how much sleep do you get? I mean, yeah, during the week, I mean, it's between five and six, which is a, It's not ideal. These days, closer to six. Thank you, Caddy.

These days closer to six. Make up board on the weekends. Try to get a little more, but there's only so late one can sleep. The president's not a young with us now. I know. He's napping. I can't. Well, speaking of napping.

I need to learn how I can't do it. But, you know, Mika gets her sleep. And when she's down, she is out. It is like, boom. I just don't. I don't. I don't snore or anything like that. No, I don't either.

I don't either. I just, I just can't, I can't sleep. All right. Mika, you were really good at it. Well done. No, this is something that I admire. I mean, I feel like we need to launch into the cabinet meeting story, but there's so much else going on.

I think we're going to keep that for later. Also with us, writer at large for the New York Times, Elizabeth B. Miller. You came in and talked about her sleep habits as well. And CEO, co-founder of Axis, Jim Van de High, is with us. Let's get to our top story this morning. Defense Secretary Pete Hagseth continues to try and distance himself from a September strike on a boat in the Caribbean suspected of smuggling drugs. It comes amid bipartisan backlash and concerns of potential criminality. That's because the U.S. carried out a secondary strike to kill the survivors of the initial attack as the men clung to the side of the damaged ship. Secretary Hegseth, who has spent weeks taking credit for the operation, said this during a cabinet meeting yesterday.

I watched that first strike lot. As you can imagine, at the Department of War, we got a lot of things to do. So I didn't stick around for the hour and two hours, whatever, where all the sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs. So I moved on to my next meeting. A couple of hours later, I learned that that commander had made the, which he had the complete authority to do. and, by the way, Admiral Bradley, made the correct decision to ultimately sink the boat and eliminate the threat. He sunk the boat, sunk the boat, and eliminated the threat. And it was the right call.

We have his back, and the American people are safer because narco-terrorists know you can't bring drugs through the water and eventually on land, if necessary, to the American people. We will eliminate that threat, and we're proud to do it. So you didn't see any survivors, to be clear. I did not personally see survivors, but I stand because the thing was on fire. It was exploded in fire or smoke. You can't see anything.

You got digital. This is called the fog of war. Yeah, you know, but you were talking about the fog of war the morning after this happened. That happened on September 2nd, then on September 3rd. There was no fog of war. You were in complete command. You were in complete charge. You knew exactly who was on that boat.

You knew exactly when that boat was fired upon. You knew everything, Mr. Secretary, about what happened that day. It wasn't like, oh, there's a fog of war. Oh, were people hanging on? And did I commit war crimes? I'm not sure. Because this is what you said, the morning after the strike. I can tell you that was definitely not artificial intelligence.

I watched it live. We knew exactly who was in that boat. We knew exactly what they were. doing and we knew exactly who they represented. And that was Trenda-Ragway, a narco-terrorist organization designated by the United States trying to poison our country with illicit drugs. So since he knew exactly what was going on, he will know, as the Washington Post reported, the boat was not hit once. It was not hit twice. It was not hit three times. It was hit four times when he knew exactly according to his own words, the day after the event,

what happened that day off the coast of Venezuela? Two of those strikes, I'm sure the Secretary of Defense knows, were to kill the crew and twice more to sink the boat, according to four people familiar with the operation. So again, as usual, every day he comes out and every day he says something that is more in conflict with what he says. said the day before. But as both the president and Secretary Heggseth deny ever knowing about the second strike,

members of Congress are continuing to voice their concerns. Wait, so the second, third, and fourth strike. You're telling your friends and Fox and Friends. Well. Which is why they call it Fox and Friends. I love Pete. Tell you your friends of Fox and Friends, you know exactly what was going. You know exactly who was on the thought.

You knew exactly about the time. You were there. You were the man. Okay, man. You were there. You admitted. You knew everything about four strikes. Are you telling me there was a first strike?

And then you said, I'm going to go up to my office and play for her cheesy. I'm bored with this. Now you stayed there for the four strikes. You know you did. So now you're saying, oh, fog of war. Fogga, one strike, four strikes. It's a fog. No.

You told everybody, you told America the morning after the attack. You knew everything about it. You were there. You saw it yourself. The words kill them all. Senator Rand Paul questioned Hegss' claims yesterday. Take a listen. In this sense, it looks to me like they're trying to pin the blame on somebody else and not them.

There's a very distinct statement that was said on Sunday. Secretary Heggsess said he had no knowledge of this and it did not happen. It was fake news. It didn't happen. And then the next day from the podium with the White House are saying, it did happen. So either he was lying to us on Sunday or he's incompetent and didn't know what had happened. Do we think there's any chance that on Sunday, the Secretary of the Defense, did not know there had been a second strike? Newsmax, senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano, called the killing of the two survivors on the alleged drug boat a war crime and argued that Defense Secretary Pete Haxeth and others involved should be prosecuted.

Take a listen. It gives me no pleasure to say what I'm about to say because I worked with Pete Hikeseth for seven or eight years at Fox News. This is an act of a war crime ordering survivors who the law requires be rescued instead to be murdered. There's absolutely no legal basis for it. Everybody along the line who did it. From the Secretary of Defense to the Admiral to the people who actually pulled the trigger should be prosecuted for a war crime for killing. these two people. Jim Vanda, I, you know, there has been the belief among many people in the White House and on Capitol Hill that beat Hexit's just not a serious man. You can see in the reaction,

whether he's posting cartoons the night after the post story comes out, suggesting that he could be a war criminal. You can see him changing a story every day in ways that Republican senators are calling out. This is not going to get an easier for him. And now they have an admiral going to testify. And you have Roger Wicker, who's a Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, saying we're going to get all the video, we're going to get all the audio, we're going to get all of the written orders, and we're going to judge this. Where do you see this going? I think right now Trump's standing with Heggseth. I think the administration's standing with Hegg Seth. I think as long as they can claim that he was not aware that there were two

survivors and that he specifically ordered a hit against them, I think there's a going to put it all on the admiral i think that's what you're seeing them do right now they're going to say he made the decision they're standing by the decision that he made to strike it let's let's let's play that out for a second yeah so of course we're going to be playing a clip of pete heggs himself in 2016 saying the same exact thing that the democrat said in a commercial a week or two ago that donald trump said that they should be lynched for but let's just put that to the side for a second keep that out of your mind we'll we'll get to the point that he said the same exact thing that Mark Kelly said. But we don't get to that right now. But let's say, for instance,

they pin this on the admiral. And the admiral is court-martial, or the admiral has to go through a trial. They then prove the Democrats' point of two weeks ago when they said, don't follow an illegal order. It's not in your best interest. And here they are giving the Democrats in the form of a respected admiral, the most glaring exhibit to show just how reckless Pete Hegseth and the administration is, and that everything they were warning are our troops about. Everything was right. Yes, but I'm going to tell you, not what I think, but what they say, right? They believe. They knew Hegseth had this view about a more reckless use of U.S. force. They knew it. They read his book. They listened to him during the hearings. They watched him on

Fox News. The president is fully supportive of this sort of much more tough guy, no handcuffs, no real laws on how we engage enemies. And so they're going to stand by him. And even if the Democrats can make their case, which I think you're right, it's a pretty persuasive case. And I think most people watching this are kind of abhorred by what they're seeing. But this is the mentality. So even if he didn't order it, it's not at all surprising that the admiral would do this. This is the culture that was set long before Venezuela. He's been crystal clear that he doesn't believe that there should be these little lawyers telling them what they can do and can't do. They find that they're firing them.

They're sidelining them. That's why you have all these jags and others coming out and saying something. They've been pushed aside long ago. And so I don't see a scenario where the president doesn't stand by him. I think Republicans, even if you really parse what they're saying, I think they're giving him a lot of latitude unless it's proven that he definitively knew there were survivors and he himself definitively ordered the strike on that ship again, killing those survivors. And what you're hearing from Hegg Seth and Trump is that didn't happen. And it might not have happened. If you look at the Washington Post reporting, it's very carefully

written. It does not state that Hegseth himself knew that there were survivors and then ordered the second attack specifically. It was more a general order that the admiral was following, and that's what, if you talk to people in the White House, but they're hanging this on, and the more that people go after Heggseth, as you know, Joe, the more that they're likely to defend him. It's a Trump way. And the dumber they will be for doing that, because the White House admitted yesterday from the podium that actually anything that happened was the responsibility of Pete Heggseth.

If they hadn't fired all their best JAG officers, they'd be able to say, if you from the White House podium say that everything the Admiral did was well within the orders of Pete Heggisth. You have just taken that liability from the Admiral

who fired the shots to Pete Heggis. So now both of them are going to be in trouble. You know, Mika, if only Pete Hegzeth had listened to the Democrats, and if only the Admiral had listened to

Democrats when they put that video out a couple weeks ago. And also back, I don't know, what was it, it's everything blurs together, but it was like, April 2016. Maybe it was April 2016, a lovely time. Only thing different was a different president. A young whippersnapper came out and said this. I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you're doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That's why the military said it won't follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief. There's a standard. There's an ethos. There's a belief that we are above what so many things that our enemies or others would do. It's an ethos. It is an ethos. It's the war ethos.

It is a standard. Yeah, he talks about that war ethos. It's funny how Elizabeth Bue-Miller, as they say in broadcast news, it's funny how those lines keep moving. Because that Pete Hagseth saying the same exact thing in 2016 that Mark Kelly and Democrats, who were vets,

said a couple weeks ago. Well, it was extraordinary to me is, you know, I covered the Pentagon for four years. This is just not how the chain of cement command is supposed to work. I mean, there's a, I used to have a, you know, you, as an executive, you share the

credit and you take the blame. It's certainly it's very powerful in the military. And these guys, the two of them, the top civilians, the leaders of the American military, basically the president as commander-in-chief, and Hegg said as the civilian leader of the military, the secretary of defense, secretary of war, as he refers. This is their responsibility. And it's just astonishing to watch as they both say, well, you know, Trump is now saying, well, I wouldn't have agreed with the, you know, it was a good he did it, but I wouldn't have gone with the second, with the second strike. And if they've just, they're dissembling, it's obvious you can see it so clearly, you know, from what I can tell, what I can hear, Hegseth has a defender of one person,

that's the President of the United States. He's not popular at the White House. He is certainly not popular on the Hill, not popular among many Republicans. So the question is, if this happens again, will Trump stick with him? You know, it's a big question. I'm not sure how great his future is. It might take a while. Yeah, and as you said, Elizabeth, not really liked inside the White House. He wasn't even liked during the transition because, again, they got tired of him giving incomplete questions. They kept getting blindsided, not respected on Capitol Hill. I mean, yeah, it's stunning.

But by the way, I just got a text from a friend of Marina, Mississippi, who just texted me and said, Joey, what's going on on your show today? I just woke up. So I feel like I have to play this clip again. Can you play this clip from my friend in Meridian, Mississippi? He just woke up and didn't see it. Pete Hags at 2016. There have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you're doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless,

then there is a consequence for that. That's why the military said it won't follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief. There's a standard. There's an ethos. There's a belief that we are above what so many things that our enemies or others would do. Wow. A guy that just got hired in Baton Rouge said he had a rough night last night. We'd like to see it again.

Can you play that one more time for a friend in Baton Rouge? I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you're doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That's why the military said it won't follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief. There's a standard. There's an ethos. There's a belief that we are above what so many things that are. our enemies or others would do.

Exactly same thing that we heard, of course, from Mark Kelly and the other Democrats a couple weeks ago that the president said, you should be lynched for. It's the military code. It's a military code. It's good to know about it. It's what the U.S. military code says. It's done his homework. Geneva Convention.

What concerns me is, I wonder, will the president say that he should be lynch? Will the president say that he should be called back and be court-martialed? So it's interesting because he right there said the same exact thing that the president said Mark Kelly should be lynched for. Yeah. First, hello to our friends in the Central Time Zone, just waking up. He's just waking in. We appreciate that.

We're probably going to have to play it a lot more because a lot of friends waking up one by one. Plus the food and one by one. We appreciate it. The context here very different. Of course, President Obama was in office in April 2016. There are concerns about his use of drones and such. Right. For good reasons.

Weighing in on that. I suspect that President Trump will have a different reaction this time around to this clip. And it's an interesting moment. I've talked to people in the White House right now. We saw it yesterday, even in that somewhat sleepy and very long cabinet meeting, Trump was mostly defending Heggseth. He kept his distance from it saying he doesn't know, didn't know what happened, but said, well, Pete said this and Pete said that. But Donald Trump is one of the few people in this administration, Richard, who likes Pete Hexeth, as Joe has said, and we've been talking about for a few weeks now. And a bad week for Pete Hexeth is about to get

worse. Remember, Signalgate? When Pete Hegseth tested on classified plans, on single. Wait, wait, I'm a little foggy because I'm following my text from my friend. Now, was this where he went on a public app and said it's kind of like Martin Sheen in the Dead Zone? Gentleman, the missiles are flying. In this case, he was saying, we're going to be launching. Right. I think Jeffrey Goldberg.

Using a publicly available app to detail those plans. And Jeffrey Goldberg was sitting in the parking lot of a safe place supermarket. Oh, I love a safe way. And Suburit, Virginia, and saw these classified war plans come in. And by the way, these are the most classified where you are actually where men and women are about to go into combat. But why was Jeffrey on it? Their lives are at risk. The planes are on their way.

The planes are on their way. You just couldn't do anything more reckless or irresponsible as far as putting people's lives in danger when they're about to go on. a mission. And the Pentagon's Inspector's General investigation into Signalgate, that report has been transmitted to the Hill and will be released this week. So Pete Heggseth, already under fire, now

we'll have this as well. If there was ever a moment for the administration to turn the page on Pete Heggseth, Richard, it would seem like this could be it. This could be it. This president, though, this time around, doesn't want to see Trump 1.0 repeated, so it's obviously going to dig in as long as he can until

he can't. So I think that's part of it. The other thing that I think is so interesting here, though, which is the tension between civilian leadership and the military. And if there's some distancing open up and this whole issue of unlawful orders, well, just say we have a domestic situation. And you have people saying we need to reuse the troops in this context rather than that. What I think the administration is opening up is a conversation in the military about just this. What do we do with orders that are on the edge of the law? And so I actually think we could have a massive breach in relations between the civilian leadership and the military if, for example, we see uniformed military thrown under the bus here in order to save civilians. I think the stakes here, as large as they are with the immediate incident, I think also will affect and potentially infect what happens going forward.

No, it's going to be terrible. Let's play Pete Higgs one more time, just for anybody that just woke up. up. We've been talking about Pete Hegseth over the past. Was it April 2016? Was it April 2016? Yeah. So it's the fog of peace. There's the fog of peace. Here's Pete Hegseth in 2016. I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you're doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That's why the military said it won't follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief. There's a standard.

ethos. There's a belief that we are above what so many things that our enemies or others would do. Still ahead on morning, Joe. We're going to get the results of Tennessee's special election as Republicans hold on to a deep red house seat. We'll talk about why this race

and several others this year are giving Democrats a reason to look forward to the midterms. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers forecast this morning from ACUther's Bernie Rayno. Is it there? Bernie, how's it looking? Bernie, how's it looking?

Mika, a much more tranquil weather pattern on your Wednesday along the East Coast. Your accurate weather exclusive forecast clouds breaking for some sunshine in Boston. Dry but chilly, New York City, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C., some flurries around Chicago as colder air comes in. Chili but dry across the southeast, beautiful day

in South Florida. Travel concerns none should be a good day for that. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the Acky with the app today. Live look at the eyes of all the boys that sent away. Live look at Nashville, Tennessee,

29 past the hour time to wake up everybody looks kind of like a wet steam you know Nashville no let's keep it on there for a second it's pretty that you know they haven't seen in what's that what's that we've never seen that she takes up okay for my friends waking up in Nashville I've got family in Nashville a lot of friends in Nashville at central time zone it's 530 I know a lot of people set their arms 530 for our friends in Nashville here's a clip you may not have seen 530 a.m. from April 2016, saying the same exact thing that Mark Kelly said when they said they're going to lunch him for, here it is. There have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you're doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that.

That's why the military said it won't follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief. There's a standard. There's an ethos. There's a belief that we are above what so many things that our enemies or others would do. He just said, that's why the military has said they will not follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief. Okay. Nothing was said, Caddy, that explicitly by the Democrats who were threatened with lynching. That was more explicit than anything said in that Democratic video. So that's the key bit, right, of that little clip. And I think that is the key question here.

because Pete Hegseth may try to rubble his way out of what he said it was misunderstood. It didn't apply to that second strike. He'll try and put Bradley under the bus. My understanding is I've been told Admiral Bradley is very keen to testify before Congress. He's looking forward to that opportunity to explain exactly what happened. But it was still, in the end, it was Pete Hegseth's. If the Washington Post reporting is right, it was Pete Hegseth's order, which was then translated through to the lower rank. and they may or may not have had the decision of what they did, but he gave the order.

And Jim Vanda High, what's so fascinating with Caddy's reporting, that if the Admiral is looking forward to testifying right now, everything's different now than it may have been six months ago. You have Republicans now who are starting to stand up to the administration in ways that they just wouldn't have done before. And especially when it comes to Pete Heggzeth, you have the chairman of the Armed Services Committees in the House and the Senate. you have people like Rand Paul, you have the former governor of West Virginia now a senator

saying that this is not done. There's no circling of the wagons, it seems, for Pete Heggis. So if the Admiral's testimony is damning for Pete Heggisth, I suspect we hear about it fairly soon. Yeah, I mean, again, I'm a little skeptical until proven otherwise that Republicans are really standing up to Trump. I think you're seeing a couple of different members carefully stand up to him in very specific instances. Forcing him to oust the head of the Pentagon would be a big, big deal. And if that happens, and I'm with you, I think that would be a tsunami in terms of the change of dynamics in Washington.

I think, going back to what I said before, it's unpopular as it is. This is what Trump wants. Like, when you talk about, this is leadership. This is why we come back to this all the time on the show. This is why competence in leadership and talent matters. when you put someone in charge of a massive, massive military, and that person changes the culture, that person changes the language.

When all they talk about is kinetic warriors, kinetic warfare, trying to do all this hyper-masculinity, do what you want, do what you need to do, the rules don't apply. Then things like this are not at all surprising. You should anticipate that this is what you're going to get because that is the example in the rhetoric that's been set at the top. The question is, will there be consequences for him? Unless we can prove that he knew that there were survivors, and he specifically ordered those survivors to be killed, I don't think

that there will be consequences for him. And the way Trump works and thinks, the more you make it seem like he has to go or Republicans are turning on him, the more Trump does the counterintuitive things that says, hell no, I'm going to keep him. I can think of at least two different instances of I know of cabinet secretaries who were about to get ousted, who didn't get ousted because the press, because all of us started writing about it, and Trump gets his backup. And so we will see. But I think the message for viewers watching this stuff is it's not a game. You can do whatever you want and talk tough and be the guy you want to be on TV. It has consequences. It permeates your entire culture, whether you're running the business or whether you're running the Pentagon. It has consequences. And it all catches up.

up to you. When you go, look at that guy. When that guy goes on Fox and Friends the morning after a strike where people are killed and now reports show four missile strikes at one boat. You don't know who's in that boat, even though he said he knew everything about that attack. You go on and brag about that. It all catches up to you. Everything catches up to you. For missiles. Elizabeth, when following up on what Jim said, when you say, to all the generals and admirals that were assembled at Quantico at the end of September, we don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill.

These are words that come back to get you, even as it is warping the outer edges of, disciplined military culture. Correct. And as you may recall, there was no applause for those comments, for those lengthy comments that Heggzeth, when he made those comments, and he pulled people in from all over the world, from commands all over the world, to listen to a lecture from him. It did not go over well. And again, this is what happens when you decide that you don't have to follow orders,

which virtually nobody else, including lawyers all over the military, and the military themselves that no one agrees with. So this is what happens. And so I think that I'm, I think Jim makes a lot of good points, but I think that this might be, I think there may be some turning points ahead for Heggseth.

And by the way, I want to be very clear with all of my dear friends in Central Time Zone that are just tuning in right now. We're not just talking about the Geneva Convention. Because when you talk about that, people are, oh, it's just pie in the, this guy. No, no, this is what we're talking about. We're talking about the Department of Defense Law of War Manual that specifically speaks in section 5.9.4 about ship wrecked combatants and

what you are not to do when they are taken out of the fight. This is not like something that's happening that lawyers are looking at in the Hague. This is the Pentagon's own rules. This is the military's own rules. When Pete Hegseth back in 2016 talked about that ethos, that ethos came from within the building. It came from within the services. It came from within the generals and the admirals, the military, and the civilian leaders who determined that what happened, happened, as reported by the Washington Post, was a war crime. It's the Pentagon's own rules. So, Richard, when they try to paint this off to some defeat European, international organization. The kind of world I come from.

But you said it. There was no need to confess. You could have just answered my question, for God's sake. But yes, the world that you come from. No, this is the Pentagon. This is, this is the warfighter's ethos that he was talking about in 2016, that he's trying to erase in 2025 because he thinks the guy he works for. It's not convenient. It's not cool to not follow the laws of war. Look, I worked in the Pentagon, and this is ground into military education.

This is ground into military culture. What will be really interesting, if when the admiral testifies, is to what extent before strikes two, three, and four, what was discussed? Yeah. Were people saying what was seen on the screen and what was discussed? To what extent were people kind of on autopilot based upon general orders that inform strike one? And we will know that, Richard. We heard from the chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, Roger Walker.

He goes, we're going to get all the written orders, which they've refused to give so far. We're going to get all the written orders. We're going to get all the video. We're going to get all the audio. And did somebody say, hey, what we're seeing is this? Or did anyone raise objections to it before strikes, two, three, and four, or were carried out? And someone said, hey, those two guys are surrendering. That is what we don't know yet.

But if that would, and this reminds me a little bit of war, you know, there's kind of the crime and there's the cover-up. And I think potentially here we're in the cover-up phase, because what we're going to see are people going to have different accounts of what happened before strikes two, three, and four. And what the Secretary of Defense has put himself in is an extraordinary. vulnerable situation. If anybody pointed out before strike two, three, and four, hold it, we've got to stop. This is no longer an imminent threat. This is no longer a legitimate target. Well, that cover-up, Caddy, is what we were warning about two days ago when we saw it coming like a freight train out of the mist. You could just tell the cover-up. If this went down the way many people are saying it went down, is what was happening. What's so interesting

about this story is that it's been rumbling kind of in the background. We perhaps haven't given it the attention we needed to because we didn't know what happened on September the 2nd. But when we got that news in mid-October that the commander from Southcom, Commander Holesley, was stepping down because of disagreements, he will be another person who knows exactly what happened. So there are going to be multiple points of corroboration of what happened on September 2nd. We will hear, I'm sure, at some point from Commander Halsley, somehow we will get his story as to why exactly.

What was the breaking point for him? We know it was over disagreements, over what was happening. happening in the Caribbean, but was it over this particular incident? Is that what the problem was? But I just don't see that there are not going to be enough points of either material evidence or verbal evidence or evidence

given from witnesses that we're not going to... And the actual videotape. Richard Haas, thank you very much. Writer at large for the New York Times. Elizabeth Bue Miller, thank you as well. And just a note to all of our viewers, with Elizabeth sawing, they're not saying boo.

They're saying boo. Miller. Yes. One of the favorites with the fans. Okay. You are, wow. All right. Still ahead on morning, Joe.

We're going to dig into the... It's what they always say that in sporting events. I had a friend from Matches, Mississippi. Just texted me that, and I thought it was funny. Yeah, that's a... Just waking up this friend. Let's keep your friends out of the show. But we're not going to play the...

Still ahead on Morning Joe. We're going to dig in to the Tennessee election results and why the GOP win there. may show more tailwinds for the Democrats also ahead. The Trump administration is in a fight with another pop superstar. Like, this is like the end of, is it Kanye? Is it crimson tide where the Russians keep losing? Is it Rihanna?

Another round. And you got, wait, you've lost another somewhere here? Taylor. Hunt for every, right, October. Best film ever. Is that incredible? Wait, wait, wait. We'll tell you who it is.

Have you lost another pop star? I had on Morning Job. There's nothing Well, please, please, please don't prove I'm right. Well, first it was Taylor. Yeah. Now it's Sabrina. Sabrina Carpenter, the singer,

becoming the latest pop superstar to get into a feud with the Trump White House. The fight began with Carpenter slamming the administration for using one of her songs in a video applauding ice raids. That's probably not. I wouldn't want that. The clip posted by the official White House X account, Twitter account, shows a video montage of ICE officers chasing and handcuffing people to a remix of Carpenter's song, Juno. The post includes text reading, bye, bye, with a hard-eyes emoji. This is so sick.

Yeah, the cruelty is really staggering. I am sorry. This is so sick. The singer responded with a video, a post of her own, writing this video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson responded with a statement referencing Carter's lyrics writing, here's a short and sweet message for Sabrina Carpenter. We won't apologize for deporting, dangerous, criminal, illegal.

I'm just tired of the law. believers, rapists, and pedophiles from our country. No, no, no, no, no. We're not going to read the lies. You know, they're, they are getting students. And Jacob Sabre, said, and I'm supposed to say this yet? What, just, just hang on, okay? They are, ICE is getting innocent people that are going to see their family.

They are, they are busting down like kindergartens and pulling out kindergarten teacher. they're throwing mothers to the ground it's savage the savagery the cruelty and it's something they sell they love this

they think inside the White House they think I mean Donald Trump has said before he doesn't want to see mothers ripped from the arms of children but that's exactly what they're doing tenfold compared to the first term it's it's it's it's it's it's why he's upside down on immigration an issue that should be his strongest

because the southern border is shut down yeah and as much as trump has said he doesn't want that but at the same time he sat down with 60 minutes a month ago and was told it was asked about immigration and his sinking poll numbers like well we have to go harder we have to go harder with a deportation doubling down on this and but you're right it's it's it's trolling it is government by trolling the idea of putting out these slick videos that they they know we're going to get a reaction that are reveling in the cruelty of the moment. And, you know, not just Sabrina Carpenter, but a lot of Americans have said, we don't want this. This isn't what we want. We're disgusted by this.

So for more, writing on the idea of immigration, joining us now, Pee and Collins, New York Times, David French, his latest piece is titled, I've been doing this work for 25 years, and I've never seen such fear. David, talk to us about who you're quoting there. What do they mean? Yeah, I was quoting. a guy named Matt DeMateo who runs a group called the New Life Centers of Chicago land that reaches out to immigrant communities and has been reaching out to immigrant communities since the big influx started during the Biden administration. And what he was talking about was the response

to this Operation Midway Blitz that you saw headlines across the United States of this incredibly brutal crackdown in the city of Chicago. Just with all of the scenes and all of incident you've seen of brutality, of tackling people of, you know, violence directed against protesters, for example. This was happening in Chicago. And this ministry that I was talking about as part of our 2025 giving guide at the New York Times was one that reached out to migrants as they were hunkering down as they were they were protecting and sheltering in their homes and was reaching out to people to keep them under a roof, to keep them supplied with food and with clothing. And I was trying to make the point that when there is American brutality, there is also still American compassion.

And it's really time to double down on the people who are showing compassion. David, one church institution that's showing compassion is a Catholic church, the Pope, has been extraordinarily heroic. And, well, in doing his job. I mean, he's quoting Jesus. He's quoting the most obvious parts of the red letters. which of course leads to the question how do so many people who grew up in our churches who grew up as Baptist like me across the deep south

how are so many people turning a blind eye not only do the savagery here but also to a president they voted for twice calling God's children let's make no mistake of this Jesus is very clear we're all God's children And in fact, when he talks about the last being first and the first being last, well, you could probably put billionaire leaders on one side of that and Somali immigrants on the other.

When he calls Somalis, quote, human garbage, that is something, again, for people who didn't grow up in the Baptist Church, you didn't grow up reading the red letters, didn't grow up in the Gospels, didn't grow up like you and me, you know, reading about this in, you know, Sunday school and training union. I mean, the thing is, when you get into the Gospels, there are not so many rules. People like to talk about rules, the commandment is, just time and time again, Blessed or the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy. Like, what you do to the least of these among me, you do to me myself. And again, you just can't keep going back to the story of the Good Samaritan enough

where Jesus says, love your neighbor as yourself. They ask, here's my neighbor. And he picks the most despised foreigner, the most despised foreigner, the Samaritan, to say, that's your neighbor. And that's who you love. And that's who is who will be first in the kingdom of God. So again, a very long windup to ask this question. question. How have these people been so programmed to forget every single thing they were taught

in church, in Sunday school, in training union, on Wednesday night Bible studies? Like, how have they been so programmed that they completely put this political, I don't even know what to call it over the teachings of Jesus Christ. Because make no mistake, read the Bible, read Jesus' words. Don't go to Leviticus, read Jesus' words. Don't go to Nehom, read Jesus' words. Don't go back to Exodus, read Jesus' words. And it could not be any more clear.

These people who continue to support these policies are literally doing the opposite of what Jesus Christ said in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Well, Joe, I think the answer as to why this is happening lies in that statement that you didn't go through and read all the way and continue on to all of the ways that Trump described immigrants. Because if you're following right-wing media, if you're living in the right-wing media world, you are fed an unbelievably steady diet of outrageous and horrible stories about immigrant crime. For example, this horrible evil shooting by this Afghan refugee where a National Guard soldier was killed. That is something that has talked about a very long time. It should be

talked about, but it should be placed in context of the reality of the peaceful way and productive way, the vast, vast, vast majority of immigrants live their lives here in the United States. You've got this systematic. I have to interject really quickly here before you go on. Also, every study, including a recent Cato study, shows that Democrats commit less crimes than native-born Americans, and it's not even close. Go ahead. Right.

I mean, and so you have this, but you have this steady dehumanization. That would be something that would be news to an awful lot of people, Joe. And so, but you also have internal bullying that when you try, when you step out a line in the MAGA world, if you're going to show hints of compassion, you're going to be bullied, you're going to be called woke. You're going to be called weak. And so there's this ruthless internal discipline in the Republican Party right now that is just pushing it further and further and further into this anti-immigrant extreme. And people don't like it. People who aren't all in on MAGA don't like it. It's one of the reasons why, as you alluded to earlier, Trump took a winning issue, closing down the border, and turned it into a losing issue through his brutality inside the United States. And so this is being rejected. And Republicans need to open their eyes and understand that. Opinion, calmness for The New York Times, David French, thank you very much. His latest piece is available to read online right now.