Morning Joe - White House confirms second strike on alleged drug boat

Episode Date: December 2, 2025

White House confirms second strike on alleged drug boat 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.

That's what it comes down to is what the intention of the second strike was. Was it to demolish the rest of the boat that had been hit but not completely destroyed? Or was it for the principal purpose of eliminating the survivors? Eliminating the survivors would be a big problem if that was what they were all about. If they were killed in the course of the rest of the boat being destroyed, if it was sufficiently intact to cause U.S. military personnel down there to think that a job had not been finished, that's another matter. So I think it's going to be, you know, that's going to be what we're going to see investigated here in the weeks ahead. That is Fox News chief political analyst, Britt Hume,

warning that Trump administration officials would have to answer for their actions. It comes as the administration is admitting to a second strike on the survivors, but placing the blame on the admiral overseeing the mission. That won't work, and Britt Hume had a tweet. For that. We will go through the very latest on all of that. Also ahead, we're going to dig into the pardon of the former president of Honduras, who was convicted of drug trafficking last year. The White House claims it was the result of a politicized trial overlooking the fact that the investigation started during Trump's first term. Plus, there is a special election today for a congressional seat in Tennessee. In a district, Trump won by 22 points last year, but the latest bowling

shows the contest is a dead heat. We'll take a look at what the race could mean for next year's midterms and good morning. I mean, we'll see what happens there. I mean, it's a Republican seat. I'm sure Republican, there's a, I mean, things would have to be horrible for that thing to be even within five, five points. So I just can't imagine it being that close. But Ben Willie is very interesting, Britt Hume, proving once again that the administration, like in the Epstein files, finds themselves in a position where they're not fighting lefties, right? They're not going up against the most progressive voices in America. People they can call communists or Marxists. It is Fox News contributors. It is Andy McCarthy saying, no, no, no, no. Now, this new excuse of pointing at somebody else. else. Now, this is inconsistent with what you've said before, are Britt Hume saying this is what pointing the finger at somebody else looks like. When, of course, this all comes down to Pete Heggis. We're going to be showing clips of him bragging time and time again about getting

rid of those politically correct rules of engagement. We're there to kill. And I think most damningly, and this is just where the stupidity comes in. to have a strike on September 2nd, go on Fox and Friends September 3rd, to brag that you were there from beginning to end, and you saw the attacks beginning to end, the first attack, the second, and that it was all on you. It was all on you. I'm the he-man that carried out that strike. I mean, he's, he, again, this is, this is something that, that, and, you know, it's, and You know, this is far worse than SignalGate because SignalGate was, well, it was... That was bad, too.

That was really bad. In this case, though, you... Celebrational aspect of it. If you're Donald Trump, you don't want anything to do with this war crime that more and more conservatives, more and more Republicans, not lefties, Republicans are saying, deeply disturbing. This alleged war crime, it is frightening. And President Trump on Air Force One said, I wouldn't have ordered the second strike.

No, no, no, no. He understands what's going on here. And a good barometer always is congressional Republicans. And you listen to them, even the ones who've defended Donald Trump on some of his worst moments saying, the most gracious you can hear is, well, let's wait until all the facts come out. They're not racing to defend, and most of them. And others are saying we need to launch a full investigation. We need to have hearings on this.

This is deadly serious. This is a potential war crime. And you're right, the White House has caught in this moment right now where they're saying, well, yes, defense secretary Hegesith did order the second strike, but not to kill the people, just to disable the boat. The decision to kill the people, allegedly, is that of Admiral Bradley, a decorated admiral in the Navy. So that, to push that Admiral in front of the bus is not going to end well, probably, for Defense Secretary Hegseth. He's in a bind. The White House is in a bind, as we'll see in a moment, as the press secretary, yesterday, did her best in a nearly impossible situation. It was, that was hard to watch. But me can make a mistake, right now, this is more Pete Heggseth's problem. Yeah. Donald Trump's problem.

And for the people inside the White House that have been worried about his leadership from the beginning for Republicans on Capitol Hill, who you can talk to Capitol Hill will tell you that they look at Hegseth with absolute scorn. And some already did. They're willing, in this case, to give the president the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know about this second strike. But they're not going to give that benefit of the doubt that Pete Higgs. Nor will the National Review, nor will the Wall Street Journal, nor will Fox News legal analysts like Andy McCarthy, nor will a lot of conservatives who are offended by this. Especially since he talked about it himself, Pete Hags at many times, yeah, along with Joe Willie and,

me. We have the co-host of our 9 a.m. hour, staff writer at the Atlantic, Jonathan Lemire, and columnist, an associate editor at the Washington Post, David Ignatius. So let's get to the details of this story amid bipartisan scrutiny and calls for congressional investigations. The Trump administration confirmed yesterday the U.S. military did launch a second follow-up strike on an alleged drug boat in September. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt said the admiral, Frank M. Bradley, ordered the what's called a double-tap attack, killing two people who had survived the first blast. But she insisted the Navy commander acted within his authority and the law to do so.

Does the administration deny that that second strike happened, or did it happen and the administration denies that secretary headset gave the war? The latter is true, Abe, and I have a statement to read for you here. President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have made it clear that presidentially designated narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting in accordance with the laws of war. With respect to the strikes in question on September 2nd, Secretary Hegseth authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes.

Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law, directing the engagement to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States of America was eliminated. I'll clarify, Admiral Bradley was the one who gave that order for a second strike. And he was well within his authority to do so. What law is it that allows no survivors? The strike conducted on September 2nd was conducted in self-defense to protect Americans in vital United States interests. The strike was conducted in international waters and in accordance with the law of armed conflict.

On this, pardon for the Hunter and President, does it at all undercut the administration's messaging, while you have, While you have these congressional Republicans defending the strikes on the narco terrorists and then a pardon for a convicted drug trafficker, does that make it more difficult for your members to defend your administration's policy? I don't think so, Jackie. I think that President Trump has been quite clear in his defense of the United States homeland to stop these illegal narcotics from coming to our borders, whether that's by land or by sea. or by narco terrorists that you basically get are narco leaders

that probably are responsible for shipping as many drugs in the United States as anybody and he gets a pardon but I just want to go back to the point

that is damning maybe people watching didn't see how damning this was for Pete Hegesith but she said yes Admiral Bradley ordered the second strike, but he did it well within the authority that Pete Hegseth had given him.

So the illegal orders, if they are found to be illegal, the double-tap orders, if they're found to be illegal, according to the White House, wasn't Admiral Bradley's decision. It was Pete Hegseth. He was following Pete Hegseth's order. Now, of course, if he knew it was illegal, those orders were illegal, then he, too, will face justice. But ultimately, according to the White House yesterday, and the answers to those questions, it was Pete Hegson, who authorized the double-tap strikes. And that wasn't the press secretary saying it off the cuff. That was something she read. That was a statement that they had worked up that she read. Sort of helpful way to think about it is Hegset gave the umbrella order to kill everyone on those.

his boats. And maybe the White House is saying, well, Bradley's the one who said, okay, do the second strike to finish them off. But that doesn't change the idea that the strikes, the lethality of these strikes, were from Heggseth, that he gave the permission structure for the so-called double-tap. And as we're going to play the video, Hexeth, the next day, made very clear that he was well aware of everything that happened that day. He bragged about it. So this is, this is indeed, to this point, this story has not reached the Oval Office. The president has done his best to try to keep his distance from it as much as he is still supportive of Hengseth. But right now, this does not end with Admiral Bradley. This is all the defense secretary. And for people that

are listening yesterday thinking, and I had a lot of people saying, oh, they're throwing Admiral Bradley under the bus. Actually, if you're a lawyer and you're looking at this, a military lawyer, that's not what you're thinking. You're thinking Bradley's going to have to answer for his actions that day. But the White House is saying, this was all authorized. The double Tamp was authorized by Pete Heggzeth because he said the admiral acted well within the authority that Pete Heggzeth gave him. And Caroline Levitt, just a small point, but optics here is extremely confident and adept off the cuff.

She doesn't really need to use notes. In this case, she was very clear to read what she was saying word for word, and I found that to be interesting. Lawyers, got to them. Yeah. Well, yeah, because, yeah, they want to keep. Keep this away from the Oval Office and keep it. This is Pete Heggzeth's problem.

So, they made that very clear yesterday. Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth, who, according to reports from the Washington Post, issued the verbal directive that no one on the boat be left alive. Similarly, sought to highlight the role of the military commander in the attack. Posting on social media last night, quote, Admiral Bradley is an American hero, a true professional, and has my 100% support. I stand by him and the combat decisions he has made.

Yeah, because you authorized it. On the September 2nd mission and all others since. Britt Hume of Fox News summarized that post by writing, quote, how to point the finger at someone while pretending to support him. Another Fox News contributor we mentioned. Conservative commentator Andrew McCarthy has another piece for the National Review on this story, This one titled, New Explanation, Hegesith did not order that all boat operators be killed. McCarthy writes in part, if it is true that he did not give the order, how odd was it that Hegseth's first two responsive posts over the weekend were exactly what you would expect from someone who did give such an order.

First, the above unflinching declaration of intention to execute lethal strikes. And second, the cruder, we have only just begun to kill narco terrorists. Even if one accepts the administration's dubious premise that our forces are in an armed conflict against non-state actors, the cartels, whose operatives are enemy combatants, the second September's second strike against the shipwreck survivors of the first strike cannot be justified. I continue to believe, writes McCarthy, to the contrary, that none of the strikes can be authorized. The controversial second strike on September 2nd is singular only in that it is lawlessness is. more blatant. Well, Secretary Hegseth may be pointing the finger at Admiral Bradley, but as the Washington Post reports, it was Hagseth who ordered the strike on the survivors of the initial U.S. attack, saying, quote, kill them all. A day later, he went on Fox News, where he said this

about the military operation. 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. exactly what they were doing, and we knew exactly who they represented. And that was Trenda Raguay, a narco-terrorist organization designated by the United States trying to poison our country with illicit drugs. And so the Secretary of Defense admitting there, he watched the entire operation live. Just a few weeks after that, the secretary gathered together America's top generals and commanders, where he told them to ignore the rules of engagement. We're training warriors, not defenders.

We fight wars to win, not to defend. We also don't fight with stupid rules of engagement. We untie the hands of our warfighters to intimidate, demoralize, hunt, and kill the enemies of our country. No more politically correct and overbearing rules of engagement. Just common sense, maximum lethality, and authority for warfighters. David Ignatius, that was three weeks. after the Washington Post reported, he told the Admiral, kill them all. And that was after he admitted on Fox and Friends the morning after the strike,

that he watched the whole thing. And again, the intent was to kill, as Andy McCarthy said, this weekend, after the news broke in the Washington Post, he gleefully said, that's exactly what we did. our job was to kill them all in some many words. But I find the most damning thing what the White House said yesterday, which was that the Admiral, if he did order the Double Tap, the Admiral was acting completely within the discretion, or completely within the authority that had been given to him by whom?

by Pete Hegseth to kill them all. So, Joe, I think there are two strands of this that interest me particularly. First, this theme for Pete Hegseth, that the rules of engagement, these rules that are invented by lawyers are obstacles to warriors, they're obstacles to the lethality that our forces need, and that it's time to surmount them. He attacked back in February the structure of legal advice at the Pentagon by firing the top Judge Advocate Generals who give advice as to what orders are legal and which ones aren't. There is a second story that's going to play out, and we need to focus carefully on it,

about exactly who said what, when. Senator Roger Wicker, who's the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday they will have full video and audio records of exactly what happened on September 2nd as these strikes took place. Just to quote from an editorial in the Wall Street Journal this morning, you can bet senior military officers bought insurance on their own careers by recording the advice they gave and the directions they received. These investigations, as they come, are going to be, I think, very detailed, and they'll go into precisely what Hegss said in his execute order, which he still has refused to provide to the Senate committee that has asked for it two months ago. And exactly what Admiral Frank Bradley did in response, what he knew the argument is being made that he was going after the boat, not the surviving two. sailors on the boat will have detailed evidence to evaluate that claim as this goes forward. But I think the two points. Hegseth doesn't like the overall regime of rules against his warriors.

And second, finding out exactly what was done here is going to be the work of Senate and House committees that I think, from what we can tell, take this very serious. are going to carry it as far as it needs to go. Well, on that note, David, top Republicans in the Senate supporting now an investigation into those strikes, here is with the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Roger Wicker, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune said yesterday. Were there survivors who were killed in that second time?

I don't have that information. Do you worry? But I do think we'll get that information, and we're certainly going to, we're going to have available to us. all of the audio and all of the video. And at that point, I'll be able to have a more informed conversation with the press. Do you want to be a crime if the survivors are killed? Thank you all.

We're going to find out what the true facts are, and then there'll be a determination about that. Find out what happened when and, you know, what orders were given. I think all the particulars, you want to know what the facts are. And then you want to compare that with the relevant and the... with the relevant and figure out, you know, procedurally, you know, what's the, you know, the correct lawful way to do things and determine whether or not that everything is followed. That is Republican leadership in the Senate comes as other Republicans are expressing concerns

about the use of a second strike on those survivors. I think what we have heard shocked us all. And I think most would say that when you have two individuals that are literally floating in the water, a second order to kill them all is not something that we would consider within the rules of war. I'm not comfortable with the two blow. If that really happened and I'm not comfortable, I just think it's unacceptable. you know because to me i'm not i'm not happy with all the the drug issues and everything and there's cannibalizing us in lots of ways and lots of bad stuff but but i think it would be

it would be harsh to think that really harsh to think that we have defenseless people you know and we we do a second strike i mean i don't i don't understand that That's Republican Senator Jim Justice there. I don't understand that. Yes. And Senator Rand Paul, also critical of that second strike posting on social media. It is not permitted under the laws and customs of honorable warfare to order that no quarter be given to apply lethal force to those who surrender or who are injured, shipwrecked, or otherwise unable to fight. That is from Rand Paul.

Join us now former senior government official Morton Halpern. Morton, thanks for being with us again. Good to see you. So just more on what you've heard in the last 24 hours and what we've been playing this morning from the White House. Again, Caroline Levitt saying Secretary Heggzith authorized Admiral Bradley to conduct those kinetic strikes. Admiral Bradley worked well within his authority and the law. What's the legal trouble that you see here potentially for Secretary Hegzeth? Well, it depends on whether the order was to destroy the boat or whether it should kill everybody.

who was on the boat. I think both are illegal, but if it was a deliberate attempt to kill people who clearly could not pose any threat, who were just hanging on their lives on the side of the boat, there's no question anybody's mind, in my view, that that's a violation of international law. It's also something that Congress has not authorized our military to do, and I don't believe they can do it without congressional authorization. So I think the second strike is, I think, everybody seems to be coming to accept that, is illegal. And hopefully we'll stop doing that.

But I think also we need to discuss because what do we do about the first strikes, about the attacks on these boats, until Congress sorts through and decides what it is, in fact, the law? I think we need to suspend them. And I think Congress needs to put that in the next piece of legislation that it passes. It's going to be passing a variety of bills related to the budget and for the current fiscal year. And I think it needs to stop both and needs to say that one we sure is illegal, the other we're prepared to look at. But until the Congress makes a judgment, or it authorizes or prohibits it, it should.

should prohibit those strikes because in my view, they presumptively are illegal and they are not something that there's an immediate urgent threat. It's not like there's a terrorist in a building with a bomb. This is longstanding program of drugs coming into the United States. And it's more important in my view that we obey the wars of war than that we do another set of strikes until we sought this out. What is clear over the last 24 hours is that there's a lot of concern in the Pentagon that Admiral Bradley, the SOCOM commander, who is said to have authorized the strikes seems to be the fall guy.

He's mentioned by the White House press spokesman herself. What effect do you think that has on men and women in uniform who are wondering what's lawful on what isn't, and when am I going to get in trouble for doing what I think I'm being ordered to do? Oh, I think it has a very serious effect, and some of it is good. I mean, we want, I think many of us who I certainly would have liked the admiral's to come back and say, I can't fire an additional weapons. There are two people about to drip, and we have an obligation if we're not going to rescue

them, at least not to hurt them. I think he had an obligation to say that, even if the order was from the president. president or the secretary of defense. But going forward, I think we need to stop this until we get sorted out what is, in fact, legal and what is not permitted under the laws of war. All right. Former senior government official, Dr. Morton Halperin, thank you so much for being with us. We greatly appreciate it. Of course, Dr. Halperin, of course, serving four administrations, and this is the very thing you did at the beginning of the Clinton administration, talk about the military response, what's legal, what's not legal as it pertains to drug cartels.

So give us your reporting from inside the White House. There does seem to be, again, listening to the statement of separation here. We know the history. A lot of people in the White House don't like Pete Hagsit. A lot of people in the transition team, powerful people in the transition team. Got tired of him lying to them, according to my reporting. Got tired of him lying to them time and time again. And he's just not a beloved figure there, and he's certainly not a beloved figure on Capitol Hill among Republicans.

So the question is, what are you hearing inside the White House? So what about Admiral Bradley? We haven't heard much about him and resignations. So there are a couple things here. There are a couple things here. First, you're right, the Secretary Hegseth, not a popular figure in the West Wing. His one defender has been, to this point, President Trump, although even he was irritated during the transition about the lack of the Hegseth wasn't forthcoming.

Now, is that because he likes Hegseth or because he doesn't like turnover? It's a little bit of both. I'm told he does like Hegseth. He likes his performance on camera. That's why he got the job in the first place, his Fox News days. And then he also has, it's been a point of pride for this administration that this year, first term, first year of the second term has not had nearly the turnover of his first year of his first term back in 2017. I think it's of note. We didn't see President Trump yesterday. He held no

public events. He's been pretty active on truth social, but nothing about this. We are supposed to see him later today, however. So we'll see. It's been described to me that he is still standing with Heggseth, but Trump's loyalty only goes so far. He stands with you until he doesn't. We know he's watching media coverage. Let's see how this plays out. He's seeing how Republicans react. And then in terms of Admiral Bradley, he's someone who, you're right, is being very much clearly pointed as the fall guy right here. Secretary Hegset's tweet last night meant to be supportive, clearly signaled out that he's the guy. I think we'll be hearing him on Capitol Hill before too long. I think lawmakers should go want to speak to him.

But let's also remember another name. Admiral Alvin Halsey. Halsey was the head of Southcom. He was in charge of that region. He resigned after a heated meeting with Secretary Hegsaith back in early October, about a month after this, in the middle of all of these strikes. He's staying on to the end of the year, but he's leaving far sooner than he was supposed to,

in part because it's been reported, he was uncomfortable with the legality or lack thereof of what we're seeing off the coast of Venezuela. And really, think about this. Think about how chilling it is for Pete Heggisth, that you have somebody who resigned

in anger, reportedly over this. And also, as David Ignatius said, well, actually, he quoting the Wall Street Journal editorial page, these admirals, these officers, they have receipts. They aren't going to do this without making sure they have evidence of authority sent by Pete Hegesith, which is why, I'm just, I personally believe, which is why the White House had to come out yesterday and admit this happened and not blame it as Pete Hegesith did on

lefty fake news reporters. Right. Initially, they were like, I don't know what you're talking about. The receipts are all out there. And, you know, he can BS people on podcasts all he wants. You're not going to be able to do that with the top admirals. Yeah, the reflex

is to blame the media, but in this case, it's not going to work because someone like Admiral Bradley, who has a career's worth of experience, but also goodwill inside the Pentagon, among people that he's worked with. And frankly, within the White House, it's not going to work. The other angle of the story that we're going to talk about more, is this question that you heard raised

in the briefing room yesterday of, how can you say that a pardon of the former Honduran president who was dumping tons and tons of cocaine on this country is consistent with this idea that you're going hard after narco terrorist by blowing up 39 foot fishing boats with some drugs on them allegedly? We don't know. We don't have all the information yet. That does not square to pardon that guy who's an actual drug kingpin sitting in the presidential palace in Honduras and was sitting in jail, was supposed to be in jail for 45 years convicted by a jury, that doesn't fit. Well, we're going to continue to follow this a lot more ahead on Morning Joe.

Presidential envoy, Steve Whitkoff, is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow this morning. We'll talk about what to expect from that meeting and what it could mean for the war in Ukraine. And as we go to break, a quick look at the travelers' forecast this morning from Ackyweathers, Bernie Raino. Bernie, how's it looking? Mika, pack your patience this morning. The Acky Weather Exclusive forecast calling for rain in New York City, Philadelphia. Rain arrives in Boston this afternoon. Snowy travel across the interior sections of the northeast.

In the southeast, it's a soaking rain this morning, Atlanta, Charlotte, Charleston. Clouds break for some sunshine farther west into Texas. If you're doing any traveling, there's going to be delays late today in Boston this morning in Atlanta all day in New York City and Philadelphia. To help you make the best decisions and be more in the know, make sure to download the Accuather app today. The city's a flood And I love the turns to rest. Patriots in field goal range at the moment. Here's one downfield and caught for the touchdown.

Kyle Williams. Man, is he good? Drake May's second touchdown pass against the New York Giants last night, drew MVP chance, and they might be right this year from the home crowd in Foxborough, Patriots quarterback steering New England to its 10th consecutive win, Jonathan Lamar.

How about that? The 11 and 2 New England Patriots go into their buy as the top seed in the AFC right now. Drake May was spectacular. Also a side note, let's just keep these uniforms. The throwback Patriot, the red uniform. The blue ones are fine. These are better. The pat's

completely in control last night, May surgical against the Giants. 282 yards, two touchdowns, no interceptions, completely at ease. best 11 and 2 record. Giants allowed 30 points in the first half. Wow. You did that for the first time since 2009. Losing

their seventh straight. Watch his hit. Look at this hit on Jackson. DART, the rookie quarterback. Oh, another bad day for a start at a brawl. It was a clean hit. As a Giants fan, I hate to say it, he was in bounds. He'd been sidelined, of course, last two games because of concussion. Did come back and play, though. The real low here,

I hate to see this. Check this out, Joe. Second quarter, kicker, Youngway, Cooley. watching a field goal attempt in spectacular fashion yeah you're going to get the replay and really drink it in here ready good runtime pro bowl kicker

hold looks good yeah everything looks good and then Omar oh might be a sprained ankle actually hate to set of that three points the holder is sacked for a loss on fourth down that that looks like when I'm trying to hit a three iron wow here's so if you hit it

jacks it junk it just You just hit it fat. But how do you do that? Here's how the broadcast called it. Yikes. 47-yard try now by Youngway Cooney, Stumble. Gillen gets swallowed up.

Oh, my God. He tripped. He tripped. The kicker, the kicker tripped trying to kick the field goal. He tripped over the turf. I have not seen that. I've never seen that.

There it is. I guess that goes down as a miss? I don't know. He never touched the ball. Eli, it's like one of your fat nine irons you get. You just all brash. That's right. There it is.

That's what you call hitting it fat. Yeah. I wish I do on every iron shot. Patriots Mike's Giants 3. It kind of sums up where the Giants are this year, Willie. Yeah, that's kind of a butt fumble moment if people. Jets fans were. remember it symbolized an era for the

chance. This may be the moment. No, it's pretty rough. And I do agree, though, the Patriots need to stay in the Grogan red. It takes you back to Steve Grogan. I mean, we weren't nearly as successful in those jerseys, I'll know. Went to the Super Bowl.

And lost 46 to 10. Well, there was the Bears. But we get the Super Bowl shuffle out of it. That's true, and the documentary. No, look, they won't go to them all the time because they've been so successful in the Brady era blues. But like, once a season, seem to bring those back. Fans love them. They're the best.

Really? Oh, go ahead. Grogan, the only quarterback I can remember that were a neck roll. The neck roll. That was a linebacker. Look, it was a tough guy, man. He was tough. Wasn't Jim Plunkett before that? I think Plunkett did too. He was a Patriot. Yeah, he was a Patriot. Yeah, it was Grogan. The Super Bowl year

was Steve Grogan and Tony Eason. Right. Yeah. I like that. Neither very good at that point of their careers. You know, we've had some upgrades of quarterback since. And that's also the story last night, is how good Drake May was in his second year. And with Stafford struggling over the weekend, yeah, May's back in the MVP mix. So, Willie, I've got to talk to you really quickly about Vanderbilt. Of course, we heard about two coaches getting new contracts.

One was a horrifically ugly story of Batten Rogue, as I think the New York Post is calling Lane Kiffin, who just can't leave any coaching job without burning down every. bridge behind him. He's just, it's just bad, bad news. The obstinate is Clark Lee, who showed absolute class before, during, and after Vanderbilt's shocking win. And it is a, for people that have followed the SEC, Vanderbilt controlling the Vols in Neeland Stadium, that's a shocking victory. Yeah, I mean, this team has made us believe. We're in the past, you'd say, all right, we had a good season. It's going to be a tough one in Neeland Stadium in Knoxville. But we believe Even we get down a little bit with Pavia quarterback and Clark Lee as our coach, they've got us to a place where we believe.

And I've been, I got to Vanderbilt in 93. I've been a fan for 33 seasons. We've had five winning seasons. So 28 losing seasons. Two of them were 7 and 6. We were 6 and 6 and won a bowl game. This is obviously far and away the best season in Vanderbilt history. But to go 10 and 2 through the gauntlet, as you know very well of the SEC, there's just no easy game.

This isn't like a Notre Dame. No, 10 and 2. No, and it's like we beat Auburn at home. Well, Auburn's down this year. Auburn is good. Their defense is incredible. They almost beat Alabama the other day. So every week, weekend, week out, to go 10 and 2 in that conference, to undefeated at home, to win on the road, four top 20 wins.

You got a quarterback, let's be honest, who's going to be really fun to have in the playoff if you do that. And what Clark Lee has built there from almost nothing when he got to school and to have us at 10 and 2 with a legitimate shot to be. in the playoff and have a guy who at least will be invited to the Heisman ceremony. It's stunning and it's a dream. But listen, let's talk really quickly, though, about the playoffs and still what a scam they are right now. I know Alabama had some rough years the past couple of years with a couple of losses, but it came down to the University of Alabama under Nick Saban going to a bowl or TCU.

Everybody knew Alabama would have beaten. And this TCU after they lost the K State the week before, everybody knew Alabama would win by 50 points of them. TCU goes to the playoffs, and what do they lose by? 60 points? I don't know. They get crushed. Last year, it's Alabama.

SMU being chosen instead of Alabama. What a joke. This year, now you're having to deal with the fact that the 12 best teams in football aren't going to go again to the playoffs, because look at the horrible teams that will get in there over Vandy, most likely. Vanderbilt is one of the 12 best teams in the country. No doubt about it. Full stop.

this point, it tended to. But there are obligations with conferences. But like North Texas State or something? So you might get North Texas, you might get Tulane. You could get Duke potentially. They're seven and five this year if they win the ACC championship. Wild thought. Just put the 12 best teams in and let them go at it. So Vanderbilt deserves to be there. Can they climb through some of that mess ahead of them in teams that they're better than? I hope the committee sees it that way. All right. So we're going to take a break. When we come back, Eugene Robinson's going to join us. We have Mark Palomopoulos here on the set to talk about the top story of the day. Also joining us, Senator Mark Kelly. Of course, he was among the Democrats who made that video urging members of the military to follow the law and not follow illegal orders. We'll be right back. By the way, and I think the Columbia, what are they, the walking falcons, the lions. Don't get in there one of these years. We're going to just miss out this year.

Just how many, how many losses? You're two and eight. Okay. Okay. That's actually a good year for the Columbia. Oh, no, but an improvement. Scarring. But if the U.S. military knew about survivors from that initial September 2nd strike

and sought to strike again and kill everyone on board who had survived, is that illegal? Is that a war crime? Well, I don't think there's any question that that's a war crime if it happened in that way. I think the best thing that's happening now is that the Armed Services Committee in both the Senate and the House have indicated that they're going to do a full investigation of this issue. And I think that's what's needed because there's obviously going to be a lot of different viewpoints. You heard what the president said. but I think ultimately it's up to those committees to find out exactly what happened and if it was a war crime to make sure we hold people accountable.

Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta weighing in on the September drug boat attack that included a second strike on the vessel. I want to ask David Ignatius. David, where is the chairman of joint chiefs? Where is General Kane in all of this? We haven't heard anything from him. So it's a good question. This is a period where uniformed military is being asked in effect to take the fall for the Secretary of Defense. And you think that General Kane, at a time when people in the Pentagon are deeply concerned about this, would be more visible. He spoke over the weekend to the chairman of the House and Senate Armed Services Committee and went through,

in a classified way, details that they wanted to know about, about these operations in the Caribbean. But this is a time when we're really looking for the person who represents our military to be present,

to, in a sense, offset or counterbalance Secretary of Defense. And so it would be a good time to see more of General Kaine. But the fact that he's been so absent has been noted to me by several senior military officials in the last 24 hours.

You know, David, we were just talking during the break about the Washington Post, which has been beaten up and bruised and bloodied over the past year, as you know, as you know very well, but how fascinating that it's a Washington Post that breaks, if this plays out the way the reporting shows, breaks something that easily a Pulitzer. type story that has rocked Washington to its core. I'm just curious. The fact that there are five sources

that knew about this that talked to the Washington Post without you talking about any sources, and I don't even know if you know anything about the sources, what does that tell you about the information that is out there, not just for Washington Post reporters, but also for people like Roger Wicker on the Senate Armed Services Committee. What do they know, you think?

Well, obviously, we don't know, and I don't know and don't want to speculate about the sourcing for the Post story. I just will note that the journalists who are doing it are outstanding and have a track record of real excellence. I just would note, Joe, that since the beginning of October, this question, what happened on September 2nd? And what's the evidence? What's the text of the execute order that Pete Hegseth delivered on the second that provided the authorities for this act? Those are not new questions. The chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee in a letter on October 6th demanded all of that evidence to go over it. As long ago as that, they knew there was something here that required attention.

It just didn't add up. Similarly, the famous video in which Mark Kelly and a string of other people say to officers and soldiers, you have a responsibility not to obey illegal orders. How, you know, resonant is that now, as we see. Wow. They do. Admiral Frank Bradley, his career, you know, in great danger. And the question is, was he given an illegal order that he should have said,

Mr. Secretary, I just, I need to consult a lawyer. I can't, I can't follow through with that. I'm not sure that's appropriate. So, you know, this has been coming at us. We haven't seen it clearly enough, but it's been coming at us for a couple of months. And I think what's really important is that the House and Senate committees now have the bit in their teeth. They're going to continue with this until they've got the facts. And they're almost certain, as we were talking about earlier, to have audio and video to help them know exactly what happened. said what to whom? Yeah. David Ignatius, thank you. And I thank you, David, so much. Greatly appreciate it. And we should also note to the extraordinary reporting here by the

Washington Post, this all comes after Secretary Hegsa through them and the rest of the Pentagon Press Corps out of the building. You no longer have access to the Pentagon, toss them out, and they and our colleagues and other outlets, including here, just said, well, we're going to keep doing our job. We're going to do our reporting from other places and look at what they've delivered. And you have inside the Pentagon. a newspaper run by a Chinese religious cult, and you don't have the major American newspapers in there. And he actually thought, he thought he could get away with it.

He thought he could get away with doing what ever he wanted to do inside the Pentagon because he has a news source run by a Chinese religious cult reporting on him instead of the Wall Street Journal. Laura Lumer has a desk in the press room at the Pentagon now, not the Washington Post, Washington Post delivering these stories. All right, on that note, joining us now, MS Now Political Analyst and contributing writer to the Atlantic, Eugene Robinson, and retired CIA officer Mark Polymeropoulos. He's now an MSN national security and intelligence analyst.

Let's read from the Wall Street Journal's editorial board of the new piece this morning, shooting the wounded on drugboats, question mark there. It reads in part, the charge of deliberately killing the defenseless is serious enough to warrant a close look from Congress. That includes Mr. Hegesith giving an account under oath. The administration so far seems to think it can write out the story with ritual denunciations of the media. Our view is that the commander in chief deserves legal latitude as part of his constitutional war powers, but that does not extend to shooting the wounded in violation of U.S. and international rules of war. The drugboat war is presenting

questions of presidential power and America's role in the world that will continue long after President Trump leaves Washington and good for lawmakers who appreciate the stakes. Mark, it does appear just listening to Republicans on Capitol Hill in positions of leadership, rank and file Republicans, they know how serious this is, expressing real concerns, they want to have hearings, they want to know more about what happened here. How do you see this playing out from here? Well, as someone who ran these type of kinetic operations, I mean, my first reaction when I saw the reporting, it was just like, ah, this isn't right. The notion of two survivors clinging to a boat, the double tap, there's a notion of infeasibility of capture. There's so many things that went wrong with this. And so absolutely, you know, an investigation is warranted. I think what troubles me on this is they're throwing Mitch Bradley under the bus. He's the special operations commander. You worked with him, right? I worked with him for about a decade ago. for several years.

Tell us about him. He is a man of honor, of integrity. He is enormously well respected. He was in charge of the Navy's most elite counterterrorism units, SEAL Team 6, I think everyone knows who they are. And he was someone who had tremendous relations, you know, throughout the Pentagon, also with the intelligence community. And yesterday, when this happened, my phone blew up.

There's a lot of really angry people in the national security world who see him, a man of honor getting thrown under the bus. And, you know, he deserves a chance to explain what happened. And I think that will occur. Do you envision him following an illegal order? You know, I have a hard time doing so. I wonder how he would not have had a JAG officer, a military lawyer right next to him for this, or some type of order. But we have to see.

And, you know, one of the things, kind of, again, in my circles is this is what happens with a regime like this. Pete Heggzeth and Donald Trump are asking for absolute loyalty and fealty. Well, they also fired. Pete Hexeth fired the top JAG officers. All the JAG officers, right. and the inspector generals as well. And so for that, the JAG officers that were fired just to clarify because it's something General Hurdling wanted me to say, those that were fired had nothing to do with this.

Right. And had nothing to do. They weren't fired because of this issue. And one of those JAG officers that got fired wanted to clarify that. You know, when you run these type of operations, when we did so at CIA, we always had lawyers right next to us because you have to stay on the right of the law. There's no option here. And so, you know, a forensic analysis has to happen at the end of day. But, you know, how in the world are you going to get people like Commander Bradley or like my old colleagues at CIA to do really tough things like this when they're thrown completely under

the bus? And again, my circles are not happy right now. And I imagine within the Pentagon there's a lot of question amongst the uniform military, you know, is the president, is the Secretary of Defense ever going to have our backs? Right. And then there's this. The White House is doubling down on its defense of President Trump's pardon for the former president of Honduras, who was convicted of drug trafficking last year. White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt defended the pardon yesterday, arguing that the conviction of Juan Orlando Hernandez was the result of a politicized trial. The White House also noted the indictment and trial of Hernandez began during the Biden administration. But here's one key point of context.

The investigation that led to the conviction of Hernandez started under President Trump's first term and was overseen by Trump's former personal attorney, Emil Bovey. So he was, he started, that guy right there, started the investigation. Correct. Huh, that's interesting.

Hernandez. Because if you were just listening to all the White House said, you would be very confused because they're blaming, did he work for Biden? Trump. Trump. Trump's first term. Okay, right. He started the investigation.

Did he work for Joe Biden? John, I'm a little sketchy on this. Did he ever work for Joe Biden? This guy that was showing on TV around, do you ever work for Joe Biden? He did not. He did not. He did not. But he started the investigation.

That's right. He did not work for President Biden. He worked, as he still does, for President Trump. This happened during Trump's first term. Oh, very good. And this is the work he did. He was Hernandez. was originally sentenced to 45 years in a U.S. prison for conspiring to transport hundreds of

tons of cocaine through his country and into the United States. And upon sentencing, the Justice Department said Hernandez was, quote, at the time, at the center of one of the largest and most violent drug trafficking conspiracies in the world. All right. So Gene Robinson, obviously, I mean, you know, the white. The White House loves to go out and say, and Pete Hegesith and Republican senators who really are trying to justify what could be a war crime went out over the weekend saying, these narco terrorists are flooding the streets of our cities. They are at war with our families and children, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And while they're saying that, and saying that drugs are flooding in from Venezuela that are actually flooding in from other Central American countries, certain sort of drugs, you have a guy who's pardoned, who's considered one of the biggest

drug lords from his perch as president in Honduras in the entire hemisphere. I mean, the inconsistencies are so bad that this is one more example of the Maga base looking, going, wait a second, and people that are struggling to get by and pay their bills going, wait a why is he focusing on pardons for narco drug lords and focusing on invading Venezuela and focusing on like double taps and not focusing on us yeah and that's the that's a very good question look this whole trump administration's policy in this new drug war makes absolutely no sense at all. Venezuela is not the source of, you know, there's no fentanyl coming from Venezuela. There's maybe some cocaine, not really a lot. That's not the primary route. It comes through. We still

have seen no evidence that these boats that they're blowing up are actually carrying drugs, that these are actually drug traffickers, and maybe some of them are, I'm sure, but We don't know that. And meanwhile, the same with Hernandez in Honduras is absolutely outrageous. This is a man who allegedly reportedly said, essentially, yeah, we're going to just shove the cocaine up the noses of the Yankees, of the gringoes. You know, I mean, this is not a good guy. He was convicted in a U.S. court. You know, by a jury of his peers, I mean, this is, and just to just pardon this guy, you have to wonder what's going on.

And even if you're not a conspiracy theorist or whatever, why on earth would you give this guy a pardon at a time when, supposedly on the other hand, you're cracking down on the scourge of drugs? It makes absolutely no sense. And I hope that this is something that also gets attention from the relevant congressional committees. They need to, I want some investigation of this. I want to know what these relationships are that Hernandez may or may not have with this administration. It is just weird. And despite what the White House has said about there being virtually no evidence, there was a mountain of evidence that this president. was helping to run a drug trafficking ring from the presidential palace in Honduras,

as you said, he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 45 years in prison. Now free, though, thanks to President Trump. Some other news this time from Russia, presidential envoy, Steve Whitkoff, scheduled to meet with Vladimir Putin in Moscow in just a few hours. It is Whitkoff's sixth trip to Russia since January. It comes days after a negotiating team led by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, met with a Ukrainian delegation in Florida. Keeves' defense minister who led the talks for Ukraine, said substantial progress was made in those meetings. Meanwhile, Ukrainian president, Vladimir Zelensky, spent

yesterday in Paris meeting with leaders, including that country's president, Emmanuel Macron, and later the UK's prime minister, Kier Starmor. A French official told MS now, Macron and President Trump spoke by phone after Zelensky's visit, with Macron underscoring the need for firm security guarantees for Ukraine. So Mark, where are we in this story? Obviously, there was a peace deal that was proposed that was untenable to the Ukrainians, obviously. They weren't going to give up all that and give up the chance to be a part of NATO and the rest of it. On the other side of it, Putin's not going to agree to a deal that doesn't give him everything he wants. So where does that leave us? So Putin is clearly going to say no to whatever the deal that is put in front of them. I mean,

there are some parts of this that I think we are actually interested in what are the security guarantees. I mean, if there are NATO-like guarantees, that's a very good thing for Ukraine. That's something that Zelensky has wanted. Talk about the importance of that, because the Ukrainians have said that they're getting the sort of Article 5 type security guarantees that they need. Marco Rubio also a few days ago saying in that meeting with the Ukrainians, that the only deal that we can agree to is a deal that gives them the security guarantees and is a deal that ensure they'll never be attacked again. And that's something that Zelensky absolutely needs. Remember, anything that happens in terms of the negotiations, he has to sell back to the Ukrainian

public. And so, you know, the notion, of course, of seeding land that Ukraine has back to Russia in any type of deal, that's going to be very difficult for Zelensky to go forward on. But the bottom line is this is something that I think a lot of us have really pushed for. There has to be some type of guarantee. The key point in this is Putin's going to say no, and then we all go back to the beginning again. And really, the key person on this is President Trump. What's he going to do when Putin rejects whatever is put in front of him? You know, where's this sanctions bill that Senator Graham pushed forth? I mean, there's been no leverage that we really have put on Russia. Will we see this now after this round of diplomacy, I think inevitably

fails? That's the big question. That is the big question because right now, of course, we're talking about security guarantees, even in exchange for the Dunbos, parts that they didn't win, that Putin could not win during the war. But let's say there is that deal, a deal that the Ukrainians won't like, a deal that Vladimir Putin doesn't like, but a deal all the same that the White House presents. When Putin rejects that, what is the Trump administration's next move? That is the question. As we know, we've chronicled all year long. President Trump has grown increasingly frustrated with President Putin, believing this would be a war he could end.

This would help his Nobel Peace Prize case and the like, and he has, Putin has, of course, said no. and Trump has been embarrassed at times, really angry at times about this. But he has yet, to Mark's point, to really pull the lever here to use American pressure, whether it's sanctions, flooding Ukraine with more weapons, whatever might be. But he was talking about more weapons. And then Vladimir Putin always seems whenever Donald Trump's about to put his foot down, that's when he'll make the phone call. That is exactly right. Putin has been one step ahead in this process.

And it was, in fact, after Steve Whitkoff had conversations with some of Putin's top allies and even recommended to him. Why doesn't President Putin call, you know, President Trump? He did. That phone call took place while Zelensky was in the air, flying to Washington thinking, not a guarantee, but thinking slash hoping, he might have even gotten Tomahawk missiles then. That didn't happen. So the question is, will Trump now take that extra step if, indeed, this deal falls apart?

We should also note, Mika, that this is a moment of real political precariousness for Zelensky. His chief of staff just resigned. There's a big corruption scandal in Kiev. And he also, any deal? that involves Ukraine giving up land has to be voted on by the people. So there's a lot of complicated stuff ahead. MS Now,

National Security and Intelligence analyst Mark Polymeropolis. Thank you very much for coming on this morning.