charges coming down the pike later. that hasn't been mentioned, but that is a real concern for those folks that he has put up and they may have issues with a may be tempted to lie to the fbi and you are on the hook and talking to some private agency that doesn't have the same authority. >> it also seems like the vetting process they have used has already missed some pretty damaging material. we really appreciate you for joining us. we hope that you will come back soon. thanks to you for getting up way too early . morning joe starts now. morning joe starts now. how have your meetings been today sir? >> they're going great. senators have been giving me a lot of good advice, looking forward to the hearing. folks have been very supportive and say we are going to get a fair process so it is a great day of momentum. >> are you confident you will

get confirmed by the senate? >> it was a great day. >> i don't think there is any way he could get confirmed if this is accurate. and i will tell you, i will say, matt, when he is being confronted about it has denied it over and over again. if it turns out that matt gaetz was lying, you will see a lot of opinions change on this. it is extremely concerning. it was already a hard push to get matt to be confirmed to begin with but this will make it difficult if it comes out that it is true. >> that is senator mark wayne mullins reacting to "the new york times" reporting a trail of payments from matt gaetz to women. gaetz was on capitol hill trying to win support for his bid for attorney general. good morning.

we have bureau chief of politico. >> outstanding at his job. >> he is great. >> day in and day out. >> i will use you as a reference. >> he is the cal ripken of early morning tv. every day shows up. i'm sorry. we have more important t introductions. >> macy lovally, from the white house state department and president emeritus, richard hops, and congressional reporter for the washington post, jackie almay. we have a lot to tag about. >> a lot to talk about. there is a lot to look at in the papers really quickly. "the wall street journal" editorial page, the republicans in the house may be trying to keep this from the republicans in the senate and let's just make sure we say here this isn't

a democrat versus republican thing, this is an intermural battle between house republicans, some house republicans, maybe one or two house republicans, because the rest want this report out and the senate. and "the wall street journal" editorial page says the senate has every right to see the report on gaetz before confirming his nomination as president-elect trump's attorney general even without the house report. the senate could call the same witnesses to testify, and they will, and senator john cornyn suggested that in order to do our job, we need to get access to all information and protect the president from any surprises that might damage his administration. again this isn't just about the justice department. it is not just about america, selfishly, it should be for donald trump as well. it will be a disaster. it is a disaster. "the wall street journal" editorial page says the senate

would be justified in sticking to that line, whatever the political pressures that trump might bring to bear for a speedy confirmation on gaetz. willie the news just keeps coming out. you got so many layers of problems here. he's not qualified. nobody thinks he's qualified. everyone says let's see the report before -- everyone knows he's not qualified for the job. everyone knows he doesn't play well with others. the house republican members can't stand him. we have a clip on all of the nasty things he said about republican senators. you have sworn testimony that he had sex with a 17-year-old girl at a drug fuelled orgy under oath. these people would be sent to jail if they were lying. one after another. i can see that you are looking right now and alex is saying,

why doesn't joe let them read the story? >> we will find ary melber's clip. >> but they say we will get this, that and the other before we talk. i love the introof what the senator said, if the allegations are true, then -- he knows they are true. and everyone knows they are true based on sworn testimony where people would have been sent to jail if they were lying. >> senator mullins there is the one who famously said that matt gaetz would describe how he would crush up ed medication and chase it with power drinks so he could have a longer evening. >> wow. >> retchered, that doesn't happen on good morning america.

>> forgive me. i wandered down that path and realized there was no turning back. these are republicans who do not miss a chance to find a microphone to criticize matt gaetz. it is personal on many levels but they are also saying the report is crushing. this report would eliminate -- if one or two details were true, this would end the nomination. so we will see how much more capital donald trump wants to spend. he is pushing this, how far can i push these men and women in the republican party. at the moment, on matt gaetz, they seem to be saying matt gaetz is the line for us. >> before the nomination, it was well known how much fellow republicans despised matt gaetz. you need friends and he doesn't have any. jd took hem around the hill and they had meetings but t they were notably noncommittal to the nomination. you are right.

trump is trying to push this. he has a number of controversial picks but it seems like the senate is standing up against this one. we will get into the house ethics committee, republicans on the committee voted to block the release of the report yesterday. but there is a widely held belief that it will see the light of day. we heard from republican senators that we need to see that. that report will emerge. even if it were not, there are serious questions ophis qualifications and character. trump is trying to push his colleagues as far as he can in the upper chamber bought we are seeing some real resistance. i think the nomination is in doubt. >> and "the wall street journal" brings up a good point, e if they don't release it in the house, it gets worse for him because they bring the witnesses live to capitol hill.

so this meltdown can occur on live television with live witnesses. nobody, nobody should want that to happen in the trump administration and i doubt that the ag nominee would want that to happen. ooem not sure what the stance is. if they will try to restart appointments and do a constitutional crisis, they gethat way. why trot that around? this ends badly any way you cut it. >> i think we are missing what this is about at the end of the day. you had a full fbi background investigation. i had one and they are going back to your home town and talking to the preacher and checking with everyone. it is not because they care about your morality. they care about if your morality leads you to become compromised. this is not wanting an sex

addict, drug addict having control of the nation's top secrets at the end of the day. so this is important and it is not about morality at the end of the day. >> and to your point, senator mike rounds said if you don't release the report, we relive this whole thing in a hearing. a document obtained by "the new york times" shows federal investigators have traced payments from matt gaetz and women who say they were paid by the former congressman to have sex with him. the document shows how gaetz and a friend sent thousands through venmo to dozens of people who claimed to be involved in sex parties from 2017 to 2020. those people have testified to federal and congressional investigators. sources familiar with the case say among those who received payment was a woman who was 17 years old when she attended one

of the parties. the times report uses a thumb nail to show how payments flowed between them. it was assembled when the justice department was investigating. >> that looks complicated. there are a lot of lines roit there. a lot of activity on venmo. >> that is russell crow and a beautiful nine level lines on a chart. the doj declined to file charmgs but the house ethics committee was given a copy. the chart does not show what the payments were for. nbc news has not independently veryified the document. a lawyer for two women who testified that gaetz hired them for sex said their payments totaled $10,000 and they were typically given $500 for each encounter. the material was claimed to be

classified and leaked to smear gaetz. according to times, there are no classified markings on the documents. gaetz has denied all allegations of sexual misconduct. >> yeah, that's piling up there. here's the thing, the speaker and others are being clever saying they are not releasing the report. releasing the report would be better than reliving it on the hill in a senate committee with everyone seeing it. and that would be the worst case scenario for the incoming president, the worst case scenario for republican supporters. you talk about a needless distraction which "the wall street journal" has talked about. carl rove talked about how the first week of nominations went well and then he came to gaetz

which was a colossally bad selection. again, you wonder how much scar tissue they are going to want to take on over this with the new york post, "the wall street journal" editorial page, republican senators, all saying this guy is not fit to be attorney general. >> whether or not matt gaetz or republicans want the report to come out, details of it and perhaps the most lurid and salacious details will come out because of what you laid out. some of the witnesses, women who were 17 years old when they had an encounter with matt gaetz are going to be called as witnesses to testify before the committee. their lawyers have told us extensively over the past two weeks that they want to avoid doing so. that's why we are seeing them academic this public appearance over the past few days to lay

out the allegations that the clients have made behind closed doors. while we didn't confirm the document obtained by "the new york times" which shows the breadth of the investigation in a way that we haven't seen before that was ultimately cleared and dropped by the justice department two years ago in 2022, they decided that the witnesses, there was credibility with the witnesses and didn't pursue charges against gaetz. we did obtain exhibits shown to the committee and there were that showed some of the venmo and paypal requests given to the women who testified they were paid for sex with matt gaetz. this is outside of the sex trafficking, matt gaetz having a sexual encounter with a minor. there were 27 different paypal payments and venmo payments shown in the exhibits that

totaled $10,000 and the notes next to the payments were a variety of descriptions from love you, to gifts to cartridges. in the past few days when we have been in conversations with the clients, they have been very clear that gaetz was paying them and sometimes for sex and also to have sex with other people at these drug fuelled parties. >> he is not popular on capitol hill and he has colleagues who will vote on his nomination. and here's what we were talking about from the beat with ary melber. it shows him trashing his colleagues. >> we have them rejecting duties as senators and if they do that, their voters should reject them. >> our leadership is

enshamebles, mcconnell is wavering. >> mitch mcconnell's real legacy is that he was missing in action when we needed him the most. spent a lot of times in the senate putting special interest above american interest. >> my advice going forward is that the republican leadership doesn't need to pick one of the johns, john thune, john cornyn, john burr aso. there will be other options. senator tillis trying to get another blank check for a corrupt country. it is disappointing. >> we are counting on our hands. and we had to go to a second hand. >> those are recent senators. >> all of the ones he said in that moment. he said a lot more. jackie, as you look at the process and understanding capitol hill so well, it seems like speaker johnson is giving the ethics committee some space and that they need to continue their discussion and decide whether they will let that

report go public and if they don't, there is a 100% chance it will find its way to the light of day in the media. how do you see this played out with pressure from trump and jd on the top and such disdain for gaetz in congress? >> you can't underestate the amount of vitriol that senators have for matt gaetz. there is one important ally he has and something he has fostered a close relationship with since 2016, became a top ally early on in the trump administration and that is donald trump. he is someone who will not withdraw support. they will go through the process. they have demonstrated in the past few days that they are going to take a more persuasion approach, rather than the rooch that we could imagine this leading into. what happened with the house

ethics committee was surprising considering all of the vitriol that has been directed towards gates with none of his house republicans on the committee voting in favor of releasing the report. you saw susan wiles come out saying there was no agreement not to disclose the report. that it was inaccurate for michael guest, chairman of the committee to say there was agreement. this kicks the can down the road. the ethics xhoet will meet again december 5th. it is possible it will come to a head prior to december 5th. you have two democratic members, representative steve cohen and sean casten who have called to one preserve the documents enorder that the report makes it to the senate judiciary committee, a separate process that is likely to happen if it stays behind closed doors. and then two for this to be

brought to the house floor for a privileged resolution. this would force a vote of all of the houses to call on members to release the report. democrats are trying to make this come out one way or another. you are seeing some republicans one by one say they will have discussions with mike johnson behind closed doors about that because they want this to be a part of the process and feel it is important for it to be a part of the process. >> as the old midas adds, you can pay me now or you can pay me later and it gets worse later. again, you talk about some hearings. i will tell you. he called the oklahoma senator a fool, speaking of fools. you go down all of the list of insults and those are the ones we picked out. it going to be a problem, that's

an understatement. so richard, washington is run, i mean washington is run on relationships. you know, i had one of the most conservative voting records in washington d.c.95% acu rating. every time i get on the house floor, i walked on the democrat side. i talked to people idisagreed with and made sure i built relationships with people there. that's how you get things done. you find out when things go sideways, you have friends there to stick with you. he doesn't have that. talk about washington. you have been doing this for a long time, how important it is to have those relationships, even if you are not great at relationships, not insulting everyone you come across in washington d.r. >> yeah, look, the bottom line is he is more likely to be

investigated by the next attorney general than to become the next attorney general. to say he doesn't have a reservoir of support is a generous way to put it. he has one relationship, donald trump. there is a tension between the one relationship he has and the many he doesn't have. so the question is how does that lay out, how long does the trump team stick with him. to what exitant were they surprised by any of this? what was the vetting process? is there any that happened or could happen that they say, wow, we didn't see that coming. or did they see all of it coming and say let's press ahead regardless? we were talking about this before, i don't think this happens. what is the appetite to take on three or four nominees

regardless of the lack of fitness? whether that is the original strategy or not, it may become part of the strategy. let this play out but if it attracts enough incoming than a lot of other people may survive. >> here's the problem for the three or four nominees that are as carl rove said comploetly radioactive. everyone will be concerned about matt gaetz. but if you are a republican who spent your entire adult life working on intell issues, you are going to be just as concerned about tulsi gabbard. there are likely going to be four republicans that will vote against tulsi gabbard. if you are concerned about the d.o.d., we had admiral straveets here and he said no, i'm concerned about the d.o.d. pick. i think bobby kender jr. is going to get through. i think that may be the one in normal times may have had

problems but for these three, again, it is not the same people having problem. everyone has problems with matt gaetz for 1,000 different reasons. but you talk to people who are armed services, they are just in meltdown mode, republicans, about the d.o.d. pick. and tulsi gabbard for intell community. i want to get to elise but first, some quick reporting . richard was saying he was wondering whether the trump transition team were surprised by some of these things especially with matt gaetz and the d.o.d. selection. your reporting said yes they were surprised by both of those things, with gaetz especially, the report that came out today, it was going to come out before he resigned. >> some of this was known and

other stuff came as a surprise. the hegseth allegation completely blind sided them. that's in part because they are not going through the standard vetting processes. they are not using the fbi. they have hired private companies to do it and there is concern that the vetting they are doing is minimum at best. and julian castro noted that is in part to shield the nominees from lying to the fbi and also trump's long distrust of the agency. so that is a problem, the lack of vetting. it wasn't a calculated strategy to have gaetz be a sacrificial lamb but that may happen. he has taken so much heat that it may allow the others to slide through. to your point, hegseth and gabbard are ones that other

republicans are having issues with. i wouldn't say the confirmations are sure either, though it will be a test of how much the senate republicans can stand up. >> i think right now, the gaetz selection is right here in front of everyone. the testimony against him is so universally damming, they are not looking beyond that. that is first in line. i would guess that probably the intell community would have more trouble with tulsi gabbard than even the d.o.d. pick. i'm not saying people are not having a lot of trouble but i have talked to so many republicans who have spent their entire life in the intell world that say we can't have somebody that is an appallgist for assad, or putin in there. we are talking about republicans here. i would be surprised if there were four republicans that

wouldn't vote against that selection. so on the d.o.d. selection, i still can't pronounce it, hegseth? >> hegseth. >> i will call him pete, pete hegseth. i have seen the cowboy had enough. let's get another picture. i have seen that enough. i don't like that. can we get him without fox fan things on. he at least deserves that. the problem is "the wall street journal" editorial page said i think yesterday that it is a he said, she said. so he said, she said, the details are seem shocking. he denies everything. but as they said -- let's just put it over here as he said, she

said, the bigger question is the did he tell the president elect? did he tell the transition team that he had this -- was it "the wall street journal"? >> yes. >> the board said the bigger question is, it looks bad but he is denying everything. the question is did he tell the president-elect before the nomination was made? if he didn't, well, that's almost reason enough to say what else is out there? >> the reporting is that he didn't. yes, it is he said, she said. but i would add in a huge but, with a caveat, a payment. money talks. if you are innocent, why don't you fight for your innocence instead of paying a victim? >> it also has to be said that the trump transition team was surprised by the allegations against matt gaetz is a little

implausible considering it has been a three year investigation into the house of representatives, as one phone call can find out. to put this into perspective, the idea that bobby kennedy in relation to all of these other ones seems like the easy, sane pick to run h.h.s. >> which the new york post has called a nut job, a supreme nut job? >> yes. >> the new york post editorial pages keep going after this. you expect this from "the wall street journal" editorial page but you would not expect it -- i don't know. these are crazy so maybe you would expect it from the new york post editorial page. but it is so offensive to conservives, republicans, people who supported donald trump, that they are going after it day in and day out, saying move past these crazy nominations. >> it is sort of a sustained campaign by the new york post

against a lot of nominees but very interesting from a rupert murdoch owned outlet. coming up on morning joe, we are learning about the new weapons package that the biden administration is sending to ukraine before donald trump takes office. plus, steve ratner will break down robert f. kennedy jr.'s plans. going through the impact all of this will have on public health if he is confirmed. we are back in 90 seconds. confd we are back in 90 seconds. up ou, one extra push and... crack! so, we scheduled at safelite.com. we were able to track our technician and knew exactly when he'd arrive. we can keep working! ♪ synth music ♪ >> woman: safelite came to us. >> tech: hi, i'm kendrick. >> woman: replaced our windshield, and installed new wipers to protect our new glass. that's service on our time.

>> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

you have been a cruseder on questions vaccineses. are there certain vaccines that you would seek to take off the market? >> i'm not going to take away anyone's vaccines. i've never been anti-vaccine. >> you will not take any vaccine that is currently on the market? >> if vaccines are working for somebody, i'm not going to tag them away. >> i'm sorry, i have to talk about this. this is what you call the soft bigotry of low expectations. i'm about a read a script which we don't usually do but mr. cornell grad says tome and when have they beaten the crimson

tide. >> we just got pads last week, leather helmets. >> the word you pronounce it exacerbate. it is like my mom when she was younger she visited pennsylvania to visit some relatives and they were surprised because she was from the south and wearing shoes. and all of these years later, we have gotten no further. >> what did used to say to you, you walked up bare foot from a revival? . >> he did. peter at the time was the defender of ira and we were having a big battle on whether the president of the united states should -- jerry adams, and i said i don't think he should. i think it is an insult and i

said it too loud. and they said joe scarbrough just walked out of a tent revival in northwest florida without any shoes on. and i don't know pete before that and i went up to him and this is like the personality thing, and i said that may have been the greatest quote i have read in the washington post and pete and i became fast friends. >> that's how you do it. >> it is nicer to be friends than not. there is right here, and we are going to go to steve ratner at the southwest wall because the kid is pacing over there. the kids are rushing down the stairs because they are like, mommy, daddy, uncle stevie is on. but before i get there, there is a front page column in "the wall

street journal" and it's fascinating. this is something that we all have to grapple with asa country, how science lost america's trust. voters angry over 19 measures trump back selection of rfk jr. we talk about so many things that have an impact on groceries, cost of gas, social issues, that ad that was played 30,000 times and the impact it may have had on men. this really does seem to be the sleeper issue. it more just sets the environment of this election. there is such blowback against all of the shutdowndens. >> and also science. science has somehow become a cultural issue. we saw it in the covid pandemic and also climate change.

it is elitists who say the science says x, y, z, and we should resist it. so politicization, another good word, the science has become politicized and an issue in the cultural wars which makes it incredibly difficult to have serious conversations because those promoting science are seen as elitists with agendas. >> and you have been in meetings and people talking about how some of the proposals could devastate r and d companies. >> grans coming out of the national institutes of health, could have an impact on universities and basic research there on alzheimer's. >> a zillian things. a lot of scientists are saying if we can't get the grants and public support, we are leaving. if we can't do the life saving

research here, we will go elsewhere. >> i have to say for all of his failings in defense of science during the pandemic, the operation warp speed under donald trump was one of the great achievements of the last many generations that got the vaccine in so many people and saved so many lives. that was an achievement of the trump administration that rails against science. >> and the strange thing is he can't say that in front of his crowds. any other president in any other presidential library, you would walk unand that would be the first thing because you remember at the beginning of the pandemic, what were we hearing, if we ever get a vaccine, it will take 7, 9, 12 years. you talk to any scientist and they will tell you the fact that there was a vaccine within a year, one of the more remarkable scientific achievements ever.

take it back to the polio vaccine. because so many lives were at stake and the crazy thing is he can't even talk about it. he tried to. remember that bill o'reilly talk they had and he started talking about it and bill o'reilly started saying hey, that was a pretty good thing and the crowd started booing. again, after the white hot heat of this, 30 to 40 years from now people will look back and say that was an extraordinary scientific achievement. >> operation warp speed. speaking of vaccines, you heard what robert f kennedy told vaughn hillyard of nbc that he has never been anti-vax. experts still concerned that if he is confirmed to be the hop health official, he will exacerbate the concerning rise of vaccine hesitancy in the

united states. joining us is former treasury official, economic analyst steve ratner. bobby kennedy hides behind be a skeptic of vaccine and he can say he is not anti-vax. let's walk through some of the data behind this. your first chart is what vaccines do which we need to remind people of. >> you could have come over to the southeast wall for his comments. let's talk about polio first being the most famous case. polio erupted in 1916 in brooklyn with a lot of cases. it took off again with fdr who got polio in 1921. that spurred the first effort to develop a vaccine. some of us may remember the march of dimes where everyone gave a dime for polio research. in 1955, the polio vaccine was

licensed. i was one of the first cohorts of people to get injected. i remember how excited and relieved my parents were that their kids would not have to worry about polio. and polio dropped to zero cases. and the red line are the deaths of which there were a significant enough. you mentioned covid, operation warp speed developed in one year. we have good data comparing people who got the vaccine and people who didn't. this is the omicron surge that we all remember. this is the death rate for people who did not get the vaccine. this is the death rate for the people who did get the vaccine. for people who got the booster, an even lower death rate. >> the next chart is some of the other benefits that come from vaccines to our society. what are you looking at there? >> we went down a similar path of a lot of other childhood

diseases. i grew up in a world where most of these diseases were ones that we were susceptible to as kids. look what happened. from an average of 335 cases a year of measles back in the 20th century, we have dropped down to 47, 99% drop. whooping cough, pumps, 99%, rubella which is called german measles, 99%. we have essentially eradicated smallpox everywhere in the world. that has not had a significant impact on childhood mortality around the world. this is the death rate of children under the age of one. it dropped from 1974 to 2.8% in 2024. this is what scientists estimate the death rate would be without vaccines, 101 million, call it

100 million infants around the world have been saved over this period of time because of vaccine rollouts around the world. >> all right. let's move to the final chart, steve. some other concerns if bobby kennedy takes the job at hhs, he has talked repeatedly about taking fluoride out of the water, another great accomplishment of the century. what are you looking at there? >> this is an anti-science ignorps that you want to put it in. fluoride in the drinking water has made enormous improvement in tooth health. the percent of people drinking florinated water, a study done between 1967, the number of people drinking the water road to 60%. the number of dekayed teeth

dropped like that. and it is not all fluoride, better care of teeth and so on. but every health expert will tell you that fluoride in the water contributed to that. and let me go to some other ideas that are less sensible. but on the issue of food and what kids eat and obesity, we have had a surge in type two diabetes in kids. it you find to be considered an adult onset disease. it is happening more in children. it is linked to obesity. we know what the nutritional issues are for kids. not surprisingly, kids of color have had a much higher rate of childhood diabetes and a much faster broeth in it. we have a huge nutrition and weight problem in the country among kids. this is an issue in which i

think i'm not sure taking food dyes out of kids' serials is a part of this but the cereals and mcdonald's and all of the rest is contributing heavily to this. >> we will see what happens there. remember when michelle obama and michael bloomberg talked about obesity and the like they were hammered by conservatives saying don't tell us what to eat. the thing about obesity, especially childhood obesey but obesity in general, it is such a massive issue. it is such a massive healthcare issue. it is also a massive fiscal issue. the cost of medicare and medicaid would plummet, would plummet if we seriously addressed obesey. i'm with you. if there is a renewed focus on childhood obesity from whoever

is the next hhs director, that's obviously important. and i don't know, this is radical, but getting kids in school out running, exercising, like everyone is so competitive and am i going to get into this school or that school. that's great but you have a better chance to study, exercise, if you are out there exercising at schools and schools make their students move more. and speaking of kennedy, i remember jfk's presidential fitness award when we were growing up that encouraged kids to get out and exercise. and now this is where you respond, steve. it is the first time he has done this. so he is going to be good second or third time. i'm joking. >> of course you're right. and i too remember the kennedy challenge to get us all out to

exercise. the obesity problem is much more than a childhood problem and much more than a diabetes problem. it is as you say, it costs massively more in medicare and medicaid. and it is something we need to do something about. but as you said, the trump administration rejects anything that they can categorize as being the nanny state. they don't believe government should get in the way. when you talk about things like fluoride in the water, there is enormous pushback especially out west about fluoride in the water. and they are taking it out in certain places. the antihealthcare, antiscience mentality that exists in parts of our country and parts of our citizenry, i think is really scary and dangerous. this vaccine stuff, how can you possibly say that vaccines are a bad idea?

we invented the first one in 1956 and it wiped out smallpox. would you like to have smallpox back? >> no. steve, thank you so much. my bad assist to you opthat last question. thank you. these are fascinating charts. i think they are important. we greatly appreciate it as always. a couple of things. oregon i think has taken florida out of water. so oregon, if you are running for office in oregon, you are legalizing drugs and people taking hard drugs in public parks and you are for people being able to ransack downtown portland and drive out small businesses but you are against fluoride in the water? i mean seriously, who is running oregon? it is a question i have been asking for about a decade now. it's insabe sane. i want to talk about vaccines

for a second. it shows the stupidity of politics in so many cases. before covid and before science became a white hot issue for a variety of reasons, states like mississippi, alabama, louisiana, georgia, they were the most vaccinated states in america. i come to you in mississippi because mississippi didn't even have a religious exception. that was the big debate during covid, we must have a religious exception. you are crushing our first amendment rights. and yet, mississippi and these other states, especially southern states, no exceptions. if you want to go to school, if you want to live among all of us, you will take vaccines. and in all of those states, you saw the numbers drop.

those happened during covid to be the most resistant to taking vaccines and the numbers per cacapita in a lot of those states are discouraging. >> in mississippi, it was one of the best places for wild hood vaccinations. there are so many health indicators that we lag but this we were number one in. everyone went to the local county healthcare department and you got jabbed and that was that if you were going to any school, private, public, anything. now with the politicizization of science, this is where we are. it is sad that we are turning our back on science with fluoride and all of these human advances, women's healthcare to a large extent because of just politics. >> and of course, really two things can be true at one time.

there could have been bad mistakes made during the pandemic. i say bad mistakes, it was like the fog of war. this was a once in a century pandemic. they didn't know what they were fighting against. they didn't know what was going to work. so you look back at any war and there are going to be bad mistakes made. you can put that on one side and say what happened there? let's figure that out. but don't discourage kids in mississippi and louisiana and alabama and across the country to follow the lead of hippies in northern california in communes. we used to make fun, i mean we conservatives used to make fun of the anti-vax hippies. now it is the conservatives who made fun of them saying we are going to have some of that, please. >> a lot of that is not about

science, it is about schools were closed too long objectively, they were closed too lopg. kids should have been back in school. we learned that as we went. businesses didn't need to be closed as long as they were. a lot of americans objected to the fact that they had to stay home, couldn't go to their grandmother funeral but people go out and protest in massive numbers and do that. so i think it is a little science definitely but a lot about a feeling of hypocrisy that was mixed in there. it has to be said ability bobby kennedy jr. who says he is not antivax, he has compared the child vaccine regiment in the country as a childhood holocaust. that is tied to a lot of debunked theories he has. so pay close attention to his views. coming up, republican senator rand paul is warning against part of the president-elect's mass deportation plan. we will play for you his remarks about that and we will speak

with a former member of the obama cabinet, julian castro next on morning joe. n castro next on morning joe. how are folks 60 and older having fun these days? family cookouts! ♪♪ playing games! ♪♪ dancing in the par... (high pitched sound) (high pitched sound) (high pitched sound) your business needs a network it can count on... even during the unexpected. power's out! -power's out! comcast business has you covered, with wifi backup to help keep you up and running. wifi's up. let's power on! let's power on! -let's power on! it's from the company with 99.9% network reliability. let's power on!

power on with the leader in connectivity. stay connected with comcast business internet and wifi back-up or get started for $49.99 a month. plus ask how to get up to a $500 prepaid card. call today!

a verdict came down yesterday in a case that became a focal point in the debate over crime and immigration during the presidential election. an undocumented migrant accused of killing a nursing student in georgia earlier this year named laken riley was found guilty and sentenced to life without parole. nbc news correspondent priya sridhar has more. >> i will now announce the verdict. >> reporter: after a trial that lasted four days, hosay ibarra was senanced to life without parole for the brutal killing of laken riley. >> there is no end to the pain, suffering and loss that we have

experienced and will continue to endure. >> reporter: her family and loved ones emotional, seeing the video that laken riley mother first learned her daughter died. prosecutors say the nursing student was out for a morning jog in february when ibarra lurking in the woods nearby attempted to rape her and then killed her. >> not only does the physical evidence identify him but the video identifies him. >> reporter: despite studies that show undocumented immigrants commit viewer crimes, it became a flashpoint in the debate over immigration. >> right here in our was robbed of a brilliant nursing student. >> reporter: vid yeshows laken riley's final moments, her last text to her mother and attempt to call 911 before ibarra

attacked her. >> it a direct result of the fight that gives you all of the evidence you need to convict him. >> reporter: ibarra's dna was found underneath riley's finger neelz, prints on her phone and riley's dna on the jacket he wore when he committed the crime. this video shows ibarra discard discarding the jacket. the family remembered her as a kind, selfless, loving friend and daughter. >> best daughter, sister, grand daughter, friend, overall person you could ever hope to meet. >> nbc news priya sridhar reporting for us there. obviously laken riley's name was a center of the campaign, presidential campaign. donald trump invoking her name many times, just a horrific tragedy for a bright young star who was just beginning her life.

>> and one that any of us can't imagine the absolute heart ache. it is unspeakable. and you know, as we move towards next year, and a new president, a new senate, a new house, i suspect that if there is a middle path here, it is going to be to go after violent criminals and other criminals that have committed serious crimes, that may be a middle path to get those illegal immigrants out of the country. i'm not saying that -- you know donald trump promised bloody mass deportation. he also i'm sure republicans remember what happened when there were those scenes of

mothers and children being separated, the impact that had in the 2018 off year elections. it is a loser, even if americans agree they want deportations, nobody, republicans or democrats want a repeat of that. i think this is where it starts, a middleground to find the violent criminals, other illegal immigrants who have gotten into this country and who have, i think 95% of americans would say should be deported. >> tom homan who is the newly appointed border czar said that will begin on day one and he said in recent interviews, we are going after the bad guys. that is a pretty vague term, what level of criminal are you going to pursue using i.c.e.. we will find out soon. joining us now is former u.s. secretary of housing and urban development, julian castro, political analyst, great to have

you with us. one of trump's long time allies is speaking out against the president-elect's plan to use the military as part of the mass deportation of undocumented migrants. here's what republican senator rand paul of kentucky said yesterday in an interview with news max. >> i'm not in favor of sending the army in uniforms into our cities to collect people. i think it is a terrible image and that's not what we use our military for. we never have. it has been illegal for over 100 yours to bring the army into our city. while i'm all for remain in mexico, i will not support an emergency to put the army into the city. i think that is a huge mistake. >> so i hope this is right, you are a libitarian/conservative. and that is -- that ideaological strain still runs through this republican party. i would guess that is not just

one stand alone senator, that is a big chunk of republicans that voted for republican candidates, donald trump, house members, senators, that have always warned about the military getting into the streets of american city. >> and i will give senator rand paul props for coming out and saying it against donald trump and staking out his territory as he will be head of the senate homeland security committee, and other republicans hopefully can follow his lead and say yes, we want violent criminals removed from the country but we don't want mass deportations that are using the military in the way that it was not intended by the founders to be used. >> mr. secretary, when you look at the plans as they have been floated out there which they are talking about getting 11 million illegal immigrants out of the country by force in many cases, what are you expecting here? >> you have to be prepared for

donald trump attempting to deport that many people. you never know with donald trump whether it is bluster. he said we would build the wall and mexico would pay for it. that didn't happen. there was little wall built and mexico definitely didn't pay for it. this has been a fantasy of his, mass deportation for a while. he has a team now with more experience and know how on how to get it done and control of all levers of government and a supreme court that is more supportive of him. there is already significant pishback from aclu and other legal groups providing services to up documented immigrants who are trying to become documented. there will be push back to local police who don't want their offices to be immigration because they think that will make it less safe. to the extent that the

administration sticks with a much more limited plan of people who are violent criminals, you know, it was good to see justice for laken riley's family. people agree with that. if there is someone who commits a crime like that, no matter what their status like that, they should be punished for that. but i think when you get into for instance saying that someone who has a speeding ticket from 20 years agowho otherwise is a productive citizen, i don't think that is the same category. and i don't think dreamers who have known no other country should be deported. if he tries it, there will be blow back. s it, there will b blow back. be deported. and if he tries it, there's going to be a tremendous amount of inblowback, not just from democrats, but i think from even romoderates and some republican. >> and this is a tough, tough issue to sort of sort through politically, if you're looking at lldemocrats and republicans,

tsbecause what is said on campan trails often does not match what happens in reality. and donald trump, when he talked about building the wall, it was actually lindsey graham, and i believe john cornyn, i want to get these names right, but there was one republican senator after another republican senator that said, building a wall -- yeah, building a wall is not going to take care of the problem. that was in '17 and '18 when republicans controlled congresse but let's dig even deeper.di people don't remember, barack obama was hammered by the hispanic community, by hispanic leaders, because he deported 2.1 million illegal immigrants. 90% of them, by the way, violent criminals. donald trump, if my count is right here, deported 1.2 million. 1and that wasn't for lack of crying. again, it's not just having the

people on the ground to push the deportation. there's a million different things that have to go on. >> and it's interesting, recently, congressman tony gonzalez that represents a good part of south texas, including areas right along the border mentioned that he had inquiried into how many folks fit that bill of, you know, violent o criminals, and that it was several hundred thousand. so the number that we're talking about is not 11 or 12 million. the vast majority of people who are here, who are undocumented,r yes, they may have come in and they broke the law when they came in, but they have been law-abiding, good, productive members, people that go to the same eochurch, whose kids go to the same school, who work and serve the community. >> and by the way, can we also say, run family restaurants -- help work and run family restaurants, make businesses work rein a lot of these towns main streets across america.s elise, this is, again, if

, they're violent criminals, criminals that have committed serious crimes, i think 95% of americans want them out. but if somebody has been here for if20 years, has been a law-abiding citizen, i think that's when it gets more difficult politically for republicans, again, if we have blthe images that we saw in 201 that is a political loser for any party that tries to do it. >> and if donald trump could deport a couple hundred thousand violent criminals, that gives him a win. it gives him plenty of images, it gives him, i've done this, i've delivered on a promise. and it doesn't muddle everything that he's done by king this too far. i would use the counterexample, of building the wall. donald trump independent build the wall. this could be the same kind of political deal get rid of

violent deals. one, if he goes the more retail approach, as you're suggesting, you avoid a scenario where you have massive public protests. as rand paul warned against, having to bring in the military, under the insurrection act, which twoishl for american society r and for the successfuo institution. the other thing rand paul seized in this comment, that the administration will reinsert. it make take five, ten years for this -- he can't. go in, come back for a court hearing. and how many come back. and for five, seven years,

negotiations between the new administration and to reestablish remain in mexico while your case is beinged a y indicated in the united states. >> many of the republicans that y work on capitol hill every da were re-elected on the issue of immigration. voters saying that and the economy top of mind for them.th we heard rand paul draw some kind of a line in the sand for donald trump, don't try to use the military, but what would be the posture of most republicans as he pursues this mass deportation? >> before i get to that, i do want to hajump on something tha richard noted, which is the law chthat gives the president sortf this limitless power to use the military domestically, the insurrection act, i would be i remiss not to look back on our january 6th coverage, which is a handful of lawmakers, and even some republicans at the time, who encourage reforms to the

insurrection act. you know, lawmakers do have some autonomy here, especially during this lame-duck session, du potentially, to get something ia through, to make reforms, to try to curb trump's limits and his ability to be able to use the military. and we know in the last administration, in this first ra administration, that he threatened several times over the course of his term to use o the military in inappropriate ways such as clearing protesters who are protesting george floyd's murder, using the national guard in a pretty violent way thin lafayette squa to clear protesters. so they do have some power here, but i do think that you are going to see the majority of senate republicans not throw themselves into the crossfire here. not side with rand paul, who, you know, is notoriously dovish on some of these things and has a very libertarian view of the way that the military can be utilized, domestically and ut

internationally. but i do think that most republicans, at the end of the day, they are a bit -- they lean towards supporting some of the options ppoutlined in that bipartisan border bill that wasu tossed to the wayside earlier this year, that, though, is unlikely to be resurrected now with incoming president-elect trump. >> all t-right, jackie, thank y so much, as always. we greatly appreciate it. mr. secretary, let me ask you, and also ask as somebody who's mayor of san antonio, and who understands the region, as you do, and i'm going to be talking about the border along -- the texas border, the exas/mexico border. i look at the election results and for democrats, i see bad news, not in wisconsin or michigan or pennsylvania, the states we focus the most on, because kamala harris was, you know, less than one point from

beating donald trump in wisconsin, but a point and a half in michigan, about a point and a half --ch you know, one a a half points in pennsylvania. and democrats won races for the senate in nevada and arizona and wisconsin and in michigan. so, those states are still up for grabs. those states are still swing states. what i looked at on that map, and if i were a democrat trying to figure e out how to win next time, what would scare the hell out of me, first of all, that florida is gone f now, but also texas, a state where i think democrats went from 13 points behind in '12 to 9 points behind in '16 to five or six points behind in '20. and what i keep going back to that map is something you know so much better than anybody else. and that's all the counties along the border that used to be

all blue. they are all red now. what did democrats need to do differently if they want to win -- because if they're ever going f to win texas, that i ey to get -- that's the first place they need to go and work next week. >> well, first of all, you have that right in terms of the trend in texas. it was trending toward the middle over these last ten years. and especially during the trump era. and then we had this last e election, where it went in the other direction. i think a lot of things -- i think for a long time, south texas was taken for granted in by democrats. it was assumed people would show up and vote in the primary.nd and what you'll see is a lot more investment and attention down there in south texas. i think part of it, also, is trump, you know, whether it was romney or other candidates, they didn't get this kind of response down etthere, and i think it's angoing to be hard for candidat in the future to replicate.

in other words, i don't take the hispanic support down there as, necessarily, now they've turned into republicans. i think they're still gettable. >> for george w. bush in '04, he got 45% -- >> even reagan in the '80s did fairly well back then with latino voter. so we've seen these spikes before, and vthe question is, u know, for democrats, what they're going to do to make sure that o they get in there and th reach out. for republicans, does it last.pu and are they going to get candidates that actually do the work to get in there and cement that. i believe that democrats are going to be able to take back a good part o of that. the exit polls range from ol overall, the latino vote going, i think 53% for harris to one last week said 62%. so democrats still have latinos in their column, but they absolutely have work to do to make sure that that stays the case. >> and how much of that was democrats not acknowledging that there was, in fact, a crisis, on

the border. that if you lived in el paso, democrat or republican, you saw with your own eyes the impact it was having on your community every day.viur and you saw an administration for a long time, frankly, not doing anything about it. >> well, i think it did have an effect, no doubt. also, because those areas, i think that they cleave alongside some of the lines that we've seen more generally in the trump era. for heinstance, those areas whe more rural, small town areas. those are the kind of areas that have gone, trended more towards trump, whether they're largely latino or white. and so yes, the border played a role, no doubt, and republicans made a lot of that in the last two years.st but i don't think that it's a case where democrats can't go back and recover some of that ground. >> former san antonio mayor, hud secretary julian castro, so great to have your perspective this morning. coming up, msnbc's jonathan capehart joins us with a look at his sit-down interview with president clinton president clinton, including what the former president s wnhad to say about why democrats lost in many

places in the recent election. we're back in just 90 seconds.se . , i always check the singlecare price. it's quick, easy, and totally free to use. singlecare can literally beat my insurance copay. go to singlecare.com and start saving today. that moment you walk in the office and people are wearing the same gear, you feel a sense of connectedness and belonging right away. and our shirts from custom ink help bring us together. we make it easy to wow all your groups with high quality custom apparel and promo products, all backed by our guarantee at customink.com. - [narrator] this is my coffee shop.

we just moved into a bigger space, brought on another employee, and ordered new branded gear for the team. it was so easy. i just chose my products, added our logo, and placed my order. bring your own team together with custom gear. get started today at customink.com. you know what trump's up to

right now? he's selling guitars. that's right. a man who does not play the guitar is selling limited edition guitars. there he is, skeevy ray-von. for only 10,000, you can own the world's ugliest guitar. the guy who says we cannot afford apples is selling $10,000 guitars. >> that looked pretty badass to me. limited edition guitars, why not? he says there are only 1,300 acoustic and electric guitars made and some are personally signed. i guess made for this promotion. >> made for this promotion. >> so, richard, there is so much to talk about on the international stage. i really don't know where to start. so why don't we start with the two conflicts that could lead to world war iii. that might be a good place to start. first of all, talk about ukraine. what's happening? are the ukrainians pushing back

now? are they getting in a position where when donald trump's president and negotiations start, that they will actually have something to negotiate at the table? >> there's two interesting things that have happened in the last few days, joe. one is the biden administration is relaxing some of the constraints on what it provides to ukraine and what ukraine can do with the things, the tools it provides. and the whole idea is to bring the cost of the war a little bit more to russia. to basically change vladimir putin's calculus. the other thing that's emerged in the last few days are new polls in ukraine, showing a surprising percentage of ukraine's population ready to compromise. essentially, they are getting worn down by this war. so what it suggests to me is that for donald trump, he's actually got an interesting opportunity to have a very honest conversation with ukrainians and say -- with zelenskyy and say, we'll support you, but you've got to accept a cease-fire based upon the current lines. you don't go back to your territory, you don't have to give up your claims, but you have to live with what you've got now.

but also, joe biden may have done donald trump a favor, but helping to bring the cost of the war -- more to russia. so vladimir putin has to understand, the time is not necessarily his friend. the real question here will be whether donald trump is willing to conditionally support ukraine in order to signal putin that he's not going to be able to do whatever he wants. >> and let's talk now about the middle east. reports that iran is decimated. obviously, nearly decimated. hezbollah, we're getting to a point where they've killed all the top commanders. now they're going to mid-level commanders. that reminds me of that line from godfather at the end, where they say all scores were settled today. it looks like netanyahu and israel trying to settle all scores today. i will just say, i guess without

the realization that there's always blowback. that the palestinians cannot be ignored. the west bank cannot be swept away. i'm not talking about what ought to be -- i'm talking about what is. >> yeah. what is -- what's so interesting, is israel has one militarily -- emphasize the word "militarily," in both gaza and in the north. >> overwhelmingly, with hezbollah. >> hezbollah. >> and also, with hamas. hamas is essentially much, much, much reduced as a significant military factor. the real question, though, is whether israel will introduce policies that will let them harvest, essentially what they've accomplished militarily. >> let's talk about a regional war here. and i totally get that, but let's talk about the fact that iran is now weaker than it has ever been. since 1979, there are going to be a lot of hawks in israel that are going to want to go in and deliver a death blow to that

regime. donald trump, who says he keeps america out of war and he stops war, it's interesting, it puts him in an interesting position. what does that look like? >> 100%. both gaza and what's going on with hezbollah are local things. they're not regional wars, even they have regional political consequences. you're right, israel and iran is the one scenario that could go regional. two ways it kicks off. one is iran, for a third time, attacks israel directly. they did it in april, did it last month. the next time the israelis are not going to act with restraint, joe. they're going to go with a ton of bricks. they have demonstrated they can essentially act with complete freedom over iran. >> iran is defenseless right now. >> not quite, but close to it. and israel could go after iran's nuclear program, big-time. they wouldn't eliminate it, but could set it back big-time. they could do a lot of it by themselves.

that's one scenario, if iran is foolish enough to hit israel again and cause some casualties. the other would be the israelis get intelligence or we get intelligence and we pass it on to israel that the iranians are getting too close for comfort, shall we say, to crossing the nuclear weapons threshold. i think, again, israel would launch a preventative military strike under those circumstances. and actually, i would hope we would support it. we ought not to make the same decision with iran that we made with north korea. north korea now has a meaningful nuclear and missile inventory that will soon threaten the united states directly. we do not want iran to cross that threshold, as bad as the middle east is now, the middle east, where iran crosses the nuclear weapons threshold, many other countries would follow suit. it would be a nightmare. >> there are a lot of foreign policy thinkers, willie, that are al smarter than me and disagreed with me. i thought it was a bad idea in the first place. iran has been the epicenter of terrorism since 1979. so i don't know that doing a

deal with a terrorist regime, which i think they have been since 1979, is ever a good deal. that said, we are -- we are -- as we find ourselves in this sort of gray zone between administrations, i don't know that the threat of regional war has ever been greater than it is right now. >> yeah, and israel will feel unleashed now that donald trump has been elected president again. we're going to go to keir simmons live in the middle east in just a minute. but first, joining our conversation, the host of the podcast "on brand with donny deutsch," donny deutsch, and associate editor of "the washington post" and anchor of the saturday show and the sunday show on msnbc, jonathan capehart. good morning to you both. jonathan, you sat down with former president bill clinton in an interview for his new book. in your discussion, president clinton weighed in on the democrats' loss in the presidential election and the importance of the party speaking to rural voters. here's what he said. >> politics is the only business

in which you can prove your authenticity by not knowing anything. you know. and i think that's a problem. and we'll pay for it unless we get over it. but that's a problem for the democrats, too. we have to learn to talk to people in ways that they can relate to, that explain that. that's why, you know, when i helped -- i did my best to help this time, i don't want to go to any big rallies and big television things. i just want to get in the country. just go out and talk to people. because i think that we're behind in the sense that a lot of the small town and rural people are now highly sophisticated in how they get their information. and there are zillions of new websites now, all trying to

advance their sort of conservative to right-wing radical cause. and a lot of times, we're not playing on the same field. and we're not even being heard. so i just said, send me out there, and i'll see if i can't do some good. i have no idea if i did, but i tried. >> where is the democratic party going from here? because senator bernie sanders, who doesn't even belong to the democratic party, says that the party wasn't progressive enough. do you see it that way? >> no. no. i mean, look -- not progressive enough? the infrastructure bill. they have 60,000, i think, projects underway. there'll soon be up to 100.

and the chips bill, they're all over america, interestingly enough, the majority of the investments have been in rural red areas. they've tried to do it on the basis of merit, but help people who feel left out and left behind in small towns and rural areas. if you look at the inflation reduction act, that benefits everybody. you know, what they do in the $35 per month limit on insulin and the $2,000 a year limit on medical costs. so, no, i don't think -- i think he means by that, that we should have been more against big corporations. and if you take a poll, you find

people in both parties really do favor that. but that's why we can always pass a vote on raising the minimum wage in a red state. because blue collar workers who distrust the government feel like those votes are something that they can control. and they are skeptical of big corporations. on the other hand, the richest guy in america, maybe the world, elon musk, is up there, listening in on foreign phone calls with the president-elect and they're not too concerned about it. >> so, jonathan, you spent a lot of time with president clinton for that interview. what were your big takeaways? what does he really view as the root of the problem for democrats right now? >> in the end -- and it's great to see you, willie. it's been a long time! >> you too! >> you can boil down everything we just heard and also the rest of my conversation with

president clinton and the democrats' problem to this. democrats need to go out there and talk to people. i think in that clip, he said he told the harris/walz campaign, he didn't want to do big rallies, he didn't want to go to big stadiums. he wanted to get out into the country, climb over barbed wire fences and talk to people. in his book, and in the book talk we did a little bit later after that interview. he said, if you scratch someone long enough, eventually, you'll hit a real person. and in that, he means, democrats have to go and talk to people. meet them where they are, excuse me. talk to them about the issues that they care about. and where possible, as he was talking about the inflation reduction act, tell them what you've done to address the issues and address their concerns. >> so, jonathan, we know that bill clinton was in 2016 worried that the working class voter was slipping away from democrats.

certainly, more evidence of that now. and you know, these are -- democrats took losses across the board. 49 out of 50 states. did you get a sense from him that this is correctable? this is just politics that is cyclical? does he think there's something deeper here? what are solutions? >> he does think it's correctable, but he believes that the democrats need to get to it. that the next four years are going to be a test. not just for the party, but for the country. but views his role as being somebody who, you know, plays the joyful warrior, if you want to use a word -- a phrase from the '24 campaign, that democrats and the american people have to be vigilant and they have to talk to each other, you know, the interesting thing about the book, you can see my notes, i read the whole book. he does an excellent critique of

the press. he does an excellent critique of media coverage, of democrats versus republicans. he talks about the republican party and how it is completely different from the republican party he dealt with, when he was president. the republican party he dealt with after he was president. he writes, you know, great stories about president george h.w. bush, president george w. bush, his relationships with republicans within the party. and so, you know, this book, i really encourage people, especially people -- you folks sitting there around the table, to get his take on what's been happening in american politics and what needs to be done to try to turn things around. >> jonathan, bill clinton is certainly a master politician and tactician. he has been quoted in press accounts as saying that he felt democrats were too slow to respond to the anti-trans ads

that were running by the trump campaign towards the end of the campaign. did he discuss that with you? >> we did not talk about that, but he does write about it briefly in the book. but it's part of the overall -- the overall message, which is one, you've got to talk to -- you've got to meet people where they are and talk to them and listen to them. and when they tell you things, because he was hearing about this throughout the country, and reached out to the campaign and the campaign didn't think it was -- well, they didn't respond quickly enough. and what he's saying to the -- what he was saying to the campaign and what he's saying to the party now is, when there are attacks like that, you can't -- you've got to take them seriously. basically, you've got to take them all seriously, and you have to address them. because in this -- and this is my interpretation, because in this fractured, unbelievably fractured media environment, you can leave nothing to chance, as we know, and he writes about. and he's said in that clip you just showed, people are getting

their information and their news from all sorts of sources. so you can't just rely on one rally, one interview, to get your point across. >> all right, jonathan capehart, it's great seeing you. come back soon. thank you and congratulations on this interview. >> thanks a lot, joe. >> all right! we're going to all be watching your full interview with president bill clinton this weekend on "the saturday show" at 6:00 p.m. eastern right here on msnbc. so, donny, he brought up bill clinton and jonathan were talking about the trans ad, which is, which is on the front page of "the new york times" today. of course, there's not too much debate on how effective it was. if you look at the fact that the trump campaign spent $30 million on it and it ran 30,000 times, i think, on nfl games. so, you know, we learned in '88,

in the michael dukakis campaign that attacks in presidential campaigns that are not answered are in fact admitted to, whether that's true or not. so we've talked about that. but i want to talk more general ly, as you get further away from this campaign, as a legendary ad exec. >> legendary! >> the only reason i can say that is because mika is not here, but a legendary brand expert, too. the further i get away from this, i'm wondering, could any democrat have beaten donald trump this year with as bad as the democratic brand seemed to be in florida, in texas, in middle america. >> it would have been really difficult. look, party closest to the center wins. it's that simple. if you trace every election, if you trace the swing suburban

voters who go from george w. bush to barack obama to donald trump, back to -- >> joe biden. >> joe biden. people, this country is just right of center. the democratic party is too damned progressive. you're not going to win elections. if you're talking about, even if you're defending a position on trans, you're not going to win elections. if you're talking about somehow defending college campuses kids who were protests and saying from the river to the sea, because you don't want to defend them, you're not going to win them. you'll get your gas prices down, close the border, and solve your problems. and the more the democrats talk about philosophical things, the more bernie sanders talks about -- even though she's not a democrat, people go to this party. aoc, she's a wonderful politician, but that should not be the party. it's too big a perception of the brand of the party. so many people have said to me, where's my party? i've got nowhere to go.

i felt the democratic was not representing me in terms of imaging that was put out there. some people may not like that, it may not be good television, but that's where they need to be. >> it's interesting, from what i saw, aoc is actually asking a lot of really important questions and going, wait a second, how did you vote for me and donald trump? and it's just like, ernie sanders, you bring up bernie sanders, there were a lot of people in 2016 who would have voted for bernie sanders instead of donald trump. that makes no sense to us in politics, that follow politics all the time. that makes no sense, but it's like the most extreme example of this i've ever seen was 1968. the kennedy family still coming to terms to it. i remember asking me later on, ethyl kennedy and others still trying to grapple how was it that the same people that loved bobby kennedy voted for george

wallace and the democratic primary after, you know, june 6th, 1968? and that's a great question for democrats to ask. i -- you know, because i'm conservative, of course, i'm going to naturally think, oh, you need to be more centrist. i think that would have helped a lot in the upper tier states. but there's a real debate going on in the democratic party. and i'm not so sure it has everything to do with ideology. because when barack obama won, he was the ranked the third most liberal senator in the entire senate. but he spoke to middle america. back when america was a little more center-left. i think donny's right. it's center-right now. but it was a little more center left. and he knew how to connect with the center, like bill clinton knew how to connect with the center, like ronald reagan knew how to connect with the center

and is donald trump shocking a lot of people in that he connected with a lot of people that just weren't ideological, that consider themselves in the center. >> as democrats are doing this soul searching. first of all, there are some major forces at play. we've seen incumbents throughout the goal, coming out of the pandemic, really struggling. either losing power or at least having their clout significantly reduced. that's a real issue with inflation and the like. we have seen, certainly, there is a uniqueness to donald trump and his candidacy and the fact that he was so familiar with so many americans. aoc is a great case study. her district in brooklyn and queens, it's heavily immigrant, it's heavily voters of color there. she won overwhelmingly. it went overwhelmingly for democrats cycle after cycle. certainly, kamala harris still won that district, but donald trump made real inroads. that was repeated in immigrant-heavy neighborhoods throughout new york city and a lot of major cities, where there was a sense that he connected on

a certain issues, whether it was immigration or others, or some cultural issues, that resonated with voters, particularly those working class voters who particularly thought, he understood where i am more than the democrats did. that's what they have to face right now before the midterms in two years and the presidential in four. >> again, am i correct, aoc was asking people, going out asking -- >> she's asking the right questions. she's trying to reach out to working class voters and figure out what has gone so wrong. >> exactly! and that's what needs to be done. now, explain why you voted for me and why you voted -- i think that's important. i want to say on bernie sanders, i still think, i think the democratic party can be more centered on cultural issues. i think they need to be. again, i'm a former republican and i'm a -- i'm a conservative so, maybe democrats don't

listen, but i've been hearing this from democrats for three or four years, every time they bring it up, you're just saying that because you're a white guy from the south. no, i'm saying that because liberals are telling me that things have gotten crazy on college campuses, crazy at their kids' school, things have gotten crazy on the border, things get crazy when they go into a cvs and try to get some tooth paste and ask people to unlock all of this stuff. i will say on economic issues, we all are concerned. we all are concerned where america is going. the rise of billionaires and the influence that billionaires are having on this country, it's getting larger and larger. yes, we've explained it many times. there are many, many things. i'm deeply concerned about regarding donald trump,

retribution, the violent rhetoric he used during the campaign, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. we're looking at that issue for good reason. but right behind that, are billionaires that keep getting richer and richer and more powerful and having a bigger say -- and i'm not just talking about elon musk. i'm talking about the entire class of it. and i think that's a real threat. and bernie sanders speaks to that, probably better than anybody. i'm not saying do everything that he's talking about, as far as taxes go. but i'm saying that the democratic party would be making a big mistake if they decided that they were going -- that they were going to be like, you know, like, hey, you know what, we're going to cut more taxes than the republicans are? >> i'm not saying that. i'm just saying brand perception -- >> i know that! >> brand perception. there are certain figures and

aoc, i love aoc and bernie sanders, i respect him. if they are the faces of the party, it allows the republicans to own the entire middle. it's perception. >> i totally get that! right. unless people do what aoc is doing and they keep going out, as bill clinton said, keep going out, talking to people. when you talk to people -- i've always found, when you actually go out and talk to people, really remarkable things happen. >> yes. so i salute all of that. but right now, the democratic party is mush. it is mush. it is a broken party. it needs -- and one thing that saves parties, if you go back to ronald reagan, go back to barack obama, is a transformational candidate. you know, what changes everything is when that one person comes along that embodies, and says, i can fix your problem. so that person, we may be in the discussion right now, may be someone who's not in the discussion, but the democratic party needs that fresh face

that's going to say -- >> well, i just want to say, willie, really quickly here. i've been talking about it all week. i know people are really discouraged. they're really concerned. i've been talking about it all week. you know, republicans felt hat way, and you know, after barack obama just crushed them in 2008, and they run massively. i think that was probably seen as a low point of the republican party politically. over the next decade, republicans picked up over a thousand legislative seats across the nation. so the only thing i would say to my democratic friends is, today is today. tomorrow is tomorrow. you want to predict the future, you shape the future. and you know, there's an article today, i think in "the times" talking about how people have given up on the resistance. they're tired, this -- i get it. yeah, but maybe instead of

knocking on doors -- first of all, enjoy thanksgiving. enjoy the holidays. take a breath. and then when the new year comes, get involved. and that's not necessarily marching in the streets, that's like figuring out, knocking on doors, registering people. the new campaign, bill clinton would tell you, the campaign for control of the senate and the house for 2026 begins today. >> and you're going to see some real, extreme action, behavior, legislation, appointments that serve as motivation and a catalyst for exactly what you're talking about. there's a movement to swing the pendulum back. often, it's your worst defeat, when you get punched in the teeth and you're lying with your back on the canvass, you get up and say, i've got to change some things. i've got to re-evaluate things. that's where the democratic party is right now. we'll see what they do with it. donny thank you --

>> how many people did i piss off this morning? >> everybody. >> how much flack am i going to get for the aoc? i want to say on record, i love aoc, i respect her. as far as a branding issue with, assist problem. i'm just digging myself deeper, right? >> you should have stopped after "you like her and respect her" and everything else, but sometimes the branding thing, sometimes they're wrong, and i would want every democrat to go out and talk to people. >> we agree on that. >> go, why? so how could you vote for me and that person? a question i ask many times of people and the thing is, you know they vote for their own personal specific reasons. >> that's it. and they're probably thinking, aoc will fight for me. she understands me. and donald trump will make it so my kids can walk to school without getting attacked, right? or i can go into a cvs and i can

get tooth paste without worrying about crime. again, i'm not saying that any of that will or will not happen. i'm just saying, people vote for their own very personal reasons. and they're not as ideological and chained to one side or the other as most of us in the business. and for all the legitimate criticism of aoc, remember, the foundation of her first campaign was, i'm not one of them. i don't come from capitol hill -- >> you guys are diving so far away from him. >> no, i'm doing the opposite. she said, i'm a bartender. i'm one of you. i know what it's like to work paycheck-to-paycheck. so she is talking like bernie sanders. she does appeal to those voters when then voted for her in her own district and for donald trump. donny, take the weekend off. you've done great, my friend! still ahead on "morning joe," we'll turn back to the conflict of the middle east as the international criminal court has now issued an arrest warrant for israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu.

plus, nbc's keir simmons joins us with a look at the newly announced weapons package that the united states is sending to ukraine and the growing fears that russia may retaliate against the west. you're watch "morning joe." we'll be right back. west you're watch "moinrng joe. we'll be right back. hi. i'm damian clark. i'm here to help you understand how to get the most from medicare. if you're eligible for medicare, it's a good idea to have original medicare. it gives you coverage for doctor office visits and hospital stays. but if you want even more benefits, you can choose a medicare advantage plan like the ones offered at humana. our plans combine original medicare with extra benefits in a single, convenient plan with $0, or low monthly plan premiums. these plans could even include prescription drug coverage with $0 copays on hundreds

of prescriptions. plus, there's a cap on your out-of-pocket costs. most plans include dental, vision, even hearing coverage. there are $0 copays for in-network preventive services, and much more. get the most from medicare with a humana medicare advantage plan. call today to learn more. remember, annual enrollment for medicare advantage plans ends december 7th. humana. a more human way to health care. dude? dog food in the fridge? it's not dog food. it's freshpet. real meat. real veggies. real weird. he was bad luck anyway. regina king is in our studio looking radiant as ever. don't cover up your glow. ♪♪ flawless. all eyes on you. skin esteem is a beautiful thing. ♪♪

when my doctor gave me breztri for my copd... i noticed things changed. breztri gave me better breathing starting within 5 minutes. it also reduced flare-ups. breztri won't replace a rescue inhaler... for sudden breathing problems. it is not for asthma. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. don't take breztri more than prescribed. breztri may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling ...problems urinating vision changes, or eye pain occur. ask your doctor about breztri. do your dry eyes still feel gritty, rough, or tired? with miebo, eyes can feel ♪ miebo ohh yeah ♪ miebo is the only prescription dry eye drop that forms a protective layer

for the number one cause of dry eye: too much tear evaporation. for relief that's ♪ miebo ohh yeah ♪ remove contact lenses before using miebo. wait at least 30 minutes before putting them back in. eye redness and blurred vision may occur. what does treating dry eye differently feel like? ♪ miebo ohh yeah ♪ for relief that feels ♪ miebo ohh yeah ♪ ask your eye doctor about prescription miebo. hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat otreat?h ♪ de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat. ♪ ♪ ♪ del ♪ something has-able changed within me ♪ ♪ it's time to try defying gravity ♪ ♪ ♪

you know, it's very weird, you know? usually, you get this rain, people are complaining. i, of course, as you know, we walked down to for the orphanage work that we do. everybody was going, thank god we got rain. i didn't realize that there was like a drought. >> there's an actual drought in new york city. across the country, but new york, it's very rare drought conditions here, just bone dry everywhere. there have been little wildfires. one in prospect park in brooklyn. so this is much -- we'll take it. much-needed rain today in the northeast. >> do you know what else is bone dry? the number of good appearances chris sale had when he pitched for the boston red sox. you talk about a drought. the guy couldn't even ride a bicycle when he was playing for the boston red sox without falling over and hurt himself. he got into fights literally with television sets when he was in the minor league.

then the television sets won. now this guy is winning a cy young award. i'm a little, i'll just say -- >> a little irked? >> a little irked. >> it is his big day, so let's celebrate chris sale. his come-back season with the atlanta braves earning him the national league cy young award after leading in wins, strikeouts. the detroit tigers named tareq skubal the unanimous selection, while helping him pitch the tigers in the playoffs, an incredible season, especially the second half they had for the first time in a decade. two triple crown winners same season. >> it's only happened a couple of times. i'll inject one note of positivity about chris sale. he did give us two good years. we don't win the 2008 world series championship without him. and this season that ended with

a cy young is who he is. he missed his final starts of the season including the playoffs because he got hurt again. >> in his defense, though, the can opener was a little rusty and his arm fell off. the things that happen to this guy when he was in boston. >> yeah. >> but, here -- >> he had great year until the very end. >> and tarik skubal, maybe the best pitcher in baseball. >> and they both had tommy john surgery and bounced back from that. >> congratulations to them. and huge congratulations this morning to uconn head coach, jino, now the winningest coach in college basketball history, men or women. auriemma breaking a tie with former stanford women's coach. the great tara van after the huskies beat fairleigh dickinson out of new jersey last night. auriemma's 40 years at uconn

includes 11 national titles, 23 final four appearances, that g.o.a.t. brought in by uconn. he's had six undefeated seasons and a record 111 game win streaks. so, joe, do you know how, 11 national titles, remember, the great john wooden had 10. he's got more than that. 23 final fours, include 15 of the last 16 and he built this from scratch. i mean, uconn -- the fact that uconn, the university of connecticut is the center of the college basketball universe, men's and women's now, gino started that when he got there in the mid-80s. they didn't have much of a program, built and built and built and starting in the early '90s, it's just been a juggernaut. extraordinary what he's done there. >> it has. and, you know, regardless of -- when you see this sort of success, it all comes down to knowing people. we talk about in politics. but you talk to gino for five

seconds. you heart gino talking for one minute about what, you know -- you know, what about being on a team is about, ghaifg your all is about. and you're like, oh, that's why he wins. that's what separates the good coaches from the good coaches from the great coaches from the legends. like wooden, even when bill walten was dying, he was talking about the life lessons he learned from wooden. and gino, every young woman that's there, they leave -- not only knowing how to win basketball games, they know how to win in life. and haas that's what he gives t. >> and he's able to assemble the very best players in the country, who were all the best players in the history of their high school, five stars, all-americans, going on to play professionally, and get them to buy into a system, and to be a

part of a team. and he's got those, right now, he's got paige beckers, probably the number one pick in the wnba draft. they play joyfully and they play within his system. >> they certainly do. you're a nashville guy, an adopted nashville guy, talk about the cmas last night. >> country music association awards, biggest night in country music. morgan wallen was named entertainer of the year. he wasn't there last night. he's had sort of -- there's been some friction in the relationship with the cma, so he actually wasn't there, but named entertainer of the year. and my favorite artist on the planet, chris stapleton, just cleaning up again this year, male vocalist of the year, single of the year, song of the year, "white horse," wow, what a song. stapleton does it again. he seems to win that male vocalist of the year every year. just raw talent and shout-out to his wife, morgan, who's on stage with him every night as well. and lainey wilson, female vocalist of the year, and she

co-hosted with luke bryan and payton payton manning. >> it's good for peyton to get out. it was really good to see him last night, see he's doing okay. >> he's good at whatever he does. good night in nashville. let's get back to the news here. the biden administration is rushing weapons and equipment to ukraine with secretary of state antony blinken yesterday announcing a $275 million aid package. joining us now from dubai, nbc news chief international correspondent, keir simmons. keir, what more do we know about this? >> reporter: well, willie, the news we're getting this morning actually is focused not on a u.s. or western missile, but on a russian missile, fired from the caspian sea region to the da dnipro area of ukraine. the ukrainians said it was an

icbm, if it was an icbm, it's hard to understand why it would be fired hundreds of miles when it would be capable of traveling thousands of miles, except, of course, that it would be a missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. so would that be another signal from the russians, another escalation. >> reporter: after months of incremental russian battlefield games, washington announcing another $275 million of security assistance to meet kyiv's, quote, urgent needs. the aid, putting ukraine in the strongest possible position, the pentagon says, in these last weeks of the biden administration. a surge that this week included news of washington greenlighting the use of land mines and u.s. long-distance atacms missiles.

and this morning, saying long-range storm shadow rockets have been fired into russia for the first time. the uk not confirming the news. >> ukraine's actions on the battlefield speaks for itself. >> the west still wary of further provoking a response, president putin's spy chief , wo leads the kremlin's equivalent of the cia, says that nato will not go unpunished. but a russian air strike the embassy warned might hit yesterday never materialized. staff told to shelter in place. these are anxious hours, as all sides position for potential trump administration negotiations. ukraine accusing russia of executing prisoners of war. and holding a candlelight vigil on world children's day, remembering the young killed in the conflict. tens of thousands of russian troops backed by north korean soldiers, are baring down on ukrainian positions inside

russia. putin clearly determined to attempt to reclaim that territory, ahead of any potential talks. the russian leader doubling down on his partnership with kim jong-un, sending him a gift of wild animals, including an african lion and brown bears. that strengthening alliance, another complication for the next u.s. administration. and the headlines about that potential russian ibcb and that news yesterday that the u.s. embassy in kyiv was closed for the day because of intelligence that there might be an air strike, all of that does suggest a deep concerns below the surface, while western leaders talk about russian rhetoric and reassure the public, certainly, the chinese, i'm told, by officials, have been putting pressure on the russians, not to use nuclear weapons. and russian officials, themselves, have been saying that it is a measure of last resort. what we're seeing here in the

end are all sides repositioning, preparing, even upping the ante, if you would like, ahead of the new trump administration, where at some point, you assume, there will be negotiations and pretty difficult ones, too. >> yeah, that uncertainty about what comes next under the trump administration hangs over all of this, as you say. nbc's keir simmons live in dubai for us this morning. keir, thank you, as always. the international criminal court this morning has issued arrest warrants for israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu and former defense minister, yoav gallant. prosecutors are accusing them of war crimes and crimes against humanity over their alleged actions in gaza since the october 7th terrorist attack. arrest warrants also have been filed for the leaders of hamas. not clear what practical implications they may have on israel, as the country and the united states are not members of that court. still, netanyahu has called the move anti-semitic. president biden also has criticized the prosecutor over that investigation, saying that

israel has the right to defend itself. joining us now, contributing editor for the "financial times," kim gatas. her latest piece about the conflict in the middle east is titled "letter from beirut," the many questions from war. she's also a contributing writer at the atlantic. let's get into some of those questions from your time in lebanon. what did you see there, and what questions did they raise for you? >> it's good to be on the show, fresh from beirut. i just arrived a few days ago. i live in beirut, after having lived in the u.s. for some time. and i think it's important to remember the direct impact of decisions that are made in washington and tel aviv, in israel, on the real people, whether it's in gaza or beirut where i live. the questions of war that it raises, first of all, i want to point out, the noises of the war, i think my nest piece is going to be the noise of war, the constant hum of whistles.

when i'm walking my dog, she's barking like crazy, can't stand the booms. destruction of parts of their country and heritage, devastation, more than 3,000 people killed. so these are complex questions. there are cease-fire negotiations underway at the moment. of course, we will have to see how that unfolds under the trump administration. >> kim, you have an article in "the atlantic" recently, something you wrote stayed with me. you were talking about how israel right now has become in a situation much like the u.s. after the invasion of iraq. could you talk about that a bit and what you see and compare and

contrast it? >> sure, the idea that you can remake the middle east, right, these grand plans to remake the middle east, which rarely end well. it didn't end well for the united states in iraq. it actually gave iran further power and ability to be a spoiler in the region, and it strikes me that israel today is trying to solve a problem it created in 1982 when it invaded lebanon. it invaded in lebanon in '78. in 1982 it invaded lebanon to remove the guerilla fighters and it succeeded in that. but it also created the problem of iran that you were just discussing in a previous segment. 1979, islamic republic of iran decides to be a player in the region and sees an opportunity and sends fighters to lebanon two days after the israelis invaded in june of 1928 and

those fighters helped form hezbollah which stayed with you will us a these years. in 2006 the israeli prime minister went to war with hezbollah because hezbollah this had kidnapped two israeli soldiers. he said we're going to go to war and we are going to destroy hezbollah. that war ended in a stalemate and hezbollah has never been stronger in those 18 years since then up until the recent events, which have definitely massively decimated its capabilities as a threat to israel, but there is deep concern in lebanon that they are still very powerful domestically. >> i'm so glad you are here. it's been a long time. >> it has. >> please come back. >> i have been writing books in beirut of all places. working on my next book as well. >> thank you. i want to unwind on what you just said because it's so crazy. i was just talking last night to a reporter overseas and they

say, israel has this, hamas, hezbollah, iran's defenses are down. i go, you know, this really -- you know what this reminds me of? they were waiting for me to say something grand and glorious. i said, this reminds me of april, may, early june 2003. even jon stewart was going on the daily show after attacking george w. bush every day for this war, and then he said, you know, basically, what the hell? my kids' middle schools are going to be named after george w. bush because there was going in our minds so well, right? and then i remember the day, a young marine guarding a university gets shot in the head with a -- by a sniper. and i thought, oh, boy. and then it started. we could go back again, the

israelis, and i understand every argument. what i don't understand right now though is how they don't -- some people there think that this is the end of history. they have had an extraordinary campaign against hezbollah. iran is weaker than they have ever been. there is always blowback. there is blowback in the united states in the '73 war when they were doing so well. we almost had a nuclear war, threats from the ussr at the time. you talked about beirut. started pretty well. >> yes, in '82. for israel, take particularly. >> right, and ended up with 240 dead u.s. marines. and so there is always this blowback. i'm wondering does everybody in israel, do the leaders in israel really think that this is the end of history, that this is the one time in middle eastern history there will not be consequences in the end? >> i can't speak for israeli leaders. i listen to them sitting in

beirut threatening to turn lebanon into another gaza and i listen to the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu say that we are remaking the middle east and we are going to ensure security for decades. listen, you know, weng sit here and discuss the tactical success that israel had from the minute it blew up the pagers across beirut on the 17th of september until it killed the leader of hezbollah and the top and second tier. you need a strategy for the day after like in gaza. there is no strategy for the day after. what is the strategy to make political gains, not just israel, for the region, for the trump administration who wants a deal, right. >> by the way -- >> what is the strategy? >> suni arab nations around israel who wouldn't to make a deal with israel regarding the palestinians and the rebuilding

of gaza. sorry. go ahead. >> so there are two ways of looking at this. does israel just want to go into eternal war, you know, mowing the grass as they say constantly around its neighborhood in syria, in yemen, in lebanon, in gaza, potentially in iraq. is that how israelis really want to live? i don't think so. that's maybe what enetanyahu thinks will allow him to do stay in power for a while. we heard president biden earlier this year say there is another way. there is a way out of this dark tunnel that israel has found itself since october 7th and that horrible massacre by hamas. there is a way, and that is understanding that you need to address the core issue, which is the palestinian issue. and that's where trump comes in now and the sunni arab world and mbs, the leader of the crown prince of saudi arabia.

can they find a way where bin salman lowers his request a little bit because you are not going to get full statehood from the palestinians from the israelis at the moment. i don't think president-elect trump is going to push for that. can he lower that just enough that it is still acceptable to the palestinians that they have a vision for a way forward, a life with dignity and security while making sure that benjamin netanyahu increases his ability to make concessions to the palestinians. that's going to be these two blinds that are right now not crossing at all. so that's what it's going to require. and for us in lebanon, you know, lebanon is not gaza because it's the sovereign country with -- i mean, you know, i wanted to say a president. we actually don't have a president at the moment. but it's a sovereign country that is a neighbor of israel and that has -- this is the

birthplace of the u.s./iran confrontation when it became violent with the 241 marines that were killed in 1983. it was devastating. this is a triangle that has kept the middle east, u.s., iran, israel. >> you mentioned this sort of expectation for when trump comes in. there has been speculation that even a deal, perhaps a cease-fire, could be struck as he takes off, almost as a welcome. >> the u.s. special envoy from the biden administration has been in lebanon. he stayed longer than we expected. he spent the night. he was treated to coffee when he went into by a route coffee shop and people said, you are our guest. we will pay. the lebanese want this deal and they see the united states, even under a trump administration, they see the united states as the potential solver of this terrible war that they are in. we are not waiting for the chinese.

not really waiting for the russians. hochstein is working on this cease-fire because the trump cohort or president-elect trump signaled that he wanted hochstein to proceed and he would take that deal. it's going to take time to come together, if it does come together. so it will still be seen as a gift to president trump, president-elect trump. hochstein is now in israel and he might be coming back to beirut. so we're really in the final mile, but we have heard this so often about gaza the last year. >> writer at "the atlantic," kim, great to have you with us. we are back in 90 seconds with "the new york times" reporting detailing a trail of payments from former republican congressman matt gaetz to a number of women allegedly for sex and what it could mean for his chances to become the next

attorney general of the united states. we'll be right back. hi, my name is damian clark. if you have both medicare and medicaid, i have some really encouraging news that you'll definitely want to hear. depending on the plans available in your area, you may be eligible to get extra benefits with a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. most plans include the humana healthy options allowance. a monthly allowance to help pay for eligible groceries, utilities, rent, and over-the-counter items. the healthy options allowance is loaded onto a

prepaid card each month. and whatever you don't spend, carries over from each month. plus, your doctor, hospital and pharmacy may already be part of our large humana networks. so, call the number on your screen now, and ask about a humana medicare advantage dual-eligible special needs plan. and remember, annual enrollment ends on december 7th. humana. a more human way to healthcare. how have your meetings been today, sir? >> good. going great. senators been giving me a lot of good advice. i am looking forward to a hearing. folks have been very supportive, saying we will get a fair process. so it's a great day of momentum for the trump administration. >> are you confident you can get confirmed by the senate? forbes. >> it was a great day.

>> i don't think there is any way he could get confirmed if this is accurate. i will say matt, when he is confronted about this, denied it over and over and over again. if it turns out that matt gaetz was lying, you are going to see a lot of opinions change on this. it is extremely concerning. it was already a very -- it's already a hard push to get matt confirmed to begin with. this will make things very difficult if it comes out that it's actually true. >> republican senator markwayne mullin reacting to a "new york times" report that details a trail of payments from matt gaetz to various women. gaetz as you saw in the clip was on capitol hill yesterday attempting to win support for his nomination for attorney general. good morning. welcome to "morning joe." thursday, november 21st with joe and me this morning, the host of "way too early" and white house bureau chief of politico, jonathan -- >> thank you, guys.

>> outstanding day in, day out. >> i will use you as references. >> i had some people say he is the cal ripken of early morning television. >> no question. >> i didn't mean -- >> i lose my range eventually. >> willie, what an introduction. sorry. >> whoa! >> former aide -- white house and state department president emeritus to the council on foreign relations, richard haass, author of home and away available on substack and congressional investigations reporter for "the washington post" jackie with a lot to talk about. >> we have a ton to talk about. you know, there is a lot to look at in the papers really quickly. "the wall street journal" editorial page, republicans in the house may be trying to keep this from the republicans in the senate. let's just make sure we say here this isn't a democrat versus

republican thing. this an intramural battle between house republicans, some house republicans, okay, maybe one or two house republicans, because the rest want this report out, and the senate. and "the wall street journal" editorial page says, the senate has every right to demand to see the report on mr. gaetz before confirming his nomination as president-elect trump's next attorney general even without the house report. the senate could call the same witnesses to testify, and they will, and senator john cornyn suggested this week in order to do our job we need access to all the information and protect the president against any surprises that might damage his administration. this didn't just about the justice department. this isn't just about america. selfishly, it should be for donald trump as well because this will be a disaster. "the wall street journal" -- it is a disaster. "the wall street journal" says, the senate would be justified in sticking it to that line

whatever the political pressures that mr. trump might bring to bear for a speedy confirmation on gaetz. willie, the news keeps coming out. you got so many layers of problems here. he is not qualified. nobody thinks he is qualified. everybody, let's see this report before we -- everybody knows he is not qualified for this job. everybody knows he doesn't play well with others. the house republican members can't stand him. i think ari melber has clips we will play later on about the nasty things he said about republican senators. then on top of that you have sworn testimony that he had sex with a 17-year-old girl at a drug-fueled orgy under oath. they would be sent to jail if they were lying. one after another. i can see, by the way you are looking, alex is saying, why doesn't jolet them read the story?

>> we will find the ari melber clip later. he put together -- >> right. but anyway, you know, the thing is, like, people are going, well, we're still going to get this, that, the other before we talk. i love the intro what the senator said. if these allegations are true, then he can't -- he knows they are -- they are true. he knows they are true. >> and that -- >> and everybody knows they are true based on sworn testimony where people would have been sent to jail if they were lying. >> senator mullin is the one who famously said that matt gaetz would describe how he would crush up e.d. medication and chase it with power drinks to have a longer evening. so these guys, again -- >> wow. >> richard, that doesn't happen on "good morning america." >> forgive me. i wandered down that path and realized there was no turning back.

but again, as you say, these are republicans, jon, don't miss a chance to find a microphone to criticize matt gaetz. it's personal on many levels, but also in this case they are saying this report is crushing. this report would eliminate -- if one or two details in the report were true, this would end anyone else's nomination or potential nomination. we will see how much more capital donald trump wants to spend. he is pushing -- how far can i push these guys and women in the republican party. at the moment, on matt gaetz at least, they seem to be saying matt gaetz is the line for us. >> even before this nomination it was well known, the house and senate, how much fellow republicans despised matt gaetz. a process like this, you need friends. he doesn't really have friends. j.d. vance took him around the hill yesterday. they were non-committal to his nomination. you are right. trump is trying to push this and has a number of controversial picks. it seems like the senate is

standing up against this one. now, as we'll get into the house ethics committee, republicans on the committee voted to block the release of this report yesterday. but there is a widely held belief it will see the light of day. we heard from the senate yesterday, including republicans in the senate, saying we need to see that. that report will emerge. but even were it not, there is serious questions about his qualifications, serious questions about his character, and trump is trying to push his allies as far as he can in the upper chamber here, but we are seeing real resistance here. i am told last night gaetz's nomination deeply in doubt. >> again, "the wall street journal" editorial page brings up a great point. even if they don't release in the house, it gets worse for him because they bring the witnesses live to capitol hill. so, this meltdown, you know, can occur on live television with

live witnesses. nobody, nobody should want that to happen in the trump administration, and i doubt the a.g. nominee would want that to happen. i am not exactly sure what this stance is. like, if they are going to try to recess the appointment and start a constitutional crisis, they go that way. but why trot this around? this ends badly any way you cut it. >> i think we also are just missing what this is about at the end of the day. you had a full field fbi background investigation when i had one and they are going back to your hometown and talking to the preacher and checking with everyone. it's not because they care about your morality. they care about if your morality leads you to become compromised. and this is about not wanting a sex addict, a drug addict to have control of the nation's top

secrets at the end of the day. so that is why this is kind of a little bit important and it's not about morality at the end of the day. >> yeah. and to your point, a republican of south dakota said if you don't release the report, we can re-live it this whole thing in the hearing. we will do our own investigation. this position as attorney general is too important. the document obtained bit "the new york times" shows federal investigators have traced payments between matt gaetz and women who say they were paid by the former congressman to have sex with them. according to "the times," the document shows how gaetz and a friend, quote, sent thousands of dollars to venmo to dozens of people who claim to be involved in sex parties from 2017 to 2020. those people have reportedly testified to federal and congressional investigators. sources familiar with the case tell "the times," among those who received payments was a woman who was 17 years old when she attended one of those parties. they report the document was used as thumbnail photos of

gaetz as well as various women and men to show how payments flowed between them. it was assembled when the justice department was investigating gaetz. >> that was complicated. that is -- there are a lot of -- there are a lot of lines right there. a lot of activity on venmo. >> that's russell crowe and "a beautiful mind" level lines. "the times" reports the house ethics committee was given a copy. the chart does not show what the payments were for. nbc news has not been able to independently verify that document. a lawyer for two women who testified that gaetz hired them for sex says their payments totaled about $10,000 and that they were typically given about 200 to $500 for each encounter. are in a statement to "the times," the communications direct for president-elect trump claimed the material was classified and purposefully leaked to sneer gaetz. according to "the times," there

are no classified markings on the documents. no reason there would be. gaetz declined all allegations of sexual misconduct. >> yeah. that's piling up there. and again here is the thing. right now the house speaker and others are trying to be clever, we are not going to release the report. releasing the report would be better than reliving it on the hill in a senate committee with everybody seeing it. and jackie, i mean, that's -- that actually would be the worst-case scenario fors incoming president, the worst-case scenario for republican supporters. you talked about a needless distraction, which "the wall street journal" has talked about. karl rove talked about the first week of nominations went well and then came to gaetz, he said was a colossally bad selection.

again, you wonder how much scar tissue they are going to want to take on over this with "the new york post," "the wall street journal" editorial page, republican senators all saying, this guy is not fit to be attorney general. >> whether or not matt gaetz or republicans want this report to come out, details of it and perhaps the most lurid and salacious details will come out because of exactly what you just laid out. the women, the witnesses some of the women who were previously 17 years old when ned an encounter, sexual encounter with matt gaetz, they are going to be called as witnesses to testify before the committee although their lawyers have told us extensively over the past two weeks that they really want to avoid doing so, and i think that's why we are seeing them sort of make this public, these public appearances over the past few days to lay out some of the allegations that their clients have made behind closed doors.

now while we didn't confirm that document that was obtained by "the new york times," which really shows the breadth of the investigation in a way that we haven't seen before that was ultimately cleared and dropped by the justice department two years ago in 2022, they ultimately decides that the witnesses, there were credibility issues with the witnesses and didn't pursue charges against gaetz. we obtained exhibits shown to the house ethics committee and provided to the justice department as a part of that investigation that showed some of the venmos and paypal requests and payments given to some of the these women who testified that they were paid for sex by matt gaetz. this is outside of the allegations of sex trafficking of matt gaetz having sexual encounter with a minor. the there were 27 different paypal payments and venmo payments that were shown in these exhibits that totaled nearly $10,000. the notes next to those payments were sort of a variety of

descriptions ranging from, you know, love you gives to cartridges. in conversation with the lawyers for these clients, they have been very clear that gaetz was paying them sometimes for sex and wills to have sex with other people at these drug-fueled sex parties. >> so, jackie, as you know, matt gaetz is not popular among his colleagues on capitol hill. he made a habit of insulting lawmakers. his colleagues. including those who will vote on his nomination. here is that montage we were talking about from our friends at "the beat with ari melber." it shows gaetz trashing his capitol hill colleagues while in office. >> we have mur kow isski and collins rejecting the duties as senators. if they do that, their voters should reject them. our leadership frankly is in shambles. mcconnell wavering. speaking of fools. republican senator and markwayne mullin. mitch mcconnell's legacy is that he was missing in action when we

needed him most. and spent a lot of time in the senate putting special interests above american interests. my advice going forward is that the republican leadership doesn't need to pick one of the johns. john thune, johnen. i think there will be better options than the johns. senator tillis trying to get another blank check for a corrupt country, it's disappointing. there is a hubris to all of it. >> i kind of -- >> we are counting on our hands. >> the days. >> and we had to go to a secondhand. >> those are recent insults. >> eight senators he trashed. those are just the ones in that moment. he has done a lot more than that. jackie, as you look at this process and understanding capitol hill so well, it seems like speaker johnson has given the ethics committee some space and they need to continue their discussion and decide whether they are going to let that report go public. if they don't, there is a chance somewhere greater than 100% that it will find the light of day

into the media most likely. so how do you see this playing out with pressure applied from trump and j.d. vance on the top, such almost universal disdain for gaetz in the congress? >> yeah, you can't understate the amount of vitriol that the majority of house republicans and some senate republicans have for matt gaetz. but there is one extremely important ally that he has and someone he fostered a really close relationship with since 2016 really, became one of his top allies and most outspoken advocates really early on in the trump administration, and that is donald trump. someone who is not going to withdraw his support for him. they are going through the process. they have demonstrate inside the past few days they will take a more persuasion approach rather than the scorched earth approach that i think we could imagine this leading into. but with what happened with the house ethics committee yesterday was a little bit surprising considering all of the, again,

vitriol that has been directed towards gaetz with none of his house republicans who sit on this panel of ten members who could vote to release the report voting in favor of releasing it. susan wild yesterday after the two-hour meeting of deliberations saying there was no agreement not to disclose the report, has it was inaccurate from michael guest, the chairman of the committee, to say that there was agreement. this is kick the can down the road. the house ethics committee meets again december 5th. it's possible it will come to a head prior to december 5th. now two democratic member, representative steve cohen and sean casten called to preserve the documents in order that this report somehow makes it potentially to the senate judiciary committee that's a separate process that is -- seems very likely to happen if it stays behind closed doors, and, two, for this to be brought to the house floor flew privile. this would force a vote of all

of the house to call on their members to release this report. so democrats are trying to make this come out one way or the other and you are seeing some republicans one by one say they are going to have discussions with mike johnson behind closed doors about this because they want this to be a part of the process and feel like it's important for it to be a part of the process. >> well, as the oiled midas ad says, you can pay me now or you can pay me later, and it actually gets worse later because, again, you talk about some hearings. whoa. and i would will tell you, i mean, he called the oklahoma senator a fool, speaking of fools. i mean, and you go down the list of the insults there. those are just the ones that ari picked out. that's going to be a problem. so, that's an understatement it's going to be a problem. richard, washington is run -- i

mean, washington is run on relationships. i mean, you know, i -- you know, i had one of the most conservative voting records in washington, d.c. like i said, i had 95% acu rating. every time i get on the house floor, i walked to the democratic side. i talked to people i disagreed with. i made sure i built really good relations there. and that's how you get things done. also, you find out when things go sideways, you know, your friends, you got friends there to stick with you. and he just doesn't have that. talk about washington. you have been doing this for a very long time, and how important it is to have those relationships and even if you are not great at having relationships, not insulting everybody that you come across in washington, d.c. >> yeah, look, the bottom line is he is more likely to be investigated by the next attorney general than to become

the next attorney general. let's just start that. in no small spart because what you say. to say he doesn't have a reservoir of support is a generous way of putting it. he has one relationship, donald trump. that's what's so interesting to me go this. it's almost the tension between the two, the one relationship he has and the many relationships he doesn't have. and so the question is how does that play out, how long this -- does the trump team stick with him. i loo like to know, were they surprised? what was the vetting process? is there anything that happened or could happen that they said, wow, we didn't count ton that or didn't see that come, or did they see it coming and said, let's press ahead regardless. one of the interesting things of this, i don't think he is going to make it, what extent does this help the other people. how much appetite do people in washington have to take on two, three, four of these nominees regardless of their lack of fitness, and that could be again, whether it was the original strategy or not, my

view is it may become part of the strategy. let it play out. even though it's costly, if it attracts enough incoming a lot of other people may survive. >> here is the problem for the three or four nominees that are just completely -- as karl rove said, completely radioactive, and that is everybody is going to be concerned about matt gaetz, right. but then if you are a republican who spent your entire life, adult life working on intel issues, you are going to be just as concerned about tulsi gabbard. and there is likely going to be republicans that will vote against tulsi gabbard. and then, you know, if you are concerned about the d.o.d. -- funny, we had admiral straf eidis here. you go down the line. i think bobby kennedy jr. is going to get through. i think that may be the one that in normal times may have had problems, but for those -- these three -- again, it's not the

same people having problems. everybody has problems with the gaetz nomination for a thousand different reasons. but you talk to people that are armed services, they are just in meltdown mode, republicans, about the d.o.d. pick. again, tulsi gabbard for intel. so i want to get it to elise. but first quick reporting. richard was saying he was wondering whether the trump transition team were surprised by some of these things, especially with matt gaetz a and the d.o.d. selection. your reporting, other reporting said, yes, they were surprised by both of those things. with gaetz especially, the report that came out today -- was going to come out two days before he -- >> yes, come of this gaetz stuff was known. other parts came as a surprise to the trump transition team.

the hegseth issue, completely blindsided. they are not going through the standard vetting processes, using the fbi. they have hired private companies to do this and there is real concerns that the vetting they are doing is minimal at best. in part because -- and the former hud secretary was on a few moments ago noted that's perhaps in part to avoid the possibility of lying to the fbi, shield their nominees from doing that as well as donald trump's long held distrust of it that agency that. is a real problem here is the lack of vetting. it wasn't a calculated strategy to have gaetz be a sacrificial lamb. we are told the president-elect wants this pick through. there is a possibility that may be what happens because he is taking so much heat, might allow some. others to slide through. joe, to your point, hegseth and gabbard in particular are ones that other republicans are having real issues with. so i wouldn't say their confirmations are sure either,

though it will be a test of how much they can -- >> i think right now the gaetz selection is just right here in front of everybody and the testimony against him is so universally damning. they are not looking beyond that. so i think that's first in line. and i actually would guess that probably the intel community would have more trouble with tulsi gabbard and even the d.o.d. pick. i'm not saying people aren't having trouble. i'm just saying i talked to so many republicans that have spent their entire life in the intel world that just say, we can't have somebody that's an apologist for assad, that's an apologist for putin in there. so, again, i'm talking about republicans here. i would be surprised if there are, for republicans that wouldn't vote against that selection. coming up, how science lost america's trust to skeptics. we will talk about that piece

from "the wall street journal" and the rise of robert f. kennedy from frinning to the respected head of u.s. health policy. respected head of u.s. health policy (balloon doug pops & deflates) and then i wake up. is limu with you in all your dreams? oh, yeah. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪

customize and save with liberty mutual. customize and sa— (balloon doug pops & deflates) and then i wake up. is limu with you in all your dreams? oh, yeah. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪

you have been a crusader on questioning vaccines. are there specific vaccines that you would seek to take off the market? >> oh, i am not going to -- i am not going to take away anybody's vaccines. i have never been anti-vaccine. i have just -- >> you will not take any vaccine currently on the market? >> if somebody -- if vaccines are working for somebody, i am not going to take them away. >> sorry. i'm sorry. we got to talk about this. you know, this is what you call bigotry of low expectations. i am about to -- i don't usually do it because mika is here and we don't have scripts. mr. carnell grad says to me, and i want to know first of all when has cornell beating the crimson

tide in football? anyway -- >> last week. >> what is that? >> we just got pads last week, so. >> leather helmets. [ laughter ] >> leather helmets. guards. by the way, the word in the -- you pronounce it exacerbate. [ laughter ] >> wow. >> it's like my mom when she was younger, she visited pennsylvania, visit some relatives, and they were surprised because she was from the south that she was wearing shoes. and here we are, all these years later, we have gotten no further. >> what did peter king used to say to you? walked out barefoot from a revival? >> right. peter was dwight the defender of the ira and we were having a big battle on whether the president of the united states should meet jerry adams. and i said, i don't think he should. i think it's an insult.

of course, i said it too loud. and he goes, yeah, joe scarborough just walked out of the tent revival in north florida without any shoes on. so don't listen to him. and i didn't snow pete before it that. i went up to him. this is like the personality thing. i laughed. i go, that may have been the greatest quote in "the washington post." we became fast friends. >> that's how do you it. >> that's how you to it. by the way, it's nicer to be friends than not. listen, there is right here, and we are going to go to steve rattner at the southwest wall because the kids literally are rushing -- he is pacing. the kids are rushing down the stairs because they are, like, mommy, daddy -- >> you can hear their steps. >> uncle stevie's on. before i get there, there is a front page column in the --

article in "the wall street journal." it's fascinating. this is something we all have to grapple with. how science lost america's trust. voters angry over covid-19 measures backed trump selection of rfk jr. we talk about so many different things that have had an impact, and, you know, the cost of groceries, the cost of gas. we talked about social issues, that ad played 30,000 times, the impact it may have had on men. this really does steam to be the sleeper issue. it's more like it's a sort of -- it sort of sets the environment of this election. there is such blowback against all of the shutdowns. not just shutdowns. >> science. what's so interesting, joe, science has somehow become a cultural issue. we sue it in the covid pandemic. we see it on climate change.

it's elitists saying the science, x, y, z, we should resist it. the politicization -- another good word. up there with exacerbate for you. >> you are good. >> thank you. the science is somehow becoming politicized and it's become an issue in the culture wars. it makes incredibly difficult to have serious public policy debates about these issues because those who are promoting the science are seen as -- with agendas and she lietz. >> and you said you have been in meetings and people talking about how some of the proposals could just devastate r&d companies? >> yeah. grants coming out of the national institutes of health could an impact on universities and basic research there. >> on alzheimer's, on -- >> a zillion things. scientistes is say if we can't get the grants, we are leaving because this is our livelihood. if we can't do this life-saving

research here, as lebron would say, we will take our talents elsewhere. >> we will go to -- >> yeah. >> i mean, i have to say for all his failings in testifies of science during the pandemic, operation warp speed under president donald trump was one of the great achievements of the last, i don't know, many, many generations. got the vaccine in so many people and saved so many lives. that was an achievement of the trump administration that rails against science. >> and the strange thing is he can't actually say that in front of his crowds. like, any other president with any other presidential library you would walk in and that would be the first thing because you remember the beginning of the pandemic what were we hearing? if we ever get a vaccine, it will take seven, nine, 12 years. you talk to any scientist and they will tell you the fact that there was a vaccine within a year, one of the more remarkable

scientific achievements ever. i mean, take it back to the polio vaccine because so many lives were at stake. so, and the crazy thing is you can't even talk about it. he tried to. remember that bill o'reilly talk that they had? and he started talking about it. i think bill started talking about, hey, this is a pretty good thing. the crowd started booing. again, after the white hot heat of all of this, 30, 40, 50 years from now people will look back and go, okay, that was an extraordinary scientific achievement. >> as we mentioned, steve rattner is here to dig deeper into the topic. he joins us straight ahead on "morning joe." ."

hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat treat? de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat. for the better part of a century, harry & david has been making gourmet gifts that bring people together. to share traditions and make new memories. to bring us all closer, even when we're apart. no matter when and no matter where, life is a gift best shared. harry & david. life is a gift. share more. my moderate to severe ulcerative colitis symptoms kept me... out of the picture. now i have skyrizi. ♪ keeping my plans, i'm feeling free. ♪ ♪ control of my uc means everything to me. ♪

♪♪ ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ now, i'm back in the picture. skyrizi helps deliver relief, repair, and remission in uc. feel significant symptom relief at 4 weeks, including fewer bowel movements and less bleeding. skyrizi is proven to help visibly repair colon lining damage, and help people achieve remission at 12 weeks and 1 year. don't use if allergic. serious allergic reactions, increased infections or lower ability to fight them may occur. before treatment, get checked for infections and tb. tell your doctor about any flu-like symptoms, or vaccines. liver problems leading to hospitalization may occur when treated for uc. take control of your uc. ♪ control is everything to me. ♪ ask your gastroenterologist about skyrizi. on chewy, save up to 40% on holiday gifts for your pet. like their favorite treats, toys and food. the best presents. at the best prices. for the best pets.

for low prices for holidays with pets, there's chewy. singlecare is easier to use than my insurance. there are no membership fees or premiums, and it works for everyone. so the next time you have a prescription to fill, check singlecare to make sure you're getting the best price. visit singlecare.com and start saving today.

welcome back. we showed you in our last block a clip of robert f. kennedy jr.

telling nbc's vaughn hillyard this month he has never been anti-vax. experts are concerned if kennedy is confirmed by the senate to be the nation's top health official he will exacerbate the concerning rise of vaccine hesitancy in the country. joining us now former treasury official, "morning joe" economic analyst steve rattner. steve, bobby kennedy sort of hides behind being a skeptic of vaccines. let's walk through some of the data behind this. your first chart is about what vaccines actually do, which we need to remind people of these days. >> yeah, you covered a bit of this. joe could have come over to the southeast wall for his comments because he would have had charts to help him along. polio first, being perhaps the most famous case. polio erupted in 1916 in brooklyn with a lot of cases. it took off again when fdr, remember fdr got polio in 1921. that spurred the first effort to

really develop a vaccine. some of us may remember the march of dimes where everybody gave a dime to develop a polio vaccine. you had a spike in polio in the 1940s. in 1955, the polio vaccine was licensed. i want to inject a personal note here. i was one of the first cohorts of people to get injected and i remember well how excited and relieved my parents were that their kids wouldn't have to wore window ary about polo and it dropped to zero cases today. the red line on the deaths of which they were a significant number. covid, operation warp speed, amazing accomplishment of vaccine developed in less than a year. we have really good data comparing people who got the infrastructure act to people who didn't get the vaccine. this the omicron surge, which we remember all too well, unfortunately. this is the death rate for people who did not get the vaccine. this is the death rate way down here for the people who did get the vaccine. and for people who got the

booster, even lower death rate. >> so your next start, chief, as we move across the wall, some of the other benefits that come from vaccines. >> we went down a similar path with other childhood diseases. i grew up in world where all these diseases, not smallpox, most diseases were ones we were susceptible to as kids. look what happened. average of 530,000 cases a year of measles in the 20th century, we've dropped down to 47. 99% drop. whooping cough, similarly. mumps 99%. rubella a, also called german measles, 99%. we have eradicated smallpox in the world, which is an amazing accomplishment. polio zero. and that has had a significant impact on childhood mortality rates around the world. essentially, this is the death rate of infants under the age of

1, dropped from 10% in 1974 to about 2.8%, i believe that is in in 2024. number is what scientists estimate the death rate would be without vaccines. 100 million infants around the world have been saved over this period of time because of vaccine rollouts around the world. >> all right. so let's move over to the final chart, steve. some other concerns if bobby kennedy gets this job at hhs. he has talked repeatedly about taking fluoride out of the water. another of the great accomplishments of the last century. >> this is also an anti-science ignorance, whatever category want it put it in. fluoride in drinking water has been an -- made enormous improvements in tooth health. you can see here the percent of people who are drinking fluoridated water. this was a study done between

1967 and 1992 by the centers for disease control. the pinellas of people drinking fluoridated water rose from 40% to just about 50%. the average number of decayed teeth dropped like that from about four to 1.4. and it's not all fluoride. better care of teeth so on and so forth. every health expert will tell you fluoridated water played a significant role in that. let me turn to an issue in which bobby kennedy actually is on the right side of, frankly, in my opinion, the whole -- at least partially because he has other ideas around this that are less sensible perhaps. but on the issue of food and what kids eat and obesity. we have had an upsurge in type 2 diabetes in children t used to be considered an adult on set disease. it's happening more among children. it's closely linked to obesity. we know what the nutritional

issues are for kids. not surprisingly, kids of color have had a much higher rate of childhood diabetes and a faster growth in it. we have a huge nutrition and weight problem in our country among kids. this is actually an issue in which i think some agreement, i am not sure taking food dyes out of kids' cereals is part of this, but the cereals and mcdonald's and the rest of that is contributing to this. coming up, the governor of new mexico is our guest in the fourth hour of "morning joe." talking about the president-elect's plan for mass deportation when "morning joe" comes right back. comes right back have you compared your medicare plan recently? with ehealth, you can compare medicare plans side by side for free.

so we invited people to give ehealth a try and discover how easy it can be to find your medicare match. this is pretty amazing. i can go on a vacation with this money. i have quite a few prescriptions. that's why people call us. we're going to compare plans, and i'm gonna try to get you as much bang for your buck as possible. that's great. this one here covers all your prescriptions, your doctors as well. oh, wonderful. i have a hard time with this. that's okay, that's what i'm here for. based on our conversation today, i would highly recommend this plan. you're so helpful. you know, you don't know. i'm excited for you, sir. again, my name is sham. and if you have any other questions, give me a ring. thank you very much. oh, my god, that was super easy. uhhh! see how your medicare plan stacks up with the big changes for 2025. just call this number or get started at ehealth.com. compare plans that cover your doctor's prescriptions, pharmacy and budget, and compare plans from the nation's top insurance companies. they pay us to help you. how much do you think you'll be able to save using ehealth?

at least $300 a month. would you say you found your medicare match? yes i did. what sham did she explain to me exactly what i needed to know? well, i have a surprise for you. sham, come on out. oh my goodness. it's a pleasure to meet you today, sir. what does it feel like to be face to face? you helped me out quite a bit. call to meet your advisor. they're paid the same. no matter which medicare advantage plan you choose. ask them about ehealth, live advice or get started on your own at ehealth.com. either way, it's always a free service. see if you could get more for less with ehealth, like these folks did. the savings are unbelievable. i could see the costs side by side. ehealth is wonderful. $1,200 savings in my pocket. i was really pleasantly surprised with that. (♪♪) (♪♪) ehealth. your medicare matchmaker. it's our son, he is always up in our business. it's the verizon 5g home internet i got us. oh... he used to be a competitive gamer but with the higher lag,

he can't keep up with his squad. so now we're his “squad”. what are kevin's plans for the fall? he's going to college. out of state, yeah. -yeah in the fall. change of plans, i've decided to stay local. oh excellent! oh that's great! why would i ever leave this? -aw! we will do anything to get him gaming again. you and kevin need to fix this internet situation. heard my name! i swear to god, kevin! -we told you to wait in the car. everyone in my old squad has xfinity. less lag, better gaming! i'm gonna need to charge you for three people.

if they can feel as though they can live with the -- whatever epic revelations come out, and he gets in front of people, he is such a strong

communicator, and if he could tone it down and say, that's the old me, i was a firebrand in the house, but the way i'm going to approach the department of justice is this, it might make people pause and say maybe people can have a different approach for a different job. >> the trump transition team, look at the big screen. there isn't, you know, there isn't the kind of headlines around any of those that you see around matt gaetz. and the constant drip, drip, drip every day of some new revelation, the trump team has got to be thinking, you know, maybe this wasn't such a good idea, we don't want to be spinning our wheels, we don't want the distraction, we would like to hit the ground running. >> front page in "the new york times" says this, federal inquiry traced payments from gaetz to woman, a document prepared by the federal investigators bolsters claims by women who say they were hired for -- for sex and then they go into it first into "the new york times." this happens the next two months, it may be too much. >> pretty interesting there. that's some of the coverage this

very morning over on fox news about donald trump's pick of matt gaetz for attorney general. welcome to the fourth hour of "morning joe." elise jordan still with us. joining the conversation, we now have the host of msnbc's "inside with jen psaki", jen psaki. co-host of "the weekend" on msnbc, symone sanders townsend and "new york times" investigative reporter michael schmidt. michael broke the news about a federal inquiry that traced payments from matt gaetz to women who say they were hired for sex. and we're going to get to the details of michael's blockbuster reporting in just a moment. but, first, let's set the scene. the republican-led house ethics committee yesterday declined to release the findings of its investigation into matt gaetz despite growing calls from senators to make that report public. nbc news chief white house correspondent peter alexander has the latest on donald trump's controversial nominee for attorney general as well as some

other developments with other of the president-elect's cabinet picks. >> reporter: president-elect trump's team with a full court press on capitol hill in favor of his cabinet picks. vice president elect jd vance on the hill with matt gaetz. >> senator has been giving me a lot of good advice. >> reporter: as they blocked the release of a report at the center of a controversy around gaetz. among them, a woman who says she was 17 years old at the time. allegations the former more congressman has repeatedly denied. now the committee voting along party lines not to release the report, members saying they'll revisit the issue next month. gaetz, sitting yesterday for a series of closed door meetings with republican senators, whose support he needs to get confirmed. >> i'm looking forward to a hearing. folks have been very supportive. >> reporter: some senate republicans say they want to see the report. >> the appropriate thing to do

would be for them to release it at least to start with the judiciary committee. >> reporter: "the new york times" says it obtained this document assembled by federal investigators, but not verified by nbc news, that shows the alleged web of payments between gaetz, his associates and women. some of whom testified they were hired for sex with gaetz. he is not the only selection under intense scrutiny. today, vance also accompanying trump's choice of pete hegseth. he was not charged. overnight, the associated press and other outlets obtaining a police report that includes competing accounts from hegseth and a woman, hegseth's lawyer said the encounter was consensual. on sunday saying, quote, mr. hegseth is completely innocent, adding that hegseth paid the woman as part of a civil agreement in 2023. and trump's director of national intelligence pick tulsi gabbard is now facing criticism from the

president-elect's former u.n. ambassador nikki haley. >> this is not a place for a russian, iranian, syrian, chinese sympathizer. are we comfortable with someone like that at the top of our national intelligence agencies? >> and update on peter's reporting, nbc news has now also obtained that 2017 police report detailing a woman's allegation that defense secretary pick pete hegseth sexually assaulted her at a monterey, california, hotel. we're reading through that and we'll bring you the details as we discover them. michael, let's start with your reporting here about another one of donald trump's picks, matt gaetz. walk us through what you discovered and why it could be so potentially damaging for a nomination also facing a lot of questions on capitol hill. >> so, in the past few days, a lawyer for some of the women has been on television saying my clients were paid in exchange

for sex by matt gaetz. the document that we obtained, which was created by federal investigators, when they were looking into whether matt gaetz broke the law, shows payments from gaetz to those two women. thousands of dollars of payments to those two women. and thousands of dollars of payments to other women. we redacted on that graphic the names of the women and other people besides -- >> do you make of this chart? >> no, we do not. >> that is a very detailed chart. that is mel gibson conspiracy theory stuff right there. what is this chart showing right here? >> that is a chart from inside the federal investigation. federal settingers started looking at folks in florida, in 2019 and 2020, who were part of doing a lot of different things, and among them were the accusations that they were paying women for sex. they were looking into whether

gaetz and a guy named joel greenberg, a colleague, a friend, ally of his -- >> he's in jail for a long time, right? >> over ten years. he's in jail. he pled guilty to sex trafficking of if gaetz had been indicted in the federal investigation, he would have faced a mandatory minimum, which means that if he had been found guilty, he would have gone to prison for ten years. >> so answer the question, and i'm so glad you're talking about this guy, who is in jail for ten years, answer the question and we asked on this show, as we heard there was this investigation going on, we kept saying, okay, this isn't that hard. she was either 17 or she was 18. what i don't understand is we

now have testimony, sworn testimony, that we have seen from the house ethics committee saying, oh, she was 17. and he paid for sex and it was, like, these drug-fueled original orgies. why is that guy in jail for ten years for doing what these witnesses are testifying matt gaetz did? why didn't the feds bring charges against matt gaetz, if, in fact, we have this testimony now and we know what they told the feds and what they told the house? >> because your question is basically the evidence was strong enough to put this guy that we have never heard of named joel greenberg behind bars for ten years. >> right. >> why was that evidence not strong enough for matt gaetz? and that is obviously a question for merrick garland. and it is a big shortcoming of the justice system and our country where when they don't make a major decision, we usually don't hear an

explanation. in the case of jim comey, he gave an explanation, people didn't like that, that's a separate issue. in terms of why they didn't do this, the best of our understanding is that they were concerned about how the women would hold up as witnesses at a trial. so you're going to have someone like matt gaetz who is going to throw everything at the department, i'm not making an excuse for this, i'm just telling you why we think they made the decision they did, gaetz is going to hire high end criminal defense lawyers, they're going to throw everything at the department, they're going to have a high profile trial, and you're going to have these women on the stand that will have the investigation basically coming down to what they say and the jury's credibility, you know, how much the jury is -- >> you know, we have seen this time and time again,' elise, w heard people say during the me too era, there is a reason why women didn't come forward because they didn't want to get crushed. even, you know, art imitates reality where, you know, we have

been talking about disclaimer for so long. and the entire premise of that is this powerful strong woman kept a secret about a rape that she had when she was a younger woman to herself, to her detriment through the years, and, you know, as we heard, again, art imitates life, time and time again women saying, i don't want to go forward, i don't want to go in front of witnesses and then have high powered defense attorneys trash me and blame me for what somebody did to me. >> so, did the women, though, not want to go forward because their lawyer has been saying recently that they do want to speak. but was this a decision made by the justice department? >> this is a decision made we the justice department. they could have compelled the women to talk. they have the tools to do that as prosecutors. and they could have gone to great lengths to try and protect the women. but i think that there was a feeling in the department that if they were going to take on donald trump's right hand guy,

that they needed to be 100% sure they were going to win. and that's an extremely high standard, and people would criticize that. people would say, prosecutors need to bring cases even if they're afraid they're going to lose because it is important, you know, to show the public that they're doing that. >> that's the real question of modern prosecutions. >> and, it seems -- there is a long history of politicians like, that the justice department has gone after, not just biden administration, but in the bush administration, and way back, where they go after politicians, it is much harder to get the charges to stick. you saw john edwards or i could -- >> even the governor of virginia, right, they bring the case -- >> exactly. >> they win, and then they lose 9-0 several years later at the supreme court. so, for the average person watching this, my email is filled with this, why didn't they bring the case, why didn't they bring the case, i think it is a legitimate question. but i think there is a nuance to it. the problem is that in merrick

garland you don't have an attorney general who is going to sit and explain that to anyone. so, we're left here largely speculating with some reporting on my end of understanding that the department about why they made this major decision, which is not just a decision now about, oh, this is what we decided about donald trump's ally, this is now a decision about why we didn't charge the potential incoming attorney general. >> right. so, let's be very clear to the audience right now, though, this is a legal question, on why they didn't go after matt gaetz like they did the other guy. but, symone, let's talk about the reality that we face now. you had testimony, sworn testimony before the united states house of representatives ethics committee. we know that testimony is there. and there is, like, this big

question, like, the republican -- like the, i guess the house speaker thinks he's being clever by, like, stopping it, but as we have been saying on this show, it is the old midas commercials, pay me now or pay me later, we can have pieces of paper that show the testimony, or we can have these republican senators who have said, hey, one way or the other, we're going to get this testimony and if you don't want to give us the report, we're just going to call him to capitol hill and they can testify live in front of tens of millions of people. >> and people will watch that. look, joe, i think that -- i think that these allegations and what we know about the investigation is deeply concerning and frankly, you know, it is disqualifying. let me just be real clear. without these allegations, as it pertains to matt gaetz, and as it pertains to pete hegseth, the people are unqualified. and it is amazing to me that we are now at a point where the

senators and other members of congress that are literally trying to do their due diligence here, the republican senators, nobody likes matt gaetz, and is not a popularity contest, let's just say they didn't like him, but he was overly qualified. if you look at the last two attorneys general, the current attorney general merrick garland, he was almost a supreme court justice, he served on the federal court of appeals, spent the bulk of his career within the department of justice and appointed and career and political appointee levels and then he also served in private practice. the attorney general before him, bill barr, i mean, he was a former law clerk for a judge on the court of appeals, spent time in private practice, he himself served as a previous attorney general in other roles. matt gaetz, pete hegseth, they're all unqualified. these -- these very concerning developments that we are learning about, these allegations about their -- what they do in their personal time and the conduct, these are cherries on top of already a

real nasty cake. whether they get testimony or not from these women and frankly the women shouldn't have to come forward to -- i don't believe that these young women should have to be dragged before the united states congress, in front of the senate, and air out their business because the men in congress and some women are scared to buck the president-elect. but let's just be real clear, without that, the man ain't qualified. i'm just kind of like what we doing? >> symone, you know washington so well. you know it better than me. don't you think, i mean, i love -- it is almost like in the south when we say, oh, you know, bless your heart, right? these guys are going, oh, we have to see all the testimony and we're going to give him a fair hearing and da, da, da. but this is coming from senators who know he's not qualified, who know he has attacked them a

thousand times, knows he have called them fools and political opportunists and et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. it is almost like, you know, even without these charges, he wasn't going to get through. i just -- so you're exactly right. when people say, well, we have to get all the details and we will review it and et cetera, it is like that's a pro forma answer to reporters' questions. >> yes. i agree. look, i -- i don't want to sound like people are saying, well, you don't think the sexual assault allegations and the rape allegations as it relates to pete hegseth are serious and the paying underaged women for sex is serious, i think it is very serious, frankly. does matt gaetz have a wife? does pete hegseth have a wife? i want to hear from the wives, honey what is going on up in the house? that is another story entirely. when it comes to the qualifications, you cannot -- no democratic senator on the hill, frankly, maybe even some republicans, they didn't support -- they don't necessarily support all of the

nominees they ever had to vote for. however -- they don't like them publicly, right, but president usually is entitled to their nominee, they nominate who they want and they put that person through the wringer in the process. the difference here is, usually you are nominating people that at least have the basic qualifications. pete hegseth's basic qualification to be the defense secretary is that he is a veteran. matt gaetz's basic qualification for the attorney general is that he was a lawyer for a hot second? i mean, he lost his bar license in florida, frankly, over the last year and a half, and had to have it reinstated because he didn't pay his dues. this is about the basic qualifications. and these other things, these salacious details are cherries on top, like i said, of a very nasty, already unqualified cake. >> well, let me say, of course, we salute his service, we salute everybody's service, but as we had admiral stavridis say

earlier, it is not -- if you're a colonel or whatever you are, this is so complicated. that certainly helps, but, man, you need somethingial experience because the pentagon, i mean, that along with being cia director, those are two of the toughest jobs anywhere. because it just requires this extraordinary experience in managing people and bureaucracies. >> department of defense is a staff of 3 million people. it is gigantic. and there is nothing in pete hegseth's resume that suggests he has any kind of experience to manage that. that's even setting aside what we're now learning -- further details we're learning about this incident in 2017. jen psaki, let's bring you in. so, these were mostly talking about legal issues here, there are politics involved. and these senators, we can safely assume, for likely gaetz and potentially hegseth, they have real doubts about their

qualifications and fitness for these important posts. however, there is still a difference between thinking that and actually openly defying donald trump. and which we have not seen republicans do with much frequency. do you think what we have learned here, thanks to reporting from michael and others, this will give them the space to do so? >> well, look, i think what is important to remember here is what you just said, this is not confirmations are not -- and i ran the confirmations team for the biden/harris transition. they're not held to the standard of a jury trial or department of justice bars for legal action. it is up to the senators to determine whether this person, whomever the nominee is, is the right person to move forward. so you just showed the clip before of senator cramer. my concern here and what i hope hill reporters start calling people out on is that they're hiding behind the report. they just want to see the report so that they can make a judgment. they just want to hear them in a confirmation hearing, this is what you hear them say, so they can learn more. what more do you need to know at

this point? just reading mike's story this morning, it is not about determining whether they're guilty according to the justice system, it is whether you, as a senator, who is elected by people in your state, think they are the right person to serve in this job. and there are plenty of people. four years ago, mira tanden didn't become the omb director, it was because senators decided they didn't want to move forward. that is how this process works. and i think a lot of these senators are hiding behind process because they don't want to state what their point of view is and that's where i think people should be pushing, not do you think the report should be released. of course it should be. it should not allow them to delay this further because people deserve answers in their states or otherwise, whatever they feel about these nominees. >> so, michael, final word to you. and where do you go next in the investigation? >> i'm just not sure it is about

the -- to the point being made here, i'm not sure it is about the report. because if gaetz goes forward, he'll be under oath before congress. and someone will almost certainly ask him the question, did you pay for sex. and at that point, he'll be forced to answer that question. and whether, you know, i have no idea how he's going to answer that question. >> that's why it is so strange. they're pushing this ball down the road, and it is inevitably pad. people say they didn't want the fbi background checks because they didn't want them to lie under oath, so they don't want them to lie under oath in private, but they want them to lie under oath in front of tens of millions of people. they don't want to give the testimony of these women in private, but they want to get them in front of the red hot -- that would cast an eclipse over -- political eclipse over any incoming president, any

democrat, republican, independent. so i don't -- i just don't understand the political logic of pushing this ball down the road, where things get exponentially worse every day. >> you could have a hearing, let's say ten days into donald trump's presidency, where matt gaetz has to, you know, go under oath because he's before the senate, and i'm sure even a republican would ask him, mr. gaetz, there has been a range of reporting about this, what is your answer to that question. and that would be as early and dramatic moment there could be in a trump presidency. whatever the answer is is bound to be controversial one way or another, including if he were to take the fifth amendment. >> and that's what we all would be talking about and the media will be covering and not whatever else policy the trump administration is trying to -- >> they're trying to deport. at that point we talked about deporting violent criminals,

donald trump is going to want the focus to be on that. he's going to want the focus to be on, you know, tariffs. he's going to want the focus to be on what he's doing to maybe move peace forward in the middle east or in russia and ukraine. he's not going to want to be talking about 17-year-olds getting paid for sex. that's why, again, i don't understand the, like, well, things may be better if we just delay it because all that does is get in the way of a new administration. >> there is no question there. at least to this point, trump showing no signs of backing down. "new york times" investigative reporter michael schmidt, thank you for your reporting. symone sanders townsend, thank you as well. >> symone what are you talking about this weekend? >> my goodness, we're going to be talking about this, joe. we're reaching out to a number of different folks trying to get them all. we asked tulsi gabbard if she wanted to come on. i know tulsi gabbard from before in her former life when she was a bernie supporter and i have

questions about why she thinks she's qualified and we're going to see if people have accepted some of these invitations, but folks should tune in. we going to run the gamut this weekend, for sure. >> we will be watching this weekend, symone, thank you. time now for a look at some of the other stories making headlines this morning. a tennessee man has been found guilty of trying to kill law enforcement agents who investigated him for his role in the january 6th insurrection. prosecutors say that edward kelly created a kill list and planned to attack an fbi office in knoxville with incendiary devices. the verdict came just two weeks after kelly was convicted for assaulting an officer during that same capitol riot. here in new york city, we're getting finally a little bit of rain, but not nearly enough to wipe out the drought conditions across the region. new york city mayor eric adams declared drought warning on

monday, first in over 20 years. officials say the city's reservoirs are about 60% of their total capacity. and it is the end of an era for the simpsons. pamela hayden, who voices the character of milhouse, among many others, is retiring from the show after 35 years. this sunday's episode will mark her final performance. will mark her final performance. ♪ the simpsons ♪ >> i'm pamela hayden. hi. >> wow, cool. >> i do jim bo jones. i'm rob and sometimes todd and my main guy is milhouse. >> this is where i come to cry. >> way to drink, dexter. >> people come up to me and quote milhouse lines. >> i said jimny gee will ikers

many times, the words have lost their meaning. >> the one thing i love about milhouse is he's always getting knocked down, but he keeps getting up. >> i'm never giving up. >> there he is. >> not again! >> i love the little guy. >> it is this wonderful platitude for life. you put your glasses back on and you go on. >> oh, milhouse. >> everything's coming up milhouse. >> who knew it would ever become this phenomenon? ♪♪ >> it is the greatest job in the world. >> i mean, you know, milhouse, first of all, what an incredible character. "the simpsons," it is stunning, it keeps going and going and going. my kids all love them. across 47 generations. like, we all -- i mean, what,

'91, did it start in '91? it is just stunning that this show has continued to stay relevant over three decades. >> relevant and high quality and also having a new life thanks to social media where you pull up instagram, whatever, you serve a couple of reels and they're little snippets but make you laugh every time. >> they're a model for everyone in content. >> yeah. >> stay relevant, keep on going. >> 1989. >> 1989, all right. the year you were born. >> not quite. not quite. our congrats to her and my milhouse. up next, governor michelle lujan grisham who will discuss the role of democratic governors during donald trump's second term and why she says her state will not help the president-elect's mass deportation efforts. that's next on "morning joe." mas deportation efforts. that's next on "morning joe.

hey, grab more delectables. you know, that lickable cat treat? de-lick-able delectables? yes, just hurry. hmm. it must be delicious. delectables lickable treat.

♪ (animatronic santa) ho, ho, ho! (vo) time to move? make it easy with opendoor. sell your home in any season, for any reason. (animatronic santa) look at me! i am festive! ♪ that colonoscopy for getting screened ♪ ♪ is why i'm delaying ♪ ♪ i heard i had a choice ♪

♪ i know the name, that's what i'm saying ♪ -cologuard®? -cologuard. cologuard! -screen for colon cancer. -at home, like you want. -you the man! -actually, he's a box. cologuard is a one-of-a-kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45+ at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ i did it my way ♪

lara trump, former house speaker nancy pelosi and our next guest, democratic governor of new mexico, michelle lujan grisham. governor, thank you for being with us. i want to -- i want to understand better new mexico and where it moved because we always talk about the states that were reliably democratic that went republican, but if you look at the map now, you had new mexico and colorado, which basically two blue states in a sea of red from nevada all the way over to the east coast. and i just did a quick check here, republicans won -- pete domenici, senate legend from new mexico and new mexico always liked republicans, republican presidential candidates won 68, 72, 84, 88, george w. bush won

in 2004. so, why is new mexico now blue when it moved blue and so much of the country has moved red? >> well, i think a couple of reasons. one, new mexico is a state that is clearly not interested in extreme positions. the republican party today isn't moderate, isn't focused on the middle, isn't focused on working class americans, even if folks voted assuming they would support that agenda, new mexicoens know in this day and age, that's not the case. democrats in new mexico, including me, are delivering in that regard. so, free child care, investments in affordable housing, free college, so much investments in raising wages and opportunities that now new mexico, because of those investments, went from 50

with child poverty to 17th. very clearly demonstrating we know how to make a difference in family stability and opportunity. and that's what people want at the end of the day. they don't want extreme positions. they want to just make sure we're focused there, and you want to make sure we're not taking away fundamental rights and freedoms. and the state squarely is in the column about making sure that women's rights and reproductive freedoms stay in tact. >> governor, jen psaki. you said you're not going to help with donald trump's aspirations to do mass deportations. there are a lot of people out there who are happy to hear that. what can you specifically do to stop his efforts moving forward as once he becomes president? >> well, a couple of things. first of all, as you know, it is unlawful. you can't use the military. you can't do mass deportations, so any federal administration, you should expect states and i think you should expect some

bipartisan support, not just by the democratic governors. is that violating the constitution and the law? we're not going to do that. we ought to be working on making sure that violent criminals and criminal activity is stopped everywhere. there isn't a state that isn't interested, whether you're an american citizen or not, and he effectively trump killed the bipartisan border deal, not the first time that he's done that. we need more agents, we need more collective effort so that we're bringing bord are er secu and holding people accountable where they are. disrupting family substitute us and the economy, inhumane, cruel, unfair, discriminate policies that, again, are illegal on their face, we are not going to cooperate in any way in that effort. >> governor, let's get your response to something else the president-elect has proposed, which is eliminating the department of education. if that were to happen, what sort of impact would it have on

your state? and its students? >> devastating. it is devastating impacts. new mexico has a much higher per capita average of kiddos who need special education interventions and supports. this notion that we aren't going to fund that, that we're going to go just to vouchers, that we aren't going to make sure that there is really equality inside the school system, look, my sister in the '60s was one of the very first special education students in the state of new mexico and i would argue probably anywhere in the country. and we have come a long way, but we need to do much better. and a lot of that is related not having enough maternal prenatal care, not early interventions, we're shifting that dynamic as i talked about earlier, not having billions of dollars and an accountability metrics is devastating. and that's just on the special education side. we're a minority majority state. not doing investments for

hispanic students and native american students is tragic and we are finally moving the needle by reintroducing the science of reading and we're seeing dramatic increases in our literacy scores. they want to abandon all of it. it will have devastating both financial and school access components including transportation for new mexico kids and, again, we will fight it, we will also put our own investments, if that occurs, we aren't going to let kiddos fall further behind anywhere. and we will do that as a collective in the southwest. >> governor, elise jordan here. your borders -- excuse me, your voters on the border shifted eight points to the right. and in texas, the same thing happened with voters who live on the border, moving to the right. you say you are not going to play -- participate in donald trump's deportation policies, but how can you strengthen the

border in new mexico? what is the compromise? >> i mean, it is this border bill. i'm really clear that this is a federal issue. i want and you're right, new mexicans want, i need more border patrol agents. we want more interdictions on the drug trafficking and human trafficking and bringing guns across. we want all of that. i need technology and fentanyl screening and i want cameras. we want all the smart devices and efforts. i need real personnel at the border. and this notion that we are politicizing, not putting resources where we are decades behind, including you need more people at the ports of entry where these issues occur without ing with economic efforts because new mexico is our largest u.s. trading partner. you want food prices to be

lower? you better figure out what you're doing at the border where we're bringing in fresh produce and taking it over all of the time. we need this border bill passed. and we need folks hired at the border. i will do everything i can and i don't know a democratic governor who doesn't want congress to act here. >> so, governor, two really quick questions to end. first of all, i love talking to governors, because governors actually have to work with the other side. governors have to be bipartisan, and you see that in just about every state. i want to ask you, first of all, what do you see as some opportunities for bipartisanship, not just in your state over the next two years, but also in washington, first of all, and secondly, there are a lot of democrats that are waking up, obviously, last week and through this week that are down and dejected and some saying i'm exhausted, i'm done with the

resistance, i'm done with marching, i'm done with politics, what is your message of hope to them? >> well, look, we didn't get -- no candidate got 50%. and so i think that speaks to your point where people are exhausted, and anxious and angry. those are not good strategies to improve anyone's quality of life. so, i want to start with the hopeful message. there is lots that we can do. and quite frankly, governors and your local elected leaders have a huge role to play in reinvesting in your family's security, stability and quality of life. there is lots of opportunities, bipartisan, to work with congress when i served in congress, i was in the minority, but we did a ton of work that provided real relief and innovation support to new mexico families. i work really well with our legislature, both sides of the aisle, that is not to say we

don't have some major disagreements, and i think it is well known that i'm really working on a public safety agenda and i've got a ton of support, largely by more conservative members of the legislature. but i think we're going to have some real wins in the 60-day session. those investments inside police departments from congress is another really good place where people can see us making practical, pragmatic efforts. i want to support congress. i would love to see them do more on the child tax credit, new mexico kept it, there are other really important ways for us to do that, but new mexicans expect me to fight any efforts on reducing educational support, on repealing the affordable care act, and i will tell you that republicans in new mexico, by and large, recognize the value of our medicaid investments, of the affordable care act, about making sure pre-existing conditions are covered, and these are areas that make a difference in people's lives and

they appreciate those pragmatic responses by both sides of the aisle, and i think americans want more of that, while holding this incoming administration accountable, every administration accountable to the letter of the law. >> democratic governor michelle lujan grisham of new mexico covering a lot of ground for us this morning. thank you, governor. >> thank you for having me. nbc's stephanie ruhle held a conversation yesterday with former joint chiefs of staff retired army general mark milley where he weighed in on the incoming trump administration's so-called department of government efficiency. take a look. >> if all you're going to do is come in with a wrecking ball and just blow things apart, then you're going to -- what you're going to get is rubble. if that's what you want, that's awesome if you want rubble but that's not going to defend the united states. we have to transform the pentagon. it is going to take an effort.

industry guys, elon, vivek and others, sure, they can be helpful, but it has to be done correctly. >> so those remarks come as elon musk and vivek ramaswamy lay out plans for mass federal layoffs as part of their brand-new panel. doge. they aim to identify thousands of regulations for president-elect trump to eliminate. in an op-ed for "the wall street journal," the two write they support a requirement for federal employees to work from the office five days a week. let's now bring in the co-anchor of cnbc's "squawk box" and "new york times" columnist andrew ross sorkin who works six or seven days a week, i think. let's start there with what doge could do and, you know, the warning signs that we're just illuminated by chair milley? >> there are a whole bunch of conflicting pieces to this op-ed, which is fascinating,

trying to understand what they can and cannot do. most of it, it appears, willing done through executive action. the effort is not going to be to persuade congress doing one thing or the other. there are pieces, though, of this op-ed, for example, that may suggest they may try to change the law. they point out, for example, that federal spending, doge, through executive action, that the 1974 impoundment and control act stops the president from ceasing expenditures that are authorized by congress. trump has suggested this statute is unconstitutional and they are basically saying they believe that this supreme court, given its -- the number of republicans on it, would go along with that. there may be some major switches going on here. also, i'll point to something which i think was fascinating and i still don't understand it, they go on to say that they plan

to -- $5 billion in annual expenditures they say are unauthorized by congress or are being used in ways that congress never intended and yet one of their examples for that is the corporation for public broadcasting, which gets about $535 million. the corporation for public broadcasting not only was authorized by congress, it was created by congress in 1967, and their budget is literally authorized every two years by congress. so it is unclear exactly how through these executive actions they could take aim at an organization like that. but i think that's what's on the table here. the other issue is they talk about civil service protections and how they may be able to get around those insofar as if they can fire large swaths of people that they can claim that that is not, you know, politically weaponizing the system, they're doing it on a broad-based approach and yet at the same time, they also talk about

trying to single out or find folks who may be on the progressive side of things. so that's why this sort of very mixed picture here trying to understand exactly what is going to happen. >> all right, andrew ross sorkin, thank you so much. greatly appreciate it. and, andrew, i'm sure said thank you wherever he was. so, jen, it is so fascinating, you know, people try to make, again, i hate to be a broken record, but they try to make every election outcome like black and white. and it never is. and i will tell you on election night, the day after, the day after, it looked pretty black and white, right? you're like, oh, wow, okay, man, it is a sea of red out there. the further you get away from it, you understand, again, we talked about it time and again, you know, democrats pick up a senate seat in wisconsin, pick up a senate seat in michigan, those three states, the blue wall states, really close,al

within a point, a point and a half. but i just -- we just spoke with new mexico governor, she is extraordinarily impressive. you look in "the new york times" today, ruben gallego, a guy that i think it is safe for me to say, i hope nobody gets insulted, he's for more -- where are we going -- he's far more progressive than the average voter in arizona, he won though. he reached out to people. he figured out how to win. and, of course, in nevada, well, in nevada, nevada civic candidates keep doing what nevada senate candidates keep doing for democratic party. they always figure out a way to win, just like, again, in arizona, four democratic wins. i understand people are really down for a lot of reasons. we see this after every election. but, man, there are some opportunities that the party can

grow on, right? >> yeah. look, this is one of the most interesting questions to me right now. there is still some self-reflection needed. i still don't have all the answers. i'm sure you don't have all the answers. s answers. that's a healthy thing. one of the most interesting things to me right now is i talked to elissa slotkin, she won in michigan, a state that harris and walz did not win at the top of the ticket. how did she win? i talked to andy kim from new jersey, the new senator elect from there, there are lessons here about how democrats can win and what the way forward is. and it is important to not blame it on one thing, because i don't think it is one thing. and really it would be self-reflective, but forward looking about what it means. one of them, i think, is figuring out how to talk to people who disagree with you, not agreeing with them, but figuring out how to talk to them, but also how to talk and i'm just going to say, in a more english way about the economy, and the things that are impacting people in their

everyday lives. make it less poll tested, less sounding like you're reading off a dnc set of talking points. there are a lot of lessons here but there are people who have won. i'm interested in talking to them about how and what we can learn from them. >> i think yesterday in "pod save america," and it was incredible what the guys were talking about. and, of course, it was fun, they were -- but they were saying, listen, so, this and that, but republicans, they're going around and they're having a good time, and they're laughing and they're this and they're that and they didn't feel like they had to qualify every single statement that they were saying, but they were talking about also sort of an attitudinal shift. like not always being shocked, not always being stunned, not always being back on your heels, but going forward, and, you know, like you said, find the common ground where you can find

the common ground and fight where you most fight. >> yes, and question, always question. nobody is suggesting not to. that's an important part of it. i keep thinking about what happened during first trump term and what lessons there are to learn from it. it is not to fight every fight to the nth degree. it is to figure out what the right things are to question and raise your voice about. that's why the affordable care act remains in place. that's also why trump changed his position on family separation, not before a lot of damage had been done, but that activism, people in states, their willingness to speak out, is what changed his point of view on that. so, there is a way to use your voice in an appropriate, nonviolent democratically good way and i think that's important thing to remember in this time where we're all figuring it out. >> jen psaki, thank you as always. we will, of course, be watching "inside with jen psaki" sundays at noon and mondays at 8:00 p.m. eastern. thanks, jen. coming up here, we'll speak

with actor darren criss and michael arden about their new broadway musical which follows two human-like robots who develop a unique connection. it is getting great reviews. you don't want to miss this. "morning joe" will be right back. u don't want to miss this. "morning joe" will be right back

i have 68. four days of rain behind us. perfect day for outdoor activities. ♪ today the air in seoul is very clear and warm ♪ ♪ today the smiles too are warmer than the norm ♪ ♪ and i know the packing is done i'm finally hitting the road ♪

>> that's a look at the new broadway musical "maybe happy ending." the futuristic romantic comedy follows two outdated but very human-like robots, oliver and clare, as they learn to love, despite their world passing them by. the show is receiving true critical acclaim with "the new york times" naming the show one of its critics picks, calling it, quote, a super smart musical about making a connection that arrives on broadway in a joyful, heart breaking cutting edge production. joining us now, the star of "maybe happy ending," darren criss, emmy and golden globe award winner and the show's tony award winning director, michael arden. thank you, guys, for both being here. michael, i'll start with you. where did this come from? >> what in the -- >> i got sent a script a few years ago back in 2017, and the headline said, this is a story about two robots. and i thought, what a terrible

idea. and then i listened to the score, and read the script, and was completely devastated, tears rolling down my face, because it felt like one of the most human stories i had ever encountered. it is sort of, you know, i think we sometimes go to the theater, go to films to kind of find out who we are as humans. and sometimes if we can look at something that is quite different from us, you know on stage or on screen, we're able to allow ourselves to view ourselves with a little more freedom. it is like, why do we like pixar movies? >> right. and to understand ourselves more. politically i talk about if you want to understand why some trends are going on in america, read ann applebomb. so you set this in the future, and yet i love visually how there is sort of this retro look to it, which reminds me of disney plus, loki, avatar

series, same thing, in the future, enough of this retro feel and it does really connect you to think, wait a second, this is a timeless issue, whether you're talking about 1954 or 2054. >> it is about these two people, let's call them, robots, who are dealing with their own obsolescence. aren't we all? >> we all have battery life. >> so we wanted to look backwards in order to look forward and we knew that the trap of designing for the future is to try to design the future. so, it certainly has a retro feel and darren's character oliver is obsessed with midcentury music and jazz. >> jazz and vinyl, yeah. >> which happens to be a lot of the cornerstone of classic american broadway music. so there is a familiarity and nostalgia and accessibility to the music. you say things that seem absurd like it is a robot musical, what is it going to look like or feel like, but there is a deep nostalgia about the aesthetic and the way the show is

presented. it feels like something you've always known, a rare feeling when you're making a new broadway musical, this is a new original show that is not based on a popular book or film. and that's really an extraordinary thing to be a part of and present to audiences at this juncture in our culture. >> the story is about love in the digital age. how -- talk about your character and the love affair that happens. >> well, i asked michael something when there is a thing that is focused on the show which i don't want to give away, michael said something to me that really blew my mind, this is a show about living things. and the way that we take care of those living things and how love itself makes things alive. these are very lofty things i'm talking about. but the show is about how love can make seemingly inanimate things seem alive. robots, memories themselves, plants, many people in our lives, maybe you can relate to this, we keep our obsolete iphones in drawers, even though they're past their prime for

reasons beyond anything -- >> for me, it is the eight track player. >> you keep them. you ascribe these feelings to nonalive things because your experience and your love makes these things alive and you take care of them accordingly. and so this show really is about that kind of love that is obviously there is the human sort of romantic love, but the love of what it is to care for something and to really put your own aliveness into something else to make it also alive. >> there is also something here too that we struggle with every day which we read articles and talk about it and that is loneliness, isolation in the digital age. and you all sort of speak to that here as well, don't you? >> i think that the play really starts in a very cold sterile digital world. and it is not until these two people come into contact with each other and decide to go on an adventure that they begin to let go more and more of that, so

the play becomes more and more natural as they leave their apartments and go on this adventure to the island and go in the forest and encounter fireflies, they cross an ocean together. and i think it is about how we -- the human need to, one, connect with nature and, two, how there is a responsibility to take care of each other. >> and this is a musical comedy, by the way. this is, like -- >> i'm laughing, i'm laughing. >> we're talking about what the show is about, but the story, yeah, we set with this future scape with robots and you think that sounds so silly, but the same thing if i was trying to explain to you without it being popular "phantom of the opera," "the lion king" or "sweeney todd," "wicked," on paper, they're absurd, but there are characters that are so enduring that more than meets the eye. >> and critics pick. >> and the new musical "maybe happy ending" is playing now at the