that will do it for me. i'll be back next saturday and sunday at 6:00 p.m. eastern. catch clips of the show on youtube and listen to every episode as a free podcast. also, don't forget. on tuesday, i've got a big announcement on my own social media platforms on twitter, instagram at jonathan

capehart.bluesky. good evening. trump's new pick to run the fbi has vowed to shudder to agency, quote, on day one. we'll take a closer look at trump uber loyalist, kash patel. plus, trump's mass deportation plan. feasible or just another empty promise? and in texas, the state's restrictive abortion laws have led to another devastating and entirely preventable death. i'm melissa murray. let's do it. president-elect donald trump's decision to tap loyalist, kash patel, to run the federal bureau of investigation underscores a dark vision for his second term in the white house and republicans are already falling in line. >> he represents the type of change we need to see in the fbi. there are serious problems at the fbi. the american public knows it. they expect to see sweeping

change and kash patel is just the person to do it. >> kash patel has more experience than just about anybody coming into the this position. >> i think kash patel is a very strong nominee to take on the partisan corruption in the fbi. >> the announcement marks the culmination of a year's long campaign patel launched against the fbi then under the leadership of christopher wray. early in wray's term, patel began climbing the maga ladder to nunez. in 2018, patel was reportedly involved in drafting a new memo intended to counter the russia investigation. after that memo landed with a thud, patel continued to rise in trump world by pushing conspiracy theories about a so-called deep state he claimed was deeply rooted in the fbi and

when trump left office, patel wrote a book that called for ousting the fbi's top ranks and prosecuting anyone who quote abused their authority for political ends. trump, for his part, praised the book calling it quote, a roadmap to ending the deep state's reign. now in the past year, patel has stepped up his extreme rhetoric, making it clear in no uncertain terms how he would run the fbi. >> we will go out and find the conspirators not just in government, but in the media. we're going to come after the people in the media who lied and helped joe biden rig elections. whether it's criminally or civilly. the biggest problem the fbi has had has come out of its intel shops. i'd break out that component. shut down the fbi hoover building on day one and reopen it the next day as a museum of the deep state. >> he's gotten pushback and not

just from democrats. some of trump's former white house officials have gotten into the act. bill barr revealed that he slammed trump's idea to name patel deputy fbi director in the final months of his first term. barr wrote he told then chief of staff meadows that patel's appointment would happen quote, over his dead body. barr also cited patel's lack of field experience noting quote, someone with no background as an agent would never be able to command the respect necessary to command the day-to-day operations of the bureau. last night in a statement to nbc news, john bolton compared patel him to a soviet police leader quote, the senate should reject this nomination 100-0. but in today's gop, figures like

barr and bolton are in the minority. to succeed in trump world, you need to be a die hard loyal list who would do anything to appease trump. that's why wray has fallen from grace. also why kash patel's star is rising as someone who is way more willing to execute a program of revenge and retribution. that is if he can get confirmed. let's go to my panel, host of fast politics podcast and a "vanity fair" correspondent. also, michelle goldberg, msnbc political analyst and columnist for "new york times." and ary mccourt. molly, let's start with you. it was an enormous scandal in

2017 when donald trump fired then fbi director james comey before comey had finished his term. at least back then though, there was pushback from republicans. now it seems this kind of behavior has been normalized and trump is clearly signaling he wants to replace christopher wray. what do you make of the fact we typically appoint fbi directors for longer terms? >> so, we did these were ethic statements that were put in place after watergate to make it so that the fbi director did not serve the same term as a president, right, that it was longer term. and not reliant on elections. that was an anti corruption move so the fbi would have some kind of freedom, right, from

political, from politics. that was the ethos of it. look, you know, patel is a really, is really so typical for this kind of maga loyalist, right. he is, it's very much this project 2025 ethos. you want to destroy the federal agency you are tasked to run. right. we heard him say he wants to make it a museum of the deep state. i wouldn't, i would say that i think the most important thing here is we have seen republicans push back, right, they pushed back against the matt gaetz announcement and now he's no longer going to be attorney general. so i do think like as much we want to be cynical, really important when covering a, you know, an aspiring autocrat to realize there are some checks and balances if republicans are forced to use them and while they may not want to, i don't think it's beyond the pale that they might.

and i do think you know, they can't lose more than three senators. there are enough senators in purple states. people like susan collins, lisa murkowski, where there is a possibility. we have seen those in the last three weeks. so i do think we shouldn't consider it to be a conflict because that really does enable this kind of, you know, sort of aauthoritarianism. >> molly's just spoken about this idea that there are guardrails. we've seen republicans push back. but there are a long line of eyebrow nominations and maybe more coming down the pike. can the senate withstand all this, can republicans withstand all this or at some point, do you essentially have to cry uncle and start confirming some of these people? >> it's less about uncle and it's more than you wouldn't want

to bet what you value too much on the courage and integrity on senate republicans and standing up to trump. while i think that we should expect them to, let not expect them to, but demand they do, it's the literal least of their constitutional duties to advise and consent on these outrageous, insulting, dangerous nominations. again, i just, i think that if there are guardrails left, there are extraordinarily flimsy and fragile. this is dangerous for two reasons. obviously to have this an rachic who turn the fbi into a secret police force for donald trump. not just dismantle it, but use it to investigate his enemies and political persecutions. also, the fbi does other stuff. there's a story by david ignatius about kash patel i think from 2021. just about how he kind of almost

screwed up this rescue operation to rescue, i believe it was a missionary in nigeria just through oversight and incompetence. there's the kind of political persecution part, but also just the fact that he, we will all be more dangerous to have someone like this in that position. >> can i talk to you about this, mary? you are an insider with the department of justice. we know that president biden chose to keep wray on again to honor that tradition of having fbi directors serve for ten-year terms. also, an effort to restore trust between the bureau and the white house. what will it mean for the relationship between the bureau and the white house if donald trump is successful in installing patel as director of the fbi? >> well, it just shows that the fbi is now going to be used as a tool, right, just to undertake whatever sort of political whims

that the incoming president wishes. that defy it is whole logic and rationale behind the ten-year terms as we were talking about earlier in this segment, which sort of tried to pull away from the plitization of the fbi and show independence there. director wray has served honorably for the seven years he has been in office. again, he was appointed by donald trump after donald trump fired james comey. these types of firings of fbi directors are exceedingly rare, yet here, if mr. trump carries out his promises, he will have twice fired an fbi director, cutting short these ten-year terms that were intended to breed this type of independence. so i think this would be extremely demoralizing within the fbi as well as the department of justice because the attorneys at the department of justice, whether they are battling transnational drug

trafficking, human trafficking or counterterrorism or espionage cases, they work hand in glove with fbi agents. so having somebody like patel at the head of the fbi, particularly when you think about his willingness to do whatever the incoming president wants could impact what that office is asked to do. put that together with the immunity decision from the summer that gives donald trump immunity from official acts, corrupting his official acts, it's a dangerous combination and really will impact the morale of the men and women of the fbi. >> last year, patel told steve bannon that the second trump administration would go after people in the media. criminally or civilly. at the time, the trump campaign distanced themselves from those comments saying that proclamations like that have nothing to do with donald trump and the campaign. what should we make of this now

that it seems like kash patel is being brought in from the cold? >> you know, i think it's really important, we were just talking about this. we need to expect our even republicans to do the right thing here. and that means when in this case, protect norms and institutions. so one of the norms we have in this country is the first amendment. that means that even republicans need to protect it, right. we have had fbi directors like my grandfather was jailed by an fbi director who, you know, during the activity, so we certainly have seen fbi directors get out of control and target american citizens and actually, i was reading something where he couldn't get a passport after he had gotten out of jail because he had criticized the united states government. there certainly is a pretty recent history of the american fbi doing this, but the only way that our norms and institutions

hold is that if we demand our electeds to stand up for that. >> michelle, before we leave, i just want to get your reaction to a recent piece from the atlantic's david from. he says that prestages a constitutional crisis greater than watergate. are we actually approaching a constitutional crisis with this? >> i think that's the best case scenario because this implies that there are opposing forces, right, that there's going to be a showdown between different centers of power. either the courts or the senate you know, so i feel like a constitutional crisis is maybe as good as it gets. the more scary thing is just that trump is able to steam roll

all the other institutions and you know, turn this country into something that is going to be extremely unfamiliar to the vast majority of people who live here. >> with that in mind, mary, trump's first term was marked by the fact that when he couldn't get his officials confirmed, he had them in acting roles. if it's the case patel doesn't get confirmed, is there anything that would stop donald trump from appointing him? >> under the vacancy's reform act, i think for at least 90 days, he could be appointed into an acting capacity, but i think it's going to be, you know, as we talked about about the beginning of this segment, this is the time for the senate to show some spine and to ask the hard questions. we're talking about somebody who

has espoused qanon conspiracy theories. that before he left the white house in 2021 declassified vast swaths of information that our foreign allies would be shot if it had ever been declassified and of course, there's no indication that declassification ever took place. so these are things, i know you said he's not confirmed, what else could be done, but this might be the impetus for other reforms. >> i just want to alert you all to some breaking news. nbc is reporting that president biden is expected to pardon his son, hunter biden. the president's son was convicted on all three felony charges in june related to the purchase of a revolver when prosecutors argued hunter lied on a mandatory gun purchase form by saying he was not illegally using or addicted to drugs. according to nbc news, the

president made the decision this weekend. molly, what do you make of this? >> so, i just heard it. i have to process it. i don't want to have a take. i'm sorry. >> anyone, michelle? presidential power in action. president biden pardoning his son. >> i mean, look, i don't think that democrats can uphold all of these norms single handedly. hunter biden was prosecuted for a crime that a normal person would not be prosecuted for and joe biden bent over backwards not to intervene in order to show you know, sort of how much of a respecter of norms he was unlike donald trump. but you know, we see kind of what that got him. and i certainly understand why you know, kind of he, why would not want to forfeit the future and life of his son to uphold a

set of norms that are about to go up in smoke. >> what do you think of this, miriam? the president had said he would not seek a pardon for his son and here we are, using presidential powers. is this now a blank check to the incoming administration to use whatever powers at its disposal? >> as you know, the pardon power is absolute. one of those powers that is exclusively given to the president and i do think you know, people will be asking joe biden what changed because he did say pretty clearly he was not planning to pardon his son. i will note we are ending a thanksgiving day weekend and i'm sure the family was all together and i'm sure that caused him to think long and hard, but i will be interested to hear what he has to say that changed. michelle is right that the crimes hunter biden was prosecuted for are things that would not ordinarily result in the types of prosecution we saw and i don't think issuing a

pardon opens the flood gates to abuses of other types of power because a pardon is part of that exclusive authority of the president. we know that the incoming president has already talked about various types of pardons. i'm hoping he will not engage in all of those he has suggested, particularly with respect to the january 6th attackers. those who attacked the u.s. capitol, but that all, of course, remains to be seen. >> the news is coming fast and furious just like that biden thanksgiving. we're going to be joined now by msnbc legal analyst, joyce vance. welcome, joyce. joyce, what do you make of this? president biden had been resolute about not pardoning his son. now it seems he's going to use this absolute privilege to pardon his son. what do you make of this? >> well, president biden does have the power to do this unilaterally. no one can overrule him and with hunter biden's sentencing coming up fast, scheduled for this week, undoubtedly this began to weigh on him.

we all lived through donald trump's efforts to abuse and to twist the justice department there were some skirmishes involving michael cohen, donald trump's former lawyer who went to prison after he turned on donald trump and there were issues about his release and whether he was treated the same way other prisoners were being treated. so i'm sure those sorts of issues weighed heavily on president biden. but i want to underscore something mary said. which is that this is not unleashing the flood gates on abuse of presidential power by president biden. this is president biden exercising a power that he unquestionably has the ability to exercise. many presidents use the pardon power in way that is not everyone agrees with. this use, some will agree, others will find objectionable, but it's not an abuse of power.

>> to be very clear, this is not the first time a president has used wit a family member. bill clinton pardoned his brother, roger. back to this. it's not terribly specific. there had been questions about whether a president could pardon himself. are there going to be questions about pardons for the rank and file january 6th protestors? have we opened the door even if this use is understandable? what do you think, molly? i think we lost molly. what do you think, miriam? we haven't unleashed this with regard to unchecked presidential

power. but we don't really know what the contours of the pardon power are with regard to self-pardons. are we opening the door to greater questions about something like that? >> so i don't think this pardon that president biden is apparently announced he's going to make opens that door but of course with donald trump coming back into office and his own problems, i think it raises this question again because jack smith when he dismissed the january 6th related federal prosecution and just missed the appeal of judge cannon's dismissal of the mar-a-lago prosecution, he did this without prejudice. which means at least technically, they could be rebrought. so we may have this question, melissa, coming up when donald trump takes off about whether he can pardon himself and there is an office of legal counsel opinion dating back to 1974 just

three days before richard nixon resigned the presidency, which says that is the pardon power does not include the power to pardon one's own self. it goes back into the why the history of the provision is the constitution. but it's not a question the courts have ever resolved. >> joyce, it would have to be a situation where someone has been convicted. so this is not something a president could exercise with regard to state level charges, why the georgia trial garnered so much attention. because they couldn't be subject to a self-pardon. what does it mean in the context of hunter biden? is this an acceptance of pardonablety that wipes the slate clean but then has to accept that responsibility? how does this work? >> it's always a little bit

unclear in these situations whether there's acceptance of responsibility. mary and i will tell you as justice department lawyers, we view it as an acknowledgment, that there was guilt, criminality. but no requirement that the person receiving the requirement make that acknowledgment. this has something that's always been somewhat disputed in these sorts of situations. you're right there's no way the president can someone participating in state cases. donald trump has raised the specter of wholesale pardons for january 6 defendants. that, i think, is something that may have weighed heavily on president biden. the idea that his son, hunter, was prosecuted for charges that many career prosecutors, many experts in doj policy would acknowledge very likely not have

been brought against any other defendant as opposed to folks who participated in events of january 6th. >> so, joyce, you mentioned that this was likely when reference to the gun charges on which hunter was convicted and which he's going to be sentenced this week. there's also a second case. hunter biden pled guilty to tax charges and according to nbc news reporting, this pardon is expected to cover both of those convictions. the guilty plea on the tax charges as well as the gun charges conviction. what do we make of this? like a blanket pardon? are we going to see more of these going forward? we always see a flurry of pardons as presidents leave office. this one's unusual as it comes on the heels of as you said, michelle, of a major holiday where the families all gathered together. this might be a true example of a family style pardon. what do you think, michelle?

>> well, i certainly hope that joe biden doesn't stop here. you know, the pardon, i think he underuses the pardon power and one way to make this seem less unusual would be to issue another flurry of pardons around it in time for the holidays. god knows there's a lot of people who deserve it. i also think this family has been through so much and again, i think that you know, democrats cannot be expected in perpetuity to uphold norm that is the country itself has just shown us they don't particularly value. >> and so that's certainly the case. this is a family that has gone through a lot. the president and the first lady have both said they had tremendous respect for the justice system, which is why they would not be seeking a pardon, but now, it's clear that the president will pursue a pardon for his son, hunter

biden, on both those gun charges and his guilty plea tax charge for the federal government. when we're thinking about the landscape of this, michelle makes an amazing point, a point my colleague has made over and over again. there are so many opportunities for presidents to use their clemency powers. is this an opportunity to maybe expand the use of the pardon power? make it look better by including more people in the ranks of those getting pardoned by president biden? or will we see a flurry of steve bannon style pardons? what do you think, mary? >> i think that joe biden is likely to use the same process that has historically been used. not sure it was used with respect to his son, but applications come into the office of the pardon attorney, which is created within the department of justice, which

reviews applications and they are usually people, as joyce indicated, although not required by the constitution, who have accepted responsibility. these get evaluated based on severity of the crime, the remorse, things the person has done to improve him or herself. whether the sentence, for example, that the person got would be commensurate with sentences today. usually, that's reviewed by the highest levels of the department of justice. the deputy attorney general then those packages that for which the department of justice agrees with the office of the pardon attorney to recommend clemency, those goes over to the white house. so i suspect those packages are being prepared right now. i remember the end of the obama administration watching sally yates take piles of these home every night to review. and i think there will be people who are pardoned. another option is a mutation. in this way, you're not actually wiping out the conviction the

way a pardon does. you're just saying you've served long enough. this is particularly something to do where sentences may be have changed over the years. certainly drug defendants were given very, very lengthy sentences in the 1990s, for example. those sentences are not quite as harsh anymore. so these are the type of people to be considered. i do not think we're going to see a flurry of sort of political pardons or pardons that are outside of that process within department of justice. not withstanding that that process is not constitutional required, which is why, of course, president biden can make a decision about his son and issue that pardon to his son. >> i think we're still waiting for some nbc news reporting. before we go to the reporter, joyce, mary has just laid out the process. there's typically a more lengthy period, a more route nuysed process for issuing a pardon. it's not clear whether that process was followed here. in the event that it was not and

this was brokered over the dinner table at thanksgiving, is it likely the biden administration is going to come under fire from republicans for this pardon and if they do, does the octogenarian president who's facing the last couple of months of his term really care at this point? >> well, look, damned if you do, damned if you don't on this one. i think no matter what joe biden had done, he would have been condemned on all sides. i would be surprised if hunter's very capable attorney has not prepared a full pardon package and submitted it months ago. as a sitting u.s. attorney in the obama administration, when we focused early from throughout president obama's time in office, he was very focused on problems with drug sentencings and people who were serving draconian sentences. so it's an ongoing process. >> thank you so much for that.

we are getting word that we have nbc news correspondent, carol lee joining me on the phone. what can you tell us about this news? how did it happen? what were the processes? and what do we know? >> reporter: well, what we know is that the president has been, was in nantucket with his family over the thanksgiving day holiday. it was a small group. it included hunter biden. what a source told me is that they had this discussion. the president made the decision and today, he started to inform small, tight knit close senior staff in the white house. obviously, the white house counsel's office and others so they could get paperwork in order and put the process, get the process completed. that's what the president is expected to announce tonight. that he has not only made the decision to pardon his son, but that he has, indeed, pardoned

his son. so we are expecting to hear that from the white house really at anytime. in fact, i think we just got the statement from the president. >> so just gotten the statement -- i'm sorry. >> reporter: i was just going to read that he said the first line is today, i signed a pardon for my son, hunter. so there it is. he's done it. >> so we have confirmation from the white house. let's go to mike memoli who's also joining me by phone. mike, what do we know about this process? did it go through the traditional pardon process with the department of justice or was this something done internally among the family? how did this happen? >> reporter: i think with the president, everything is a family process. the timing of this is quite conspicuous given that i was just with the president in nantucket, returned with him last night on air force one. hunter was on the plane part of the trip.

traditionally, the thanksgiving holiday for the biden holiday has been one in which it's the entire extended family. we know beau, his late son's children, it's been a sacred time for them over the years in which they gather, the entire clan, to mark the holiday. this year, it really did strike me it was only hunter biden, his wife, little son, who's named beau, as well as ashley biden, the president's daughter, who was part of that family trip. we did see the president out in public during that time as well as hunter biden was with him at each point, but it was a much more buttoned up and closed feeling around the family this holiday compared to holidays past. to underscore carol's excellent reporting, this is something that the white house has denied publicly consistently. i spoke to the first lady just days after hunter biden was found guilty on the first charge in the gun related charge, and

said to her, question i posed to her was your husband has the power to lift this burden off your son. given the toll this has had on the family, isn't that something that you wish he could do and she said to me directly that we respect the rule of law and that's not something they were going to do. so i think the father and son have had this conversation. the father has been, the president has been so concerned about his son's well-being throughout this process. obviously, he's been following this long recovery from addiction, an addiction that really deepened after and just weeks after his brother, beau, died of brain cancer in 2015. so the decision that the family has made together here, father and son, is that this is best, in the best interest of hunter long-term and obviously, the political consequences are less now that he's 51 days from leaving office. >> we have a statement from the bidens. president biden says today, i

signed a pardon for my son, hunter. from the day i took office, i said i would not interfere with the justice department's decision making and kept my word even as i watched my son being unfairly prosecuted. talks about the singular nature of the case against hunter and notes that hunter was singled out only because he is my son and that is wrong. there's been an effort to break hunter who's been five and a half years sober. in trying to break hunter, they've tried to break me and there's no reason to believe it will stop here. enough is enough. enough is enough. so this is a president who is acting like a father and wielding enormous power. do you know if he'll wield this power in other pardons that may come down pike? >> reporter: traditionally and at times controversially, we have seen presidents prepare to

be leave office who make a number of pardon decisions. we have already seen lobbying campaign, a public lobbying campaign, be ramped up in the last several weeks from interest groups, from members of congress, making the case to this president who pardoned in cases specific individuals in some cases categories of people including for instance people in prison on drug offenses. there was a press conference on capitol hill involving member of the congressional black caucus. you know there are other politically connected individuals who have been publicly and also privately reaching out to the white house, white house officials, to try to encourage them to have the president consider their cases. this is something that on the long list of things this white house is considering in the closing weeks of their administration, it's first and foremost, but this obviously is the most significant one. it's notable that they are doing this as a stand alone pardon. there are a number of ways they could have packaged this.

we saw this weekend, hunter biden's lead attorney making essentially a public case for why the president maybe should consider this pardon. and it talked about the fact there are other people with similar penalties, similar charges against them who did not face the same kind of jail time that hunter biden is considering. and so there are a range of factors. clearly, this white house could be considering, but this one is one he's announcing just for his son tonight. >> carol, can we come back to you really quickly? as mike says, this is sort of con spirous in singularity and defiance. i hope americans will understand why a father and a president would come to this decision. why not package this pardon with a few others to sort of lessen the blow, make it look a little less obvious or is this joe biden in his defiant era?

>> reporter: i think this is just an observation, but he tried to do this and tuck it into, in between a bunch of other pardons, it would almost appear by half. this is a very big deal. this is his son. he's making this case and the president in a statement, that politics has infected the justice system in this instance. he talks about how much he wrestled with this and he believes in the justice system, but that in this instance that this was wrong. that his son was selectively and unfairly prosecuted is what he says. and that he was just treated differently because he was the president's son. and then candidate joe biden in 2020 at the time, his son. so what the president is deciding to do, decided to do in making this a very clear statement, a lengthy statement, and a decision that stands on its own, is explain to the

person people his thought process a little bit on this because as mike was saying, the president for months has said he would not pardon his son and that looks like politics in retrospect because he said that while he was a candidate and now he's not. we're passed the presidential election and he's in the final weeks of his term and he's decided to do this. so, this is something that obviously the president, the first lady, the family decided that they wanted to do. and to have it stand on its own as a decision and that the president out there at length explaining as we saw on paper, we haven't heard from him in terms of speaking to this, but he's wanted to really lay this out in very clear terms of how he says this. as you can expect, there will be criticism of this decision. >> certainly. mary, can i come back to you to

join this up of what we were talk about before this breaking news? we had been talking about the possible appointment of kash patel to the position of director of the fbi and what that would mean for an agency, a bureau, that during the trump administration, had been sort of mired, make sure the fbi was an independent agency. the president makes some very pointed remarks. no reasonable person who looks at the fact of this case could reach any other conclusion than hunter was singled out only because he is my son and that is wrong. is this pointed for a reason? is president biden issuing a statement about what we might have to look forward to under a second trump administration with the department of justice being led by donald trump's former defense attorneys and now the fbi perhaps being led by a trump uber loyalist, kash patel?

>> i don't know what president biden was signaling with that. he certainly felt his own son had been politically prosecuted. particularly, i understand that the pardon is for both the tax crimes and the gun crimes. i would put those in separate buckets though because hunter biden did plead guilty to the tax crimes. he did accept responsibilities for those. i do think the gun crimes were those where i really do tend to agree with the president that he likely wouldn't have been prosecuted other than but for the fact he was the president's son. because it's just not something that ordinarily would rise to the type of prosecution and the resources put toward it that we saw in this case. i do think though, you know, there are huge concerns out there about the potential abuse of fbi investigatory authorities and doj prosecutorial authorities if the incoming president's appointees are actually on board with his

campaign of retribution. because as a clip you showed at the very top of the hour of kash patel showed, he was saying we are coming after you know, the deep state. those are attorneys and agents who deep state to him means doing their jobs, respecting the rule of law and if that respect for the rule of law happens to result in an investigation for, for example, trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power in 2020 by violently attacking the capitol, if it turns into that type of a prosecution, that, to kash patel, is the result of deep state journalists he's talking about going after. notably he said whether it's criminal, civil, we'll figure that out. well, guess what. to bring a criminal case, you have to have probable cause that a crime had been committed, to prove it in court and have admissible evidence to prove every element of the crime

beyond a reasonable doubt. to bring a civil case, you have to have a cause of action with injury and a direct link between the actor and the injured. so he ignores all of that but there is reason to be concerned that even just putting the fear into people of retribution will have an impact on both the department of justice and the fbi, which is part of the department of justice. and also, i think, you know, cause concerns that there will be people who are drug into lengthy investigations with no basis whatsoever, which can be costly both financially, mentally, physically, and all of that. so it's a real concern here that i think people have going forward. i, for one, am looking for the career men and women of the department of justice and the fbi to hold firm and say no to that. >> what's the likelihood that they will be able to hold the line in the face of schedule f, resurgent, maybe cleaning house as patel has said in the past. is this a situation where the

fbi and the doj are basically going to become the public defenders, prosecutorial arms of the white house? exactly what president biden has stated in the statement regarding his son's pardon might happen on a broader scale. >> i certainly to think that many, many men and women will stay in their jobs. they will push back. they will try to explain and describe to leadership if they're getting pressure from leadership what the standards are and how their bar licenses and their ethical duties as attorneys and officers of the court require them to abide by these rules. and suggest the ramifications for political prosecutions. those could be civil suits against the government for misuse of its authorities. now, yes, the president is immune from criminal prosecution, but not civil suits and no one else is immune from

criminal prosecution but the president for this misuse of authority. so i do think there will be cooler heads that are trying to convince those others of why this would be wrong and i think judges will also be guardrails. if cases are brought without a basis. and this could include things happening in the grand jury. remember, the chief judge of each court has a say in ruling on those issues. that has happened many times during the last, you know, during the special counsel's investigation this time around as well as during the mueller investigation during the first trump administration. so the guardrails are there. and we just have to support those to uphold them. >> guardrails in place and hoping that they will hold. in the event that this pardon does spark some turn around is fair play on the republican side when donald trump comes into office, who do you think are the likely candidates to benefit from a likely clemency in trump

2.0? >> the ones he has dangled include pardons for all of those people who have been charged with crimes related to the attack on the capitol on january 6th of 2021. and you know, here's where i hope that there will be some line drawing. these are cases that were brought supported by evidence, we've had federal judges including a judge appointed by donald trump who had said publicly during a sentencing proceeding, that you had the benefit of due process in accordance with the prosecution. the rule of law applied here. you had counsel advising you. you were found guilty of violations of law. and every judge has believed when they've gone to sentencing these cases, that these were cases that went to the heart of our democracy. so i hope that those who are advising trump will explain what

huge damage it would be to engage in mass pardons. >> sorry to interrupt. we have by phone former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst, chuck rosenberg. chuck, what do you make of this? was this a president simply respond to be a selective prosecution of his son? a justified pardon in the face of political back stabbing? >> interestingly, he says he's doing it both as a president and as a father. and maybe we should look at it through both of those prisms. as a father, of course, he loves and is deeply concerned about his son. i get that. and he's also obviously concerned about other investigations of his son when mr. trump comes into office. if you read the terms of the pardon, it's not just for the federal criminal case in delaware and not just for the federal criminal case in central

district of california. it's also for any conduct going back to january of 2014. very broad pardon. yeah. but as a president, i look at it a little different lit and think of it differently. mr. biden and the pardon itself raises the prospect of his son being selectively prosecuted. that's something that hunter biden's attorneys raised and litigated and lost. it's true that there aren't a lot of cases like this. for instance, i started off my life as a federal prosecutor doing white collar criminal tax cases and there aren't a lot of them. indeed, there are very few compared to the amount of tax fraud that's out there. and so i don't blame mr. biden's attorneys. hunter biden's attorneys for raising the issue that he was selectively prosecuted and

almost nobody goes to jail for tax fraud and he paid all the money back. but he lost that in federal court. and so, you know, when the president says he's acting in sort of two ways for two reasons. i take him at his word. i think one is compelling as a father protecting his son and the other as a president, raising the prospect of selective prosecution. frankly, somewhat less compelling. >> can we go back to the question of selective prosecution? in the gun charge at least, hunter biden had apparently reached a plea deal with prosecutors that was scuttled, paving the way for him to go to trial where he was convicted on those charges. and the president references that failed plea deal in the statement around the pardon. again, does it seem here that even though it may be a less compelling basis for a pardon, that there is good evidence here to suggest that maybe hunter was selectively prosecuted for

something that would have been dealt with in ordinary circumstances? >> i hate to sound like a lawyer. as a legal matter, i don't think there is a cognizable claim of selective prosecution. that said, i understand the lay argument that this doesn't normally happen. that hunter biden's case drew more attention than any average case normally would and when you appoint a special counsel, that man or woman is going to look at the subject of the investigation under a microscope. so, you know, as a legal matter, was it selective prosecution? no, i don't think it meets the elements. practical, does it look that way? certainly to many readers and listeners and viewers and hunter biden and his lawyers and now to president biden has well, based on the terms of the pardon he

just issued. but again, i don't think, they litigated this question and they lost. i think you have to keep that in mind. >> fair. i do keep it in mind. i am also a lawyer. but in terms of the lay case here that the president is laying out, obviously this is a pardon that's going to come in for a lot of public criticism and scrutiny and much of it may be fair in some people's minds. do you think the president has made the case here for why the pardon power was appropriate in this case as both a president and a father or are we gearing up for another news cycle in the president's going to get a lot of brick bats for this? >> yes and yes. i think he's made the case as best he can. i think the case as a father is more compelling than the case as a president and because we are deeply divided, one camp will strongly support what president biden did. and another will not. but look, i'm not surprised by

this. i frankly expected it. i know he said in the past he wouldn't consider it but as he is prepare to leave office and looks at the prospect of his son being you know, a continuing investigation, i get it. i really, truly do. you know, there's a time to put an end to this nonsense. by the way, along those lines, a number of years ago, i wrote an article in which i suggested that president biden ought to consider a pardon of donald trump, you know, a bit of criticism for that, but the same reason that ford pardoned nixon, to put an end to this long, national nightmare in the mid '70s. i think there's something to be said for just putting all of this nonsense to rest. trying to put it all behind us

and trying to move forward as a country without all of this hanging over our heads. >> i think this is unlikely to dampen those political fires. is it possible that the president might mute some of this criticism by issuing a flurry of pardons? pardon power is woefully underused and there are lot of people who have applied for pardons. is this likely to perhaps diminish if there are more deserving people who are included in this kind of clemency? >> i think that's a great question. so the answer is probably. it's not unusual at the end of a president's term to see a flurry of pardons if they're well considered, if they go to people who have truly earned presidential mercy, presidential clemency, and if they view hunter biden's pardon in that context, maybe. but will there be fires raging

because of this action today? of course. he acted as a father and a president. i get the father part. i find the president part here at least a little less compelling. >> do you think it's likely that this particular pardon will promise pardons when donald trump comes into office? maybe if some of those trump loyalists like steve bannon and others on maybe the january 6 rank and file protesters? are we going to be on pardon watch for the near future? >> i think we ought to be. i think mary said it perfectly. right? you listen to what mr. trump said. pay attention to his words. he said he would consider pardons for the january 6th rioters. i wouldn't be surprised to see that. i would be deeply disappointed to see that, but not surprised. and you know, so, to be on pardon watch at the end of biden's term and the beginning of trump's yes.

>> mary, can we bring you back? >> sure. >> so, mary, you've heard what chuck had to say. do you find that case compelling on the fatherhood tip and less compelling as an exercise of presidential authority? how is this likely to play with the lay public who perhaps aren't as used to seeing pardons being dispatched this freely? >> i think this is such a difficult thing because i think even if this hadn't been the president's son as a, you know, the attorney for hunter biden, call him hunter smith, probably would have submitted a package to the pardon attorney making all the reasons, making all the arguments for leniency here and for granting a pardon. but you cannot, president biden is his father. he cannot separate within his own mind how he might evaluate this as a president if it was a stranger making that appeal

versus how he evaluates it as a father. and so, i don't know how people will react. i agree with chuck. there will be people who support this. there will be people who think it was an unfair prosecution and think this was the right thing to do. there will be others of course who criticize it as just cutting a break to his son. i think the bottom line here is like, these were not the crimes of the century, right? we're not talking about pardoning somebody for, you know, a heinous, violent crime or even a massive, white collar corruption crime. i think we should take that into consideration and maybe when people are trying to look at this dispassionately, if that's even possible, they can evaluate, add to the mix, besides president and father, what is the significance of this crime. i will say with respect to the gun crimes and particular the fact that they involved the period of time when hunter biden was a drug addict.

i mean, this is a pretty typical thing for pardons to be given, particularly when there are drug related crimes. when a person has, you know, reformed and is no longer an addict and has accepted responsibility. >> those are all terrific points. mary, i want to thank you for joining us and also thanks to chuck, carol, mike, and everyone else. a new hour of ayman is just ahead after this. a new hour of ahead after this again and again. ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ♪ far-xi-ga ♪ ask your doctor about farxiga. speaker: who's coming in the driveway? speaker: dad. dad, we missed you. daddy, hi. speaker: goodness. my daughter is being treated for leukemia. [music playing] i hope that she lives a long, great, happy life

and that she will never forget how mom and daddy love her. saint jude-- maybe this is what's keeping my baby girl alive. [music playing] narrator: you can join the battle to save lives by supporting st. jude children's research hospital. for just $19 a month, you'll help us continue the life-saving research and treatment these kids need now and in the future. speaker: cancer makes me feel angry, like not in the feel on the outside, just the inside. i'm angry at it. speaker: when your kid is hurting and there's nothing you can do about it, that's the worst feeling in the world. [music playing] narrator: 1 in 5 children diagnosed with cancer in the us will not survive. speaker: those that donate to st. jude, i hope that you will continue to give. they have done so much for me and my family.

[music playing] narrator: join with your credit or debit card for only $19 a month, and we'll send you this st. jude t-shirt, or, for a limited time only, join for $39 a month to receive this exclusive st. jude jacket you can proudly wear to show your support. speaker: are you ready to go have some fun? speaker: yeah. speaker: when we came here, we didn't know what tomorrow would hold. st. jude showed us that tomorrow, there's hope for our little girl to survive. narrator: let's cure childhood cancer together. please donate now. [music playing]