mr. cramer. mr. crapo. mr. cruz. mr. curtis. mr. daines. ms. duckworth. mr. durbin. ms. ernst. mr. fetterman. mrs. fischer. mr. gallego. mrs. gillibrand. mr. graham. mr. grassley.

mr. hagerty. ms. hassan. mr. hawley. mr. heinrich. mr. hickenlooper. ms. hirono. mr. hoeven. mr. husted. mrs. hyde-smith. mr. johnson. mr. justice. mr. kaine. mr. kelly. mr. kennedy. mr. kim. mr. king. ms. klobuchar. mr. lankford. mr. lee. mr. lujan.

ms. lummis. mr. markey. mr. marshall. mr. mcconnell. mr. mccormick. mr. merkley. mrs. moody. mr. moran. mr. moreno. mr. mullin. ms. murkowski. mr. murphy. mrs. murray. mr. ossoff. mr. padilla. mr. paul. mr. peters. mr. reed. mr. ricketts. mr. risch.

ms. rosen. mr. rounds. mr. sanders. mr. schatz. mr. schiff. mr. schmitt. mr. schumer. mr. scott of florida. mr. scott of south carolina. mrs. shaheen. mr. sheehy. ms. slotkin. ms. smith. mr. sullivan.

mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. tuberville. mr. van hollen. mr. warner. mr. warnock. ms. warren. mr. welch. mr. whitehouse. mr. wicker. mr. wyden. mr. young. senators voting in the affirmative -- banks, barasso, blackburn, budd, daines, ernst, fischer, graham, hagerty, hyde-smith, johnson, justice,

kennedy, lee, lummis, marshall, mccormick, moreno, mullin, ricketts, rounds, scott of florida, sullivan, thune, tuberville, wicker, and young. ms. hassan, no. mr. blumenthal -- ms. slotkin. senators voting in the negative -- mr. husted, aye. senators voting in the negative -- baldwin, blumenthal, collins, coons, cortez masto, duckworth, durbin, hassan, kaine, kelly, kim, lujan, merkley, murray, padilla, reed, schatz, schiff, slotkin, and wyden. mr. crapo, aye. mr. cotton, aye.

mrs. mr. coburn and mr. cornyn, aye. ms. murkowski, no. mr. warner, no. miss also. the clerk: ms. alsobrooks, no.

the clerk: mrs. capito, aye. the clerk: mr. ossoff, no.

hegseth. the fox news weekend morning. co-host to be secretary of defense. we're watching this live along with you joining us now from the capitol's julie sirkin, nbc news congressional correspondent, who's been covering this confirmation process closely. julie, we're trying to listen, as i know you are as well. can you tell us what anything about how this vote is unfolding on the senate floor right now, how it seems like this is going? we obviously saw a yes vote there from joni ernst, a no vote from lisa murkowski. two closely watched female republican senators. >> and so far it is just collins and murkowski that have voted no on the republican side of the aisle against pete heck, said the two that i'm watching the most closely, i have not yet seen on the senate floor, and that is thom tillis and mitch mcconnell. the mcconnell had made his way to the floor a short while ago and might just be waiting over there. i'm just keeping an eye on the screen here. and certainly pete hegseth can only afford to lose one more

republican vote and still get confirmed. i'm told jd vance is in the building. he's close by just in case he needs to break a tie. any potential tie here? but, rachel, my reporting all week on this has indicated that republican senators who have had concerns about pete heckert's nomination, not only because of the allegations in the affidavit, but perhaps most importantly, the answers that he gave during his confirmation hearing last week on how he would handle potential war crimes, the geneva convention, issues that are important for some republicans in terms of the national security space on here, and certainly we do not know yet how they are planning to vote. i'm keeping my eye here on my phone. pete hegseth just posted on his profile a letter that he wrote to senator thom tillis appears to be answers to specific questions that he was asked. we know that tillis sent him additional questions. this has to do. specifically. i'm just reading this, rachel. now, it was posted on his x account about the affidavit of danielle hegseth. it seems like tillis

had asked for detailed responses to questions to answers. and look, i have been talking to tillis all week long. he told me that he is searching for witnesses to corroborate the information that danielle hegseth had put in her affidavit. you will note, rachel, that we've gotten a response from samantha, hatch said both before that affidavit became public and after. right when we were about to report that news, all she told us was she denied allegations of physical abuse in her marriage. but there were plenty of allegations in this affidavit that still had the attention and concern of republican senators like thom tillis. it's a two page letter, and this is frankly, stunning. i have to tell you, in my time covering the capitol, i do not remember another moment in which a nominee came to the capitol to observe his own vote. he is sitting off of the floor with his children and his wife, jenny. it is still not clear again how tillis will vote or mitch mcconnell. but really, this is a live ball and it's pretty stunning. rachel. >> yeah. >> julie, obviously you're just describing that affidavit from

the former sister in law of mr. hegseth. what we were able to report here at msnbc, as of about 24, less than 24 hours ago, is that samantha hegseth, pete hegseth second wife, was appears to be under the constraints of a non-disparagement clause that was part of her 2018 divorce from pete hegseth, thus raising questions as to how free she was to discuss further details of the allegations that concerned her. we do know from open source reporting that in a recent interview with fbi investigators, samantha hegseth reportedly told fbi investigators that not only had mr. hegseth drunk to excess in his recent life history, but that he continues to do so. senators have raised concerns about his the allegations of fiscal mismanagement in veterans groups that he was part of the drinking allegations, obviously, and the allegations about his involvement with women that he

was married to and women who he says he had a consensual, a woman who he said he had a consensual relationship with that nevertheless resulted in a police report, although no charges against mr. hegseth. >> rachel, if i could just jump in real quick, we just have a new tweet or post on x from senator thom tillis about hegseth saying at the end of this tweet that i will support his confirmation and look forward to working with him to rebuild our military and advance president trump's peace through strength agenda. this is so stunning because it is coming seconds after pete hegseth posted that long document revealing the questions and answers that he had provided to thom tillis about the allegations in the affidavit that clearly concerned him regarding his nomination. and i'm so glad you brought that up, that that agreement that they had signed, because as i've been hearing from senators and we've been trying to report this, who have you talked to about these allegations? what have they told you, what background was there? and what we kept hearing throughout this whole process was that it was that it was

really difficult to get some of these women to talk just because they could be bound by some confidentiality agreements. you mentioned the one in the case of samantha hegseth, but it appears that he will have the votes as long as all democrats stay where they are and all republicans stay where they are. given that thom tillis has now announced that he will be supporting pete hegseth s nomination again, we have not yet heard from mitch mcconnell, who has his own concerns in terms of his national security qualifications, his expertise, whether he has the temperament for the job, how he would lead the pentagon department, which is the largest federal agency. but in this case, it does appear to be that he will have the votes, with or without jd vance breaking the tie. >> so again, julie, as we are watching for senator mcconnell's vote, if mcconnell votes with collins and murkowski and votes no, that would put this vote at least as far as we understand now at 5050, where the tie could then be broken in mr. hegseth favor by jd vance, are there any

other republican senators besides senator mcconnell whose vote is either not in or otherwise known to be in question here? >> i got to be honest with you. i don't think so. i mean, a lot of these senators are up in 2026. we've been hearing for weeks now about the primary threats, not only when it comes to pete hegseth s nomination, but just making it really clear that if any of these senators decide to cross president trump or vote against any of these nominees, or do anything that could cross his agenda or his campaign promises, that they will be challenged, that money will be funneled to their primary opponents. and it is for that reason that i just can't imagine any other republicans coming out now and voting against pete hegseth. and it also is because throughout this process, some of the names that we've been watching closely already voted yes for him. senator cornyn and senator young. senator joni ernst, who is up in 2026, sits on the senate armed services committee, had reservations about pete hegseth, is a combat veteran, is a sexual assault survivor. but she made it very clear moments after the confirmation hearing last week that she would be supporting pete hegseth. and we saw her vote on the floor today

affirming that vote. so at this point, we're waiting for mcconnell. but it really does seem like this vote might be cooked, and it seems like pete hegseth will, in fact, be confirmed as donald trump's defense secretary. now, i've seen stranger things happen before. this felt almost like it could have been that moment where john mccain at the last minute, saved obamacare repeal several years ago. but since that moment, things have been pretty predictable in terms of how they're going to go both under the first trump administration, both under president biden. and this vote tonight had people really sitting on the edge of their seats. thom tillis wasn't even in the building all day. he seriously just came in for this vote. i don't even know if he officially voted yet, but his position is clear in his tweet. he did his due diligence after the confirmation hearing. i know he had serious concerns. he's communicated those to the administration before that, to the trump transition. certainly there's been a lot of pressure on these senators, but ultimately it does feel like even asking these questions of pete hegseth up until the final moment, which hegseth just posted on x, which i find the

timing so curious in that. but certainly it does appear like hegseth will get confirmed. tillis has officially voted yes for him, i'm told, on the senate floor. now we're just waiting for mcconnell and potentially jd vance if he has to break a tie. >> all right, julie, if you'd stand by, we've got senator tammy duckworth joining us to talk about what she's saying and what she understands about this process thus far. senator duckworth, i really appreciate you being here as a member of the armed services committee and a senator voting tonight. what's your understanding of the state of play? >> well. >> i think the vote is cooked. basically. this is not john mccain's republican party anymore. this isn't mitt romney's republican party anymore. the folks who have the courage to stand up to donald trump are gone. and even those who have real concerns are not willing to jeopardize their own political survival and are willing to jeopardize our nation's national security. and it's really sad to be here watching this vote happen. i just vote my cast, my no vote on

the floor, you know, and i voted for both of trump's previous secretary of defense nominees and his previous term, but they were qualified to do the job. and pete hegseth is by far unqualified to do this job, and they're just falling in line for him. >> we've never had a defense secretary confirmed in terms like this. depending on what happens with the final vote, it looks like mr. hegseth will be confirmed either with 50 or 51 votes in the modern era. i mean, the actually in history, the closest we've ever had to something like that was chuck hagel in 2013, who was chosen by president barack obama to lead the pentagon. that was considered to be an unusually close vote. he got 58 votes, including multiple republicans crossing the aisle to vote for him. this is a 50 or 51 vote margin. i mean, we're used to defense secretaries being confirmed on voice votes or, in leon panetta's case, at 100 to 0

kind of vote. what do you think it means for the pentagon to have somebody come in as their leader with this little support and this, this controversial and accused of all the things that mr. hegseth has, has struggled to parry during this process? >> well, it means very much an instability in the pentagon. remember that during the confirmation hearing, mr. hegseth would not step away when he was asked from the question when he was asked. donald trump says he wants to come in and fire all the generals, all the people with experience. would you oppose him? he wouldn't say that. he would oppose donald trump. he was asked by elise slotkin, senator slotkin, if he would oppose donald trump if donald trump told him to order military men and women to shoot peaceful protesters in the legs, which is what donald trump tried to do the first time around. and seth wouldn't say no to wouldn't

say that he would oppose donald trump. this is a man that is not going to say no to donald trump. the pentagon has absolutely have to be just horrified right now. and you know what else is unprecedented, rachel? the fact that he never met with a single democrat on the armed services committee prior to his confirmation hearing, i still have not met with him, and they've kept him and hidden him away from us because they know how supremely unqualified he is for this job. >> while we've been speaking, senator duckworth, we've just had word that senator mitch mcconnell, former republican senate leader, has just cast his vote on the nomination. and he was a no vote. so. so senator murkowski and senator collins, they had voted no on the procedural vote that effectively got us to this vote tonight. and so that was a strong signal that they would be a no vote on the substance in tonight's final vote. we did not know that senator mitch mcconnell would also vote no. can i get your reaction to that? >> well, i'm very much pleased to know that there's at least three republicans who have put the well-being of our nation above themselves, which is

really what our oath of office was about. i doubt that there will be another republican who will cast a no vote. but do you know what? i was there in the room when john mccain came in and went thumbs down and saved the aca. so maybe there's one more person in the republican party who has some courage to stand up to donald trump. but remember that those who express even the slightest concern about pete hegseth came under just a torrent, a deluge, a flood of attacks from the maga base. joni ernst received so many threats and attacks outright, you know, threatening her, saying that they would primary her all the way through to threats against her own security. pete hegseth, second wife, you know, lives in fear. she has young children. she, as you've mentioned, she's under an nda. she had to have a safe word because she was so afraid of him. you know, if you talk to sexual assault survivors, domestic violence survivors, they are terrified.

and they're not going to speak out against their, their, their abusers. and so here we are now at a place where we have a secretary of defense who is accused of these terrible, terrible domestic violence issues, is accused of being having very low moral character. i mean, he was, you know, described as being drunk, so drunk that he passed out in uniform in a strip club and has had no experience running an organization of any size near the size of the pentagon. in fact, the last company that he ran, not for profit, he ran. he so badly bungled their finances, they had to bring in a forensic accountant to figure out what he did with the $10 million budget, and now they're going to put him in charge of a $900 billion pentagon budget. it's a sad day for our nation, i fear, for the military. i fear for our national security. i hope that at least another republican steps forward. but, you know, i, i have hopes, but i doubt that that we're going to see that happen today. unfortunately. >> you have hopes, but you also

have eyes and ears to follow what is happening and how they've how they've treated this nomination thus far. illinois senator tammy duckworth, iraq combat veteran, thank you so much for making time tonight as this vote is still underway. i really appreciate it, senator. >> thank you, doctor maddow. >> let's go back to nbc's julie sirkin, who's been watching this vote, julie, since we last spoke with you. mitch mcconnell has cast a no vote here, which is something of a surprise. so we have no republican, no votes from collins and murkowski and mcconnell, which means the maximum if all democrats stay united against this nomination, it means the maximum number of votes that pete hegseth can get is 50. have all republicans voted at this point? >> it seems like there might be a few left, but i'm watching the vote just as you are. it has not been closed yet. thom tillis came in, though, and did confirm that he he met with pete hegseth or he spoke with him rather for two hours today. i think that is fascinating and indicative of

how difficult this process has maybe been for him, how much work he's put in to do his quote unquote, due diligence. but i also think it's telling of his political realities. he is up in 2026. and i think if he had cast this vote against pete hegseth tonight, his political future would probably be over. mitch mcconnell, having just stepped down as the longest serving republican leader in the senate, clearly has different calculations. his term is also up in 2026. but he i would put him in a different category from senator thom tillis just for a second. he had real serious concerns about his experience or lack thereof, and his his views on national security, his views on foreign policy. this is who mcconnell is going to be for the next two years. he is going to be, in fact, a top appropriator on the defense subcommittee, on the appropriations committee. he is going to take everything he cares about in terms of ukraine, in terms of foreign aid, foreign policy, the middle east, things that he's been so strong on and even pushing back against in the trump administration. and certainly we've seen the

relationship that just has fractured over the last year of trump's presidency has gotten even worse since he got out of office. they seem to have kind of made up in the last year or so. but all in all, i think mcconnell is going to continue playing this role over the next two years. he clearly has made a calculation that he will not run again. he might, but he clearly has made a choice tonight. and this is what i expect to see from mitch mcconnell going forward over the next two years, now that he no longer sits in the leader office, now that he no longer has that that level of pressure under him. and certainly that is the pressure that now, senate majority leader john thune has. these senators might not like pete hegseth, but they've decided tonight that they are not going to stand up to donald trump about it. they are not going to cross him. and they've just seen the writing on the wall. and that hegseth is going to be the secretary of defense, whether they like it or not. and here we are. >> julie, while we've been talking, tom tillis has cast his vote, as you said, that he would had telegraphed that he was. i don't know if you have more information than i do about how many votes are outstanding. i know we don't expect further surprises here, but we also know

that expectations are just that expectations. can you tell how many votes are outstanding? >> you know, i just asked my team who was diligently watching the floor. it's hard to tell with the screens that we're working with. it seems like some might be left. but i think for the most part, the votes that matter have been cast again. jd vance might be needed to break the tie. i'm told he's around. he's close by. if they're holding the vote open just for that moment, that might very be, well, what's happening? we could hear sirens coming down. if he's not in this building already, though, i'm told he is. and jd vance will break the tie. and trump has predicted this morning calling out mcconnell, murkowski and collins. i mean, these are the names that he can predictably put in the column that will cross him on any big thing he wants to do. if that sails through tonight, they're going to turn straight for his other nominees next week. there is a bunch of them up on the hill having confirmation hearings in tulsi gabbard and rfk jr and kash patel, i think with tulsi gabbard and rfk jr, you might see bipartisan pushback, but you might also see bipartisan votes potentially in

their favor. kash patel so far, i'm hearing no republicans say that they're a flat out no on him. mcconnell might be one to watch in that space, but i think thom tillis today, with his vote on that, has forecasted how he will vote for the rest of the nominees next week and what he plans to do with his political future. here. >> we shall see. julie sirkin, nbc news congressional correspondent. julie, i'm here as soon as you have any news. i'm not going anywhere, so let me know as things develop, we are waiting for the last couple of votes to be cast here. again, the big news here is that three republicans have cast no votes against pete hegseth. he can afford to have three republicans vote no on him, because that brings the vote to 50 to 50. and when it's 50 to 50, the vice president, in his capacity as president of the senate, gets to cast the tie breaking vote. jd vance, as julie was just saying, is thought to be standing by nearby to break that tie in pete hegseth favor. if, as expected,

the vote settles at 5050 right now, the vote is not closed. and i believe i may be wrong, but we believe that there are still some senators yet to cast their votes. there are three republican no votes. there aren't other republicans who were widely being watched in terms of being potential no votes. but, you know, the fat lady has not yet sung. i want to bring into the conversation now, nbc news pentagon correspondent courtney, qb courtney, it's really nice to see you. thanks for being here tonight at this this high stakes vote. courtney, can you hear me? you got me. >> i got. >> you now. yeah. >> sorry. i think. >> i. >> lost you for a second. >> there we go. there we go. so, courtney, we've had three no votes against pete hegseth tonight. collins and murkowski who had telegraphed that. yes. with yesterday's vote also a no vote for mitch mcconnell. that means that if pete hegseth is indeed confirmed tonight, as it looks like he probably will be, he'll be confirmed with fewer

votes than i believe any defense secretary in american history. we're used to defense secretaries being confirmed. and we've had we had one turned down. john tower famously didn't make it through because of allegations of his treatment of women and heavy drinking. that's very awkward. aside from him being voted down, everybody else has been confirmed. 58 votes for barack obama's nominee in 2013. other than that, we're used to voice votes or 100 to nothing votes for defense secretary. what do you think it may mean at the pentagon for pete hegseth, both to get there and to get there by the skin of his teeth? >> yeah. and john. >> tower. >> remember, that's 1989. >> so that's decades. with what is. >> virtually often. >> seen as. >> a bipartisan support for the defense. >> secretary nominee. >> and remember, during. >> trump's first term, there was widespread support for his secretary of defense. >> he went through several of them. >> but jim. >> mattis was overwhelmingly supported and confirmed. >> same with mark esper. >> so this is a very different

situation here. and the question that i have been asking. while this has been. >> a. >> very uncertain vote for a matter of weeks now, rachel. >> is will. >> pete hegseth. >> if confirmed. >> come into this. >> building in any way with weaker than other secretary. >> of defense? secretaries of defense have come into the pentagon. and i. >> got to tell you, i don't know if that's going. >> to be the case. the reality. is he has so much support from. president donald trump. from the administration. >> and from this. >> overwhelming amount of. of support, whether it be in social media. whether it be. >> in. >> republicans. that we have seen the. >> pressure campaign that has existed. >> to get. >> pete hegseth, this vote. >> above the. >> threshold has. >> been unlike. >> anything i have ever. >> seen before. there has been. >> a real. >> lobbying campaign. >> to get him across the vote. even what we were hearing from julie, the fact. that he went to the senate tonight. >> with his. >> wife. >> with his children to watch this vote. >> that's not anything that we

are used to seeing. >> i don't want to say unprecedented. >> but it is very. >> very, very. unusual to see something like. >> that happen. >> when he was at. >> his confirmation. >> hearing just a. >> week ago, there was. this huge. >> swell of. veterans who showed up, many of them navy seals and special forces troops, soldiers and. operators that. >> showed up and marched to show their support. >> for pete hegseth. again, it has. >> been this sort of groundswell. >> of. >> support to. >> really push this. nomination across. >> the other big question i've. >> been asking is. what will his. >> immediate priorities be? >> he did. >> have this extensive confirmation hearing last week. >> but. >> the reality is. >> a lot of it focused on. >> his character, concerns. >> about his. >> character with. >> the drinking. >> the affidavit. >> from his. >> his ex. >> sister in law was not out. >> yet, but there. >> were still a number of stories. >> and concerns. >> that senators. >> had about his character. >> so we didn't learn a whole lot about his policy. >> but a couple of things i will really be watching, frankly, potentially. >> even from day one, is what will he do. >> with regards. >> to his past policy comments, comments about the policy of

women serving in combat. i do expect. very early. >> on him. >> to announce. >> some. >> sort of. >> a review. >> of the standards that exist. for serving in various combat units. the he has spoken very extensively about that, and i think if there is a change to standards, then people will be asking, how will that impact women and men who serve in these. >> combat units? >> but the role of women in. >> combat going forward. >> is going to be a big issue here. >> i'm also looking to. >> how he will. >> he spoke. >> extensively about the. >> need for a meritocracy in. >> the pentagon. we are. >> already seeing evidence of, you know, the. dei executive order that came down. >> from. >> the white house. >> but what about meritocracy when it comes to. >> those men and women. >> serving in uniform? will we see. >> him immediately. take action on that? those are two of the biggest. >> things i'll be watching right off the bat. >> here, rachel, if in fact, he is confirmed and starts at the pentagon. >> let me ask you about one one other thing just to watch there. and i mean, one of the concerns

you mentioned, that so many of the concerns and so much of the discussion around mr. hicks confirmation process was about his character and his personal behavior. some of it was also about his controversial statements about about women and about his fellow soldiers, and about the kind of house cleaning that he wanted to do at the pentagon. but the other level of concern about him is that he's never run any large organization of any kind. and there were serious allegations about serious financial and other forms of mismanagement at the two small veterans, sort of pro-iraq war veterans groups that he was involved in before going to fox news, where he's a weekend co-host. if this is too big a job for him. and honestly, being secretary of defense is probably too big a job for everybody on earth. it's just such a massive organization. it's so complex and the needs are so pressing and so interconnected, and it's 3

million people to start. it's the largest organization, almost of any kind on earth, nuclear armed, the whole rest of it. if this is too much for him, if this if this is a bigger job than he can handle what we expect in those moments is for people at lower level jobs to be the real operators, to be the people who can really handle the organizational needs and the complexity that a job like this takes at the pentagon. are those the equivalent of sort of senior executive service people like that, people who really who really know how the place works. are those the kinds of people that that that pete hegseth and that the incoming administration has talked about clearing out the way they have at the justice department and other large agencies that they've targeted already in this first week. >> so not so much the pentagon has is different from these other agencies because there's this existing. structure of the military, those in uniform here. so the joint.

>> staff, the joint chiefs, you know, they. >> will they. >> serve as a. >> a major. >> arm of. >> this building. >> and the secretary of defense really, i've seen it ebb and flow. depending on who the secretary of defense is, some of. >> them rely much more heavily on the. >> civilian policy makers. others rely much more. >> heavily on the uniformed service members. >> so i. >> look. >> i don't know. i don't want. >> to forecast where pete hegseth will. >> go if. >> he's secretary of defense. but given his past, you know, he. talks a lot about having served in uniform. >> that was. >> a huge part of his confirmation hearing. someone who had sand and dirt on his boots. so i could see him leaning. >> quite heavily on. >> the uniform. but then that brings us back to this question of will he have some. >> sort of a. >> widespread review of the. senior uniform leaders in the in the military writ large, not just here in the pentagon? and how could that impact leadership here? >> i really think that's going to be one of the. >> first things. >> that we hear about. >> also. >> what kind of secretary of defense will pete hegseth ultimately decide to be? that's another thing. i've been covering this building since rumsfeld, and every secdef is

very different. robert gates would talk. >> to you about. >> how difficult it was to inspire. any kind of real change here in the pentagon. >> he talked about this. >> bureaucracy that was just so immovable, and how difficult it was to break through that. pete hegseth, you know, i've spent weeks. working on reporting on him. it seems as if he will be. much more less of a details secretary of defense and more of the face of the pentagon, the face of the military. i'm not saying that he won't make policy decisions, but people have spoken with him who've worked with him for years, decades, in some cases, think that he will be sort of a bigger details kind of secretary of defense, and there will be people underneath him, whether it be the deputy secretary of defense, his chief of staff, realistically the head of policy here in the. >> building, all of. >> those people have been named already, not confirmed yet, but named who will actually do a lot of the day to day running of the military. also, just again, what we have seen from pete hegseth in his time at fox news, i could see him wanting to be someone

who's out and about with the troops and spending time with them, more so than spending time here in the building, frankly. >> rachel courtney, qb, nbc news pentagon correspondent. it's always a pleasure to talk to you, courtney, but it's just invaluable to have you tonight as this is unfolding live on capitol hill and the split screen. thank you so much. >> thanks. >> back to capitol hill. now, senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts joins us. senator warren, we have been watching live as the vote has come in. i believe i saw you on the senate floor. i approached the clerk and gave a visible thumbs down on this nominee, which which effectively translates as a no with an exclamation point. i know how strongly you feel that pete hegseth is unqualified to be secretary of defense. what do you make of how the vote has unfolded tonight? >> look. >> every democrat understands just how not just unqualified, just how disqualified this man is to be secretary of defense.

and now at least three republicans are admitting it openly. look, when we go to the floor and talk about this, i've given a speech on this many of the other democrats have. chuck schumer, the democratic leader, has the republicans who are in the room often, you know, they keep chit chatting with each other while things are going on. they go about their business. they've all just stood there and watched. they understand what's going on here. the republicans know what kind of a man pete hegseth is. they understand the alcohol abuse problem and how that puts our nation at risk. they understand that the allegations against him on sexual assault are serious and undermine the good order of our active duty military, and they understand that he has no experience running a big agency. all of those are real problems for our national defense. and

the republicans have decided they're going to put donald trump and what he tells them to do ahead of their own understanding of how we protect our nation. >> senator warren, heading into tonight's vote, we expected, frankly and again, expectations are a are a mug's game. but we expected all democrats to say no to this nominee. we expected senator collins and senator murkowski on the republican side to say no. and the question was whether two additional republicans would join with collins and murkowski to make this a nonviable nomination. now, we have had senator mcconnell side with them, which was not something that we knew to count on one way or the other, i wonder, i mean, at best, if he gets through here, it's going to be 5050 with jd vance as vice president having to break the tie in their favor. i wonder if this vote tonight from murkowski and collins and also mcconnell makes you feel any differently about some of

the even more controversial nominees who are coming up next week. i'm thinking about kash patel for fbi. i'm thinking about tulsi gabbard for director of national intelligence. i mean, it was just this week, the washington post reported for the first time that she not only when she was in syria, she not only met with assad, she met with a syrian cleric who had threatened to activate a network of suicide bombers inside the united states and europe. i mean, her history in all of its mysteries is still unfolding in a way that it just seems like one more unbelievable controversy upon the next. i wonder if these three no votes for hegseth make you feel any differently than you were previously about some of these more controversial nominees coming up? >> you know, i see this as a reminder why it's important to stay in there and fight. if the democrats had just rolled over with hegseth and said, we think he's terrible, but not really

shown up for the fight, if we had just kind of given him a pass in the hearings, if we had not taken to the floor and continued to beat the drum, continue to talk to the public about it, i think it would have been easy to let this one slip on through, which makes it easy to let the next one slip on through, which makes it easy to let the next one. but what's happened now is i get it. they're going to drag the vice president in here. he's going to break the tie for only the second time on a cabinet nominee in united states history. we're going to have the vp break the tie, and the republicans in the senate are feeling the heat because they recognize that these candidates are disqualified for public office, and they understand that we are taking that case straight to them. so that's the lesson i think we have now understand the fight over pete hegseth is not

going to be the biggest fight of this entire season. >> senator elizabeth warren of massachusetts, joining us live just after casting her no vote against this nomination. senator, thank you so much for your time tonight. thank you. thank you. this vote is still open. we are keeping a close eye on the senate at this point. best case scenario for pete hegseth is that it is a 5050 vote on his nomination as senator warren was just explaining that would result in vice president jd vance in his role as president of the senate, coming in and breaking the tie. and mr. hegseth favor, as senator warren correctly notes, that would be the second time in u.s. history that has ever had to happen for a cabinet nominee. again, we're waiting for the last few votes to come in, but at best, he will be at 5050. all right. right now we're going to take a quick break. still ahead, we have an interview. i'm really, really looking forward to one of the justice department lawyers who prosecuted several. i could even say many of the now pardoned january 6th defendants.

this prosecutor resigned from the justice department today and tonight. she's going to be here tonight. she's going to be here live on set with us. and that this is steve. steve takes voquezna. this is steve's stomach, where voquezna can kick some acid, heal erosive esophagitis, also known as erosive gerd, and relieve related heartburn. voquezna is the first and only fda-approved treatment of its kind. 93% of adults were healed by 2 months. of those healed, 79% stayed healed. plus, voquezna can provide heartburn-free days and nights. and is also approved to relieve heartburn related to non-erosive gerd. other serious stomach conditions may exist. don't take if allergic to voquezna or while on rilpivirine. serious allergic reactions include trouble breathing, rash, itching, and swelling of face, lips, tongue, or throat. serious side effects may include kidney problems, intestinal infection, fractures, life-threatening skin reactions,

low b-12 or magnesium levels, and stomach growths. tell your doctor about your medical conditions, medications, and if you have diarrhea, persistent stomach pain or fever, decreased or bloody urine, seizures, dizziness, irregular heartbeat, jitteriness, chills, shortness of breath, muscle aches or weakness, spasms of hands, feet, or voice. voquezna can help kick some acid, and so can you. ask your doctor about voquezna. want to see it. don't miss one of the best movies of the year. of the best movies of the year. >> it's not what's up, you seem kinda sluggish today. things aren't really movin'. you could use some metamucil. metamucil's psyllium fiber helps keep your digestive system moving. so you can feel lighter and more energetic. metamucil keeps you movin'. and try the 2 week challenge at metamucil.com 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. when you really need to sleep. you reach for the really good stuff. ohh yeah ♪ zzzquil ultra helps you sleep better and longer when you need it most. its non-habit forming and powered by the makers of nyquil. tap into etsy for home and style finds like custom shelving for less than 50 dollars

to make more space. or linen robes under 75 to get you cozy. for affordable pieces to help you welcome big changes, etsy has it.

>> nutrafol is life changing for me. >> get growing at nutrafol. >> com. >> we're keeping an eye on the united states senate where the vote is 50 to 50 for pete hegseth nomination to be defense secretary. if you're thinking that sounds like a tie, you're correct. but in the senate, the way you resolve a tie is that you have the president of the senate cast the tie breaking vote. the president of the senate is the vice president. in this case, it's jd vance. and so jd vance is expected momentarily, or at least some point, at some point over the course of this evening to come in and break the tie in pete hegseth favor, which will make pete hegseth nomination succeed by the narrowest margin of any defense secretary in us history. this will only be the second time in us history a vice president has had to break the

tie on a 50 over 50 vote. we'll keep eyes on it as the senate action continues to unfold. one of the most emblematic and harrowing videos of the january 6th attack is the one that you're thinking of right now, without me even having to describe it. this one, a police officer, daniel hodges, screaming in pain and screaming for help as he was being deliberately crushed against a doorway with a stolen riot shield as members of the mob ripped off his gas mask and pummeled him and screamed in his face. several members of that mob were ultimately tracked down and arrested by the fbi, charged as a group by the justice department, convicted in courts of law, and they were sent to prison. the man who crushed officer hodges with a riot shield was sentenced to over seven years behind bars. the judge in the case was a donald trump appointee, described him as a, quote, poster child of all that was dangerous and appalling. about january 6th.

telling the man, quote, your actions are some of the most egregious crimes that were committed on that dark day. the man who ripped off officer hodges gas mask as he was pinned against the door and screaming for his life. the man who proceeded to hit officer hodges with his own baton and scream and swear in his face. he also got seven years from that same trump appointed judge, sentencing another attacker from the tunnel to four years in prison. that judge said this to him from the bench. he said, quote, of all of the january 6th defendants i've sentenced to date, your conduct is the most outrageous, the most troubling. and then there was this guy, a new jersey man whom the judge repeatedly rebuked for his, quote, shocking and lawless conduct, saying he was the most violent and most egregious of the nine co-defendants in his case. from a justice department sentencing memo that was filed in court last year, quote, defendant christopher joseph quaglin was among the most violent of the january 6th

rioters. he viciously assaulted. numerous officers in this court, convicted him of six counts of assault, two counts of robbery, obstruction of the congressional certification vote and other offenses. on at least a dozen occasions, he stood face to face with officers as he screamed at, pushed with outstretched arms, punched, swatted and slapped. officers, pushed bike racks into officers and even choked one officer to the ground. he used his body as a battering ram and employed a stolen police riot shield against the officers. in an attempt to force his way into the building, he sprayed several officers directly in the face with chemical irritant. he joined the collective mob pushes against the police line. in total, he was on capitol grounds, wreaking havoc for more than three hours due to his egregious criminal conduct. on january 6th, his refusal to accept responsibility, and the need to deter him and others from further wrongdoing. the government recommends that the court sentence him to 168 months of incarceration. that

sentencing memo was written from a written by a justice department prosecutor whose name is ashley akers. and the trump appointed judge who heard that case and considered that memo, agreed and sentenced the defendant to a dozen years in prison, just shy of what the prosecutors had asked for. now, less than a year after that, he's out. and one of the last things ashley akers did as a prosecutor for the us department of justice was submit filings to dismiss charges against defendants in cases she spent years building. dismiss the charges because these people have been now pardoned by donald trump. i say that's one of the last things she did for the us justice department, because after more than seven years as a federal prosecutor and involvement in many january 6th cases, ashley akers left the us justice department today. she's here tonight for her first television interview since leaving her post. miss akers, thanks very much for being here. >> thanks for having me. >> thanks for your service.

>> you're welcome. >> after seven years at the justice department, did you want to leave? >> no. i suppose. >> yes. >> because i left. >> but it you know it. >> the circumstances. >> came in a way that i didn't expect. >> yeah. what is it like to have worked on so many of these january 6th cases? i understand that you may have had as as as many, if not more, january 6th trials as any prosecutor in the department. what is it like to have all of that work and all of those cases and all of those convictions and all of those sentences wiped away by the president? >> it was appalling, really. i think that. the pardons that happened were disturbing. >> they were disturbing. >> for a. >> number of reasons. >> they were disturbing because. >> it condones. >> the violence that. >> you just. >> described, and that the. >> prosecutors on the. >> team have been describing. >> for years in court. it condones that. >> and this. >> wasn't ordinary.

>> violence as as you. >> described earlier. >> the police. >> officers who were testifying. >> in. >> trials for. years talked about this being the scariest day of their lives. >> they didn't. >> know if they were going to come home. they talked about. >> this being a medieval. >> battle scene. >> and not only does it condone violence against. >> those law enforcement officers. >> but it undermines the rule of law. and as. >> judges in our. >> court have. >> continually repeated. that the cornerstone. >> of. >> our democracy is the peaceful transition of power. >> from one. >> administration to the next. >> and the crimes. >> that were. >> pardoned from. >> january 6th. >> were crimes that disrupted. >> that peaceful. >> transition of power. >> the way these pardons were handed down, blanket pardons and commutations without regard to criminal records, without regard to the specific crimes that were charged here, without regard to the level of violence, without regard to anything else, anything different. potentially differentiating about these cases, does that increase the

threat that you are talking about? the reason i ask is because i think politically it's being greeted not just as a favor to these individuals, but essentially it's being greeted as a an attempted vindication of what they did, not just an erasure of any accountability for it, but in effect, a celebration of what they did. are you worried about that? i'm worried. >> rachel. because donald trump pardoned some very. very dangerous people. >> rioters who. >> point blank beer sprayed. >> officers in the face. >> rioters who. >> beat police officers with a. >> baseball bat. >> a hockey stick. a hammer, a chair leg protruding with. >> nails. >> rioters who brought. firearms to the capitol on. >> january 6th. >> expecting violence, rioters who. >> choked officers to. >> the. >> ground, who gouged. their eyes. >> so i don't. >> know what's. going to happen. >> but is. >> america safer today after these pardons?

>> certainly not. are you worried about fbi agents and justice department personnel and prosecutors, such as yourself, being personally targeted by the people who have just been pardoned and had their sentences commuted? >> i think any. prosecutor would. >> say that that is. >> a risk that. comes with the job, and i hope not. >> and i hope that these people who are pardoned and given a second chance. >> take it. >> but the rhetoric online. >> the rhetoric from these. >> people that the president pardoned doesn't suggest that. >> that's true. >> and this. >> rhetoric has held true. before january. >> 6th, during january 6th and after. and it's dangerous. >> there are some january 6th defendants who were charged with or even convicted for other offenses, especially guns and weapons charges, people having sawed off shotguns, unregistered ar 15 seconds, fragmentation grenades, explosives, and some of those charges were brought

not directly related to their january 6th crimes. but maybe the fbi was at their house searching and found those things because they were looking for them because of their involvement in january. six crimes in the first place. should we expect that people who have had secondary criminal charges, who've had other courses of criminal charges that weren't necessarily just about their behavior on january 6th, should we expect that those things are going to be in court for a long time, while their lawyers try to persuade judges that the january 6th pardons also should expunge any responsibility for the other things they've been charged for. >> i think, rachel, it's. >> not just their lawyers. >> it's now the department of. >> justice that's asking courts to interpret. >> this executive order. >> or excuse me, this this pardon. >> order very broadly. for example, i have a case. >> where two. >> defendants were. >> subject to pretrial supervision. >> one of them. >> had an. >> ankle monitor. >> he cut it off him and his

codefendant. >> fled the fbi. >> for over a month. >> and so. >> they were charged with a failure to appear completely. separate offense. from january 6th conduct. they failed to appear for their. >> court date. the department of justice has now interpreted that and has filed. >> in court. such asking the court to. dismiss the whole case because the very basis. >> of it was. january 6th. related. >> so i think you can expect. that this. >> department is. >> going to ask for. an incredibly. >> broad reading. >> of the president's pardon. >> i mean, the problem here is that means that if you committed an offense for which you pled guilty or were convicted on january 6th, that under what i mean, what you just described would imply that the justice department under donald trump, their new position is that any crime that could conceivably be described as derivative from something that happened on january 6th, even if it is cutting off an ankle bracelet, even if it is, you know,

harboring illegal silencers or explosives or other weapons or all these things that people get all of those things expunged, that there's no way to prosecute them for any derivative or non derivative crimes. >> i don't. >> know. >> if the department's going to go. >> that far. >> but the evidence. >> that we have now, based on the. filings of the department are there are two cases. >> where the department. is moving. >> to dismiss in its. entirety defendants cases who have fled. >> the fbi. >> and the court's jurisdiction. >> the justice department, people who work at the justice department, career staff at the department, and staffers, sort of at all levels have been given a bit of a shock to the system, not just with the change in leadership this week, but also with, i think, what were some unexpected decisions, one of which related to the doj honors program. you came to doj in the first place through the honors program. can you explain what that is and what's just happened to that program? >> yeah, it's devastating. what happened. >> to the program was. >> i believe it was yesterday.

>> all doj honors. >> hires. >> recent hires. were sent a. >> somewhat crude email informing them. >> that they were no. >> longer going to be hired at the. >> department, although. >> they had. these are people that already had an offer, had already been hired. >> they had. >> forwent law. >> firm recruiting. they haven't. >> been interviewing. they have jobs at the department of. >> justice. >> or at least an offer. >> of a job they expected and anticipated. >> to work there. >> and they. >> were. told this week. >> that they they no. >> longer should expect that. >> it's devastating. one of the only ways. >> to. >> come into. >> the department of justice. >> as a young lawyer. >> is through the honors program. it's an incredibly prestigious program. it's hard to get in. the people who come. in are very bright attorneys. and so for those. >> attorneys. >> top of their class. have all the awards, have all the. >> credentials. decided not to. >> go to a law firm. >> decided not. >> to make all the money. >> they wanted to be public. >> servants. >> and they. >> were hired as such.

>> and now, unfortunately, they're going to have to find something else. >> we're also seeing senior career staffers at the justice department, including people who have been seen as sort of the infrastructure of the department in terms of some of the way some of the most complex areas of the law work essentially shunted into all, all seemingly into the same office, where they're all being told they're now going to work on prosecuting sanctuary cities or something, going after local jurisdictions that have proclaimed themselves to be opposed to the administration's approach to immigration law enforcement. what do you think the impact of that will be? the intention seems to be to try to make all of those senior people quit. >> that seems to be the intention. >> i think. >> on the ground in this last week, what it's done is. >> it's just. >> terrified people. everyone is worried if they're. >> going. >> to be fired or moved. >> if the. >> goal was to make. >> the department more efficient, i think this. >> had the contrary effect. it's also, i mean, in my assessment

and i'm. >> not i'm not part of. >> this, but it's nonsensical. you have. >> people who are subject matter experts. >> in certain sections who. >> have. committed their lives to litigating certain subject. >> matters and to pull them and to put them in a different, unrelated section where they have no experience, no involvement, probably no interest seems contrary to the mission of the department. >> yeah. and it seems deliberately intended to both insult and wound the department in this transition period. miss acres, seven years of the justice department. you charge dozens of cases related to january 6th. you had 14 trials, i believe, related to january 6th. you've done a real service to the country at the justice department. i'm interested to see what you do next. i'm sorry you had to leave under these terms, but thank you for coming here first. thank you. nice to meet you. >> all right. >> we have had eyes on the united states senate over the course of this hour. in just the last few moments, vice president vote: