caller: hegseth for one, and tulsi gabbard. i've called a couple times, i'm a john mccain republican converted to independent, but i'd like to remind congress and our representatives that when matt gaetz was still up for nomination, congress decided should be let all this news come out about him or not, i think we need to remind our representatives that it is not a big boys club that they've got going on up there. they are representatives of the united states and me and all the people that vote for whether it is trump or kamala harris, if there is stuff going around in the background of these people, they need to put that stuff out and not decide whether it should be put out or not because it may be detrimental. that's not a big boys club they've got going up there. it is not a private club. and trump doesn't read the daily briefings. he never did, so i think it's pretty important that the people in the cabinet are focused on just what is best for this country, because trump i don't think his priorities are what is going to hap

ratcliffe were the answers i got from him about tulsi gabbard, president trump's nominee to serve as director of national intelligence. if confirmed ms. gabbard would oversee the cia and i think she would be disruptive for american security. if there is anyone who has not been fact based as you've listened to her statements over the years is tulsi gabbard. she seems to make things up out of thin air. no one could be worse in a position of dni than someone who doesn't believingin facts. i told mr. ratcliffe he should urge mr. trump to drop her nomination. he couldn't report to somebody like tulsi gabbard in good conscious. she is too risky. she has a history of cheering america's adversaries. if confirmed i'm worried she'll push false intelligence for political ends. those are precisely the moments mr. ratcliffe will have to hold firm, reject what she says and go to the president and speak truth to power. his answers to my questions about that were unsatisfying, so i'm voting no, because it's such an important position. now on the hegseth vote, today the senate will vote to advance one

it's unclear what that means for this latest round of trump nominees, including tulsi gabbard for directorritics point to her, well, lack of intelligence experience. past statements supporting russian president vladimir putin and a meeting gabbard had in 2017 with now deposed syrian president bashar al assad. on meet the press, senator lindsey graham wouldn't comment, will not comment, wouldn't commit to voting for her. >> senator. >> can you say right now, are you. >> a yes on. >> tulsi gabbard? >> i am. >> going to. say yes. the hearing goes i'm inclined to be yes on everybody, but there are some questions she will be asked that i want to hear the answers to. >> inclined to be yes. joining me now, doctor basil smikle jr. professor of practice at the school of professional studies at columbia university. he's also an msnbc political analyst and democratic strategist. and charlie sykes, msnbc political contributor, columnist and author of the newsletter. to the contrary, gentlemen, especially charlie. i haven't seen you in a long time. thank you. thank you both for coming back to the sunda

tulsi gabbard for a director of national intelligence. critics point to her, well, lack of. supporting russian president vladimir putin. and a meeting gabbard had. >> in 2017 with. now deposed. >> syrian president bashar al assad. on meet the press, senator lindsey graham wouldn't comment. the comment wouldn't commit. >> to voting. >> for her. >> senator. >> can you say. >> right. >> now, are you. >> a yes. >> on tulsi gabbard? >> i'm going to see how the hearing goes. i'm inclined to be yes on everybody, but there's some questions she will be asked that i want to hear the answers to. >> inclined to be yes. >> joining me now, doctor basil smikle. >> junior professor of practice at the school of. >> professional studies. >> at columbia university. he's also an msnbc political analyst and democratic strategist. and charlie sykes, msnbc political contributor. columnist and author of. >> the newsletter. to the. >> contrary, gentlemen. >> especially charlie. i haven't seen you in a. long time. thank you. thank you both for. coming back to the. >> sunday show. so. >> charlie. >> i

clinics -- >> more now from tulsi gabbard in her own words. president-elect trump's pick discussed election fraud, government overreach, and democrats attempting to remove president-elect trump from ballots. >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome congresswoman and author her new >> ladies and gentlemen, please welcome four-term senator and author of her new book "for love of country," tulsi gabbard. >> thank you. thank you so much. aloha. such a critical time. our democracy under attack. the perpetrators of this attack are those who in the name of saving democracy are destroying it. everyone of us who cherish and freedom to be alarmed by those driven by hunger for power actively undermining all that we stand for. in washington doing all that they can keep us, the american people having the freedom to choose who want to be our next president so terrified we the people they make what they think is the wrong choice. saving us from ourselves destroying our democracy and taking away our freedom and we can see many examples of evildoers who find so

>> i support tulsi gabbard. she is amazing in that she has been a member of congress and a combat veteran, a decorated combat veteran for work under fire in iraq. you're right, it's a paperwork problem right now with the office of government ethics. we had hoped to have the hearing later this week. it looks like it will be the following week. but she continues to have promotions in the military. she's a lieutenant colonel. she now has top-level security clearances. she is the right person to keep america secure and safe. >> she took the unusual measure of releasing a public statement reversing some past policy positions she had taken when it came to surveillance. are you concerned that you don't have enough republicans who are willing to vote for her? >> i'm not concerned at all about that. senator tom cotton, chairman of the intelligence committee, has met with her on numerous occasions. she will have a hearing. she has to raise her right hand, take an oath at the time. she will be telling the truth, and the is

senator langford saying he is in yes on tulsi gabbard.ncerns in her uphill bat snl. >> as garrett said this hearing will be extremely critical. not only the public part of the hearing but, remember, this is in front of the intelligence committee. they will adjourn to go into a classified session. we will not have access to that, but that also is going to be extremely important for these senators. i have heard that some of her meetings with some senators have not gone particularly well and there are a lot of concerns. and the senators we are looking out for are the ones who are most concerned with national security, where this is a top priority of theirs. lindsey graham falls in that category. >> yeah, i mean, carlos, it is fascinating. the national security concerns, the concerns over her two meetings with syrian president bashar al assad, the dictator there. this is really becoming a bit of a loyalty test for republicans in the senate. what are you hearing? >> well, remember, kristen, since the advent of the tea party the greatest fear f

you look at what they're trying to do to tulsi gabbard which is disgusting. to say she's a russian asset. she isn't. she has been through five background checks. she is a reservist. she's in the military. they do not see her as a russian asset. alicia: phil, do democrats have to be careful here? >> they do, because democrats know that the name of the game is not them voting all together, t getting republicans to jump ship, to join them. and thus far what we've seen is that with noem who is less controversial than tulsi gabbard, she got seven democrats. with hegseth it came down to the wire. yes, there were some defections like mitch mcconnell, susan collins and murkowski, but this white house, they're more than happy to send the vice president to to capitol hill the cast that tie-breaking vote. with democrats and tulsi gabbard, i think they're trying to appeal to that old guard of sort of neo-conservative, national security republicans, but that's an increasingly rare breed on capitol hill. and some of these attacks and allegations against tulsi gabbard like

the remaining two are tulsi gabbard and kash patel for the fbi. not only are they not qualified, they have done things through the course of their career that show they don't have the judgment or the character, frankly, to hold such sensitive positions. i think this is this is a real danger for the united states. in both cases. i think in tulsi gabbard's case, she said things and done things that show a lack of judgment that should keep her as far away from classified information as possible. >> what's the danger on the on the kash patel side to you? obviously, the tulsi gabbard side has got associations that we haven't cleared up with with the former syrian regime. she's got associations with the putin regime and has some just some very strange foreign policy positions. what's your fear about kash patel, other than the fact that he's got an enemies list and thinks that the fbi should be used to weaponize, to be weaponized against the enemies of the current president, >> against the enemies? >> well, i had an op ed in the wall street journal about

tulsi gabbard and kash patel.re are reports that tulsi gabbard in particular could be on some shaky ground. um, kind of over her relative inexperience. and this public adoption of positions on syria and the war in ukraine that some national security officials view as russian propaganda. what do you think of that? especially knowing what how mitch mcconnell voted on, on on pete hegseth and that thom tillis kind of was wobbly there at the end? >> well, first of all, i do think she has some work to do and she has questions to answer. that's true for every nominee for every office. but this also applies to her. number two, i don't think she has a lack of qualifications. i mean, she's a in the u.s. armed forces. >> i mean, she's never served in. intelligence, right? >> uh, well. >> as far as i know, the preference of congress when creating this office. was that someone be a commissioned officer in the u.s. military? that was a preference that they said someone who was trained in these matters would hold this job. i thi

so let's talk about tulsi gabbard and her nomination.n friday, she reversed her past criticisms of section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. it had made some republican senators nervous about her nomination. she had public comments on friday. she said that the program is crucial and must be safeguarded to protect our nation, while ensuring the civil liberties of americans. talk to us about section 702 and what you make of that flip flop. >> well, section 702 is the authority that congress has given to the intelligence community to collect intelligence on non-u.s. citizens who are believed to be serving or living abroad. but sometimes in that collection, you pick up information about u.s. citizens. and so there have been some changes that have been made to the section 702 authority that tries to protect the privacy and civil liberties of american citizens. but i think what this reflects is tulsi gabbard knows that her nomination is really quite questionable in terms of getting the approval from the senate. and so, therefor

tulsi gabbard, kash patel, rfk jr they are going to face a real fight, especially, i think, tulsi gabbard. all eyes are going to be on mitch mcconnell, susan collins, lisa murkowski. those will probably be no votes against tulsi gabbard. and we'll see whether there are four, five. 6 or 7 republicans who may go against her. a lot's going to depend on her hearing and how it goes. if there are any red flags that come up or if she can sort of put on the performance that donald trump most likely wants to see, that sort of fiery fighting back against woke liberals or whatever they would say. that's what the trump white house. >> wants to see from her. >> we'll see if that performance. >> will be accepted by the more mainstream republicans. and there are. >> fewer and fewer. >> of them. >> left in the senate. >> well, trump really likes her, and. >> the. >> white house has warned that there will be consequences for republicans who don't support his nominees. what's that going to look. >> like, dave? >> well, it could finish what luke was doing. count down the republicans. what are the consequenc

hearings for tulsi gabbard and rfk junior.hannon: lucas thompson from vegas thank you for joining us now tom cotton's got a brand-new book out by the weight next month entitled seven things you can't say about china. senator will see if we get teddy the seven we're definitely going to talk about china. don't ask about the reporting that lucas had about the firing of these inspectors in general. i've heard from some your gop colleagues who we are concerned sent did not get the proper notification even if ultimately the notice wasn't there and president trump is signaling he is just going to observe which laws he wants are not others. >> time and time again the supreme court is said congress can impose restrictions on the president's power to remove officers. he remove the director of consumer finance protection bureau despite limitations on the president's constitutional power to remove officers was linked litigate at the serene court and the president one. the inspectors general served at the pleasure of the president but he w

and as the week goes on, tulsi gabbard, another one of trump's more controversial choices, she will also appear here. and in the weeks ahead, robert f kennedy jr. kash patel and the like. but this week it starts. starts tomorrow. and it starts with pete hegseth. >> speaking of robert f kennedy jr, did you see the times story yesterday about fluoride? yes. so in other countries, not in america because our our numbers are lower. so the studies don't apply there. but in other countries too much fluoride in the drinking water has an impact on children's iq. so i'm sure we're going to hear more about that over this week as well. >> yeah, we certainly will. as well as his skepticism for other vaccines that most americans feel like are settled matter. >> yeah, but not skepticism that my mother gave me way too much fluoride when i was growing up. i've always had that. this morning, ana cabrera picks up the coverage right now. >> right now on ana cabrera reports new wind warnings in california bringing new danger this morning, with firefighters still racing to contain wildfires around los angeles

tulsi gabbard's confirmation hearing is not on the calendar for this week. it has still not been scheduled at all and this is one to watch, just to see if it ever gets scheduled. ever. they have already had to pull two of their botched nominations. they had to pull the botched nomination for attorney general, and also the botched nomination for dea. watch this gabbard nomination as well. given what's emerged just in public reporting on tulsi gabbard's background, public reporting more recently on how how poorly she has been doing in her meetings with senators. also, we're all listening very attentively to the conspicuous silence from capitol hill in terms of whether or not there is going to be sufficient support for her to even make it through committee. it has been a deafening silence. so if anybody is next to be pulled, it might be, well, there's a bunch, it might be, but tulsi gabbard is one to watch. and for me to be able to say that with a week left in the transition before anybody's confirmation hearings have even started sort of tells you all you need

and tulsi gabbard, you know, she's someone who's willing to give peace a chance.t's not a democrat value anymore. jason: can we just call out daniel driscoll? i am giving him a solid shout-out on thursday, secretary of the army, when you put up your eighth grade picture, i don't know him, but he's going strong with that picture. rachel: he's definitely the doogie house hauser of the army -- [laughter] charlie: he just walked in from splitting system firewood, and he's glad to be there. jason: yeah. be the best eighth grade secretary of the army that we've ever had. with all drew respect -- due respect. charlie: seriously. i kind of admire that. getting the glam shot is not what -- jason: if you were nominated, there's no way you're clipping on tie -- charlie: i'd be wearing shorts. no, i admire that. that's called having your priorities straight right there. jason: i'm all in with daniel. rachel: somebody who has their priorities straight is donald trump. so during the biden administration, biden decided there weren't enough irs agents -- [laughter] and so he devo

, but i feel tulsi gabbard will ultimately get through. two things important to know about tulsi. she's a career military servant, who has had a classify kaicatio level at the highest level. she has an impeccable record of service and is a person that will bring back trust to the intelligence services. the bureaucrats at our intelligence services have gotten out of control. they've been part of the weaponization of our political system, the weaponization of our justice system. we need to have good intelligence services to keep us safe, but part of that is restoring trust in those services, and she's the right person to do it. she recognizes the bureaucrats have gotten out of control, and we need somebody there who will rein them in and return those services to identifying information that will keep us safe. >> you campaigned on lowering prices for consumers. we've seen these executive orders. which ones lowers prices? >> we have done a lot, and there have been a number of executive orders that have caused already jobs to start coming back i

kash patel and tulsi gabbard. we've got reporters and analysts in place covering all these new developments, and we're going to start with nbc's jillian frenkel in florida, where donald trump will be this week. so, jillian, on friday, trump did that mass firing of the inspectors general. has he offered any further explanation for the move? >> yeah, alex, he said over the weekend that this is a very common thing to do, but reminder that trump is required to give congress a 30 days notice before these firings take place and to give real reasons for the firings. as far as we know, that didn't happen on friday night when it was announced, and it still hasn't happened as far as we know. now, a reminder that these inspector generals are watchdogs over these federal agencies looking for things like fraud and abuse. our own vaughn hillyard spoke with one of the inspector generals who has impacted this one from the department of the interior. i want you to hear a bit of their conversation. take a listen. >> this was. >> so

but tulsi gabbard is one to watch. and for me to be able to say that with a week left in the transition before anybody's confirmation hearings have even started sort of tells you all you need to know about this transition being a botched job. but there is so much more from all the way at the top, right? i mean, trump himself went on meet the press with kristen welker and told her that he won the election because of grocery prices. i won on groceries. then he went to time magazine and said, yeah, i don't think i'm going to be able to bring down grocery prices. it's really hard to do. did you know, trump said, that he was going to end russia's war in ukraine in one day, and he didn't even say he'd do it. one day after he was sworn in, he said he'd do it. one day. after he was elected back in november. well, gee, that didn't happen. now, his ukraine envoy says maybe we'll need a 100 days, trump says. i think we'll try for six months in this transition, trump, explicitly and out loud and in public, told the republicans in

he has appointed — though we don't know if she's going to be confirmed — tulsi gabbard to be director past of being far too close to vladimir putin and not being interested in the suffering of the syrian people, so how can you be confident that donald trump is going to pursue a syria policy that will please the people of syria and not vladimir putin? so, tulsi gabbard, initially, my big opposition to her was i was worried what her effect would be on syria, helping save or keep assad in power or take off sanctions from him or support his normalisation, but we saw very quickly assad is gone. the reason i advocate against tulsi gabbard's appointment is for the sake of the united states, for the country that gave me a home after leaving syria when i was young, and for the sake of our allies. this is a person that does not believe in the same worldview as democracies and actually supports the worldview of tyrants and authoritarians. and i'm confident... ..or not confident, but let's just say very optimistic that the senate will not confirm her, that she will not become the director of nati

>> the name that keeps getting mentioned is tulsi gabbard.ch a sensitive position, so critical. >> to national security, which is where we've. >> seen republicans. >> raise objections in in recent weeks. >> and i remind people that republicans, even before president trump took office, did torpedo one of his nominees, matt gaetz, for attorney general. so there are certainly. >> people in. >> the senate republican conference who are willing to buck the president. the calculation is what ryan explained. obviously, trump is making a primary threat to anyone who defies him. but senators have to calculate that together with what they think is best for the country. and for some of them, their general elections next year, which the midterm for the party in power always tends to be challenging. and we know that swing voters in a lot. >> of these. >> swing states like to support candidates. >> who are. >> willing to stand up to their own party from time to time. so a lot for these members to. process here. but this week, i think we could see a surprise

tulsi gabbard with her friendship with syria, that monster. so, yeah.s going to be something. >> i shudder to think how much worse it could get. tom, as we have seen, the door seems to be flying off the hinges here and maga seems to be splitting the seams. how likely is it that steve bannon, elon musk, vivek ramaswamy are all going to stay under the same tent as their views begin to diverge into terms of how to go about executing this new agenda that donald trump, the heritage foundation, whomever is trying to advance around the rights mandate? >> they are not under the same tent now and they are making it clear that they are not. they are already publicly fighting with each other. the reason this happens is because trump ran for reasons that had -- and this was just an unfortunate truth during the entire campaign. trump ran for reasons that had nothing to do with policy. when you see congressmen saying we must enact trump's bold agenda, you know the first question anybody should ask, what is that exactly? because he ran for vindication. he ran to prove

but to your point, we have tulsi gabbard, we have rfk jr. kash patel and there have been some concerns, concerns there. so it could be a challenging week. but i don't think, you know, this isn't the last we've heard from trump. there's going to be a lot of pressure. we saw vance out there today really backing gabbard. and like you said, the white house is trying to send a message here. you know, trump even after the vote to advance hegseth, you know, he made a comment that he was very surprised. collins and murkowski, you know, voted against advancing this nomination. and so i think we're going to expect a whole lot of, you know, pressure from the white house this week for the senate to continue approving his nominees. >> last word to you, jillian. what's the expectation you're hearing? do they all get through or not? >> that remains to be seen, alex. but there is certainly immense pressure to get them all through. pete hegseth was only turned down by three senate republicans. but we know that with rfk jr. there are questions about his past

a yes on tulsi gabbard? >> i am going to see how. >> the hearing goes. >> i'm inclined. >> to be yes on. >> everybody, but there are some questions she will be asked that i want. >> to hear the. >> answers to. >> so you're a. >> we'll see. >> not a. >> yes, we'll see. >> and the pressure campaign from the white house is enormous. so these senators like graham, if they're inclined to vote yes, the assumption is that they ultimately probably will. >> anna and then ryan, when. >> it comes to this late night purge of 18 inspectors general that happened over the weekend, what departments were they in charge of and what happens now. >> that departments that were affected by this are broad and affect almost every part of government? you're talking about the department of education. you're talking about homeland security. you're talking about all these different, different departments that have these independent watchdogs and inspectors, generals who who's responsibility it is to oversee the way that business is con

pointed criticism for that post from the likes of then senator mitt romney, who wrote on x, quote, tulsi gabbard is parroting false russian propaganda. her treasonous lies may well cost lives, end quote. gabbard clarified that she was warning about the possibility of pathogens escaping from laboratories during the war. joining me now is john brennan, the former cia director during the obama administration. he's also an msnbc senior national security and intelligence analyst. he's the author of the book undaunted my fight against america's enemies at home and abroad. director. good to see you this morning. thank you for being with us. i want to talk about this because there are many americans who are not familiar with the director of national intelligence and the importance of that role. we know cia directors. we know from movies and books what they do. talk to me about the director of national intelligence and its significance in this dangerous world in which we exist. >> well, the director of national intelligence was established by congress back in 2004. prior to that, the director of the cia

i think i'd seen that tulsi gabbard was set to meet with mark warner, the democrat senator from virginiae of the massive snowstorm that we had here in dc, that got a bit delayed. but he had said, i have some very serious questions for her. i had some and i will have some. and my sense is that they will have pretty contentious hearings. i mean, that is to be expected. but i wonder if that that time for lobbying was successful enough. also with the fact that donald trump wants these picks to be confirmed, that that is enough to get them over the line. i mean, fundamentally, the republicans have 53 senators, so they have the majority. so in a way, the democrats canjump up and down and make as much noise as they want. but generally these things go. you vote for the party. it's the pick of the president. that's their prerogative. i think it's i think you have to go back to 1989 for there to have been a vote on the senate floor for someone to be rejected. so it's kind of a done feel in a way. and it's whether the republican senators decide not not to vote for their own president's pick. and i

for example, when tulsi gabbard is grilled about her meeting which also is quite interesting. a hold over the republican party at party at the moment. that would be an incredibly brave republican senator at this point to kind of go against him. i mean, we sawa big push from joni ernst, didn't we, about pete hegseth and obviously her own military background and so on. but even she seems to... but even she has said now she's going to support pete hegseth. so i think you're going to see party unity. and from the republican party next week, which is something we've seen since the election day as well, really. he requires it of them. so, the question is, will they come together? will we have the rogue senator who steps forward and expresses throughout and maybe clears the way for others? but i think you're right that donald trump's message to these senators is get in line. "these are my picks and this is the cabinet that i want." well, it's certainly going to be something for us to talk about. we won't have a shortage of kind of interesting viral moments to dig into when we meet ag

tulsi gabbard has to be confirmed. who is first up, and who comes next?ational security nominations. the first confirmed nomination that we have is january 14th. that's going to be pete hegseth. we're also told next week it will likely be marco rubio as well as tulsi gabbard getting hearings. that is not set in stone yet. and i think kash patel probably earlier this month. that is the argument you're hearing from trump world, you need to get these confirmations through quickly because of events like new orleans, because our national security is such a big deal, and these nominations, including my picks for these places should be a priority. >> did you want to jump in? >> well, except that a nominee, for example, like tulsi gabbard i think has a really high hurdle because as in charge of all of national security and intelligence. and i think that there are the most questions whether she should have her hands and eyes on any intelligence produced by the united states and where that will be shared. i think it's a really high bar for her. >> or our allies. >>

director and tulsi gabbard for the director of national intelligence.ne hard after tulsi gabbard over past statements they claim seem to support russia's war inside ukraine and her 2017 meetings with former syrian dictator bashar all saad. >> if a nominee acts like a complete meat head or starts screaming like he or she is part of a prison riot people will say whoa, we need to take a second look. short of that i think most, if not all will be confirmed. the one who is most on the bubble, as you know, as well as i do, is tulsi gabbard. >> harris: ben domenech fox news contributor and editor at large of the spectator. i was thinking about this this morning. what remains to be unknown, unseen yet is whether the president would sort of, you know, get ahead of all this and push her through with his words the way he did pete hegseth saying look, this is the person i want, get on board with it. we haven't seen that happen yet. >> i don't think we've seen it happen yet but i think it will happen. one of the things we started to learn about donald trump's approa

>> with the nomination of tulsi gabbard for director of national intelligence. kash patel for the fbi. pete hegseth for defense. john ratcliffe for cia. what you are seeing is an element of trump's desire to decapitate the national security. establishment of the united states. >> decapitate it, meaning disable it. >> by putting in empty heads in. >> charge of it. >> you've written so much about the structure and history of the cia, and also the fbi is the person at the top determinative in terms of not only the actions of the agency, but potentially the fates of these agencies and these functions. >> once, when. >> i was in afghanistan. >> a mujahideen. >> said, we have an old saying in our country, the fish stinks from the head. which is a universal truth. >> yeah. >> if you. put in charge of the american national security establishment, crackpots and fools whose only qualification is their deathless loyalty to donald trump, you are not going to get good intelligence. we are in a very dangerous moment in this world. we are approaching a state of total war. in t

tulsi gabbard has to be confirmed. who is first alert up and who comes next?rity nominations. the first confirmed nomination that we have is january 14th, that will be pete hegseth. we are told next week it will be marco rubio and tulsi gabbard. that not set in stone. and then i think kash patel later this month. that's the argument from trump world, you need to get the confirmations through quickly because of events like new orleans, because our national security is such a big deal and these nominations, including my picks for these places, should be a priority. >> u want to jump in? >> i mean, except that nominee, for example, like tulsi gabbard i think has a really high hurdle because, you know, in charge of all of national security and intelligence. and i think that there are the most questions whether she should have her hands and eyes on intelligence produced bit the united states and where that will be shared. i think it's a high bar for her. >> or our allies. one more thing. tulsi gabbard is supposed to meet with senator mark warner of virginia. is tha

kennedy and tulsi gabbard have backtracked on some of their ideas. a paperwork problem is holding up tulsi gabbard's hearing. >> carley: thank you. top canadian official meeting with trump over the weekend. alberto a says the conversation was friendly and constructive. canadian investor kevin o'leary joined smith on the visit. carlos trujillo has announced has resignation. and j.d. vance says the u.s. can make a deal on greenland. >> greenland is really important for america strategically. my friend donald trump joounior was there and they want to be in power. there is a real opportunity for us to take leadership to protect american security and ensure natural resources are developed and that is what donald trump is good at, making deals and i think there is a deal to be made in greenland. >> carley: and take a look at this, federal agents uncovering a narco tunnel smugglers have been using between texas and mexico. the tunnel has electricity and ventilation and wooden beams to as ashe ashesllow allow them to take people and drugs into the u.s. they

>> with the. >> nomination of tulsi. >> gabbard for director of.el for the fbi, pete hegseth for. >> defense. >> john ratcliffe. >> for cia. >> what you are. >> seeing is. >> an element of. >> trump's desire. to decapitate the. national security establishment of the united. >> states. >> decapitate it, meaning disable it. >> by putting in. >> empty heads in charge of it. >> you've written so much about the structure and history of the cia, and also the fbi is the person at the top determinative in terms of not only the actions of the agency, but potentially the fates of these agencies and these functions. >> once. >> when i was in afghanistan, the mujahideen said. >> we have an old saying in our country. >> the fish. stinks from the. >> head. >> which is a universal truth. >> yeah. if you put in. charge of the american. >> national security. >> establishment, crackpots. >> and fools. whose only qualification. >> is their. deathless loyalty to. >> donald trump. >> you are not. >> going to get. >> good intelligence. we are. >> in a very. >> dangerous

in a confirmation hearing from tulsi gabbard about this meeting?well, lawrence, you know, the story in the washington. >> post is her staff. >> trying to figure out why the meeting happened, whether it was 90 minutes or 3 hours. that's not the question. the question is, why in god's name did the meeting happen to begin with? >> what does. >> the dni need to be a dni? and i've known a bunch of them. director of. national intelligence needs to be prudent, careful, truthful, a sense of integrity, a sense of risk. you know, there's. >> a reason. >> why it's a bad idea to meet with assad at all, whether it's 90 minutes or 2 minutes. why? because there can be photographs that he will use to say, look, an american congresswoman supports me because there may be a compromise of that congressperson. there's a thousand reasons. and again, it doesn't matter whether it was two minutes, 30 minutes, 90 minutes or 3 hours. what matters is that it shows a almost grossly negligent naivete about how a brutal murderer assad could use her presence in his service. now,

sits down with the senate before thursday showdown with kash patel and tulsi gabbard to. on the confirmation clashes.'r >> we will gete them through because they are qualified and that is a truth. these are qualified individualsn ang d they will succeed. they have been taking meetingse and answering tough questions. whenyour they threat domain threatened him and say we will take our time, take all the time you want but in the and you, anbetter push them through peria this is what the americans voted for.coun they will fix this country. ♪ ♪ >> so joe, does getting pete hegseth through kind of change who the whole ball game r the rest of these confirmationsg >> that was seen, brian, the biggest hill to climb and r thdemocrats put all their chis on the table as far as trying to take out pete and that situation. but they ran with all the stories based on anonymous sources. regarding excessive drinking and i'll let these things obviously the only people thatjo went on e record were people here at fox that worked with pete like rachel campos that they will r larry kudlow or i u

so again, more on tulsi gabbard's nomination to come. usually when it comes to a director of national intelligence nomination, and you hear the phrase activate his network of suicide bombers, it's because it's something that the dni is working on, not a person. the dni is having. >> a. >> friendly meeting with. also on that same day, though, that we're going to get tulsi gabbard's confirmation hearing on thursday, we're going to have the confirmation hearing. >> for trump's choice. >> to be fbi director. now, this is a job that should. >> not be. >> open because fbi directors have ten year terms. fbi director chris wray has three years left in his ten year. >> term. >> but he inexplicably decided to resign. >> before his term. >> was up, which had purely and only the effect. >> of making. >> it easier. >> for. >> trump to install someone. >> new in the job. that was. >> nice. >> of him. but now, thanks to chris. >> wray. >> here we are. as january 6th pardon recipients start to get arrested for other crimes after. >> trump pardoned them.

in a confirmation hearing from tulsi gabbard about this meeting?rence. >> you know, the story in the washington post is her staff trying to figure out why the meeting happened. >> whether it was 90 minutes. >> or. >> 3 hours. >> that's not. >> the question. the question. >> is. >> why in god's name. >> did the meeting. >> happen to begin with? what does the. >> dni need. >> to be. >> a dni? and i've. >> known a bunch of them. >> director of national intelligence. needs to be prudent. >> careful. >> truthful. >> a sense. >> of integrity. >> a sense of risk. you know, there's a reason why it's a bad idea to meet with. >> assad at all. whether it's 90. >> minutes or 2 minutes. why? because there can. >> be photographs. >> that he will use to. >> say, look, an. >> american congresswoman supports. >> me because there. >> may be a compromise. >> of that congressperson. >> there's a thousand reasons. >> and again. >> it doesn't matter whether it was two minutes, 30 minutes, 90 minutes or 3 hours. what matters. is that it shows. >> a almost. >> grossly neg

most notably, i would say watch the tulsi gabbard space. there's a lot of rumblings of discomfort about her in republican ranks. whether that will amount to four republican senators jumping ship. i don't think we know that yet, but but clearly she has a confirmation fight on her hands as well. and the rfk jr.. one wolf, you know, he may end up getting a sort of cross section, and it may not be a cleanly across party lines. when his confirmation goes up for a vote, he still, of course, we're going to wait to see his hearings take place. so there's more work to do for the trump teams that are trying to get these nominees across the finish line on on some of these more controversial picks. >> and the republicans do have a 53, 47 majority in the u.s. senate. should trump be worried by this early defiance, at least from a couple members of his own party? >> i think there's reason for concern. i think. there is. >> there are a. >> lot of issues with gabbard that senators. who are. >> rightly looking out for the best interests of our. national sec

. >> what a perfect segue into tulsi gabbard and her confirmation hearing this week. >> i was thinking about you, alicia. >> you know, director brennan, if you were one of these senators who were going to have the opportunity to question tulsi gabbard, obviously there are a lot of questions. where would you begin? what are you most concerned about? >> well, i'd ask her to explain why she actually engaged in so many of these conspiracy theories, which really did parrot a lot of the russian statements that were being made about ukraine or about american politics. she claims, still, that trump won the 2020 election. she claims that the us was involved in developing bioweapons labs in ukraine. she, you know, visited assad. all of these things on the international front and the national security front that really are quite worrisome. but also, i would ask her, what why does she believe that she has the executive experience to be able to lead and orchestrate the very complicated, complex and sensitive operations and activities of the intelligence agencies, the 18 of them that fall under the

>> you know, in some ways, i actually see tulsi gabbard as the most vulnerable.ublicans that she met with expressed real concern about her comments with respect to edward snowden. and this is one of those areas where because of her comments, because of her relationships, you can draw a line between or at least her opponents will draw a line between, you know, her, her positions and challenges and dangers to the united states. that that seems to be the most controversial to me. >> and susan. >> i would also. agree with basil. >> in saying. >> that it's. >> tulsi gabbard only because it comes down to national security. but i also think jfk, jfk. >> jr is certainly. >> in the running. >> to be. knocked out of his of. this nomination. i'm sorry. >> rfk jr apologies. >> thank you. julie and. >> susan del percio and basil smikle. thank you so very much. appreciate it. >> up next, we'll talk. >> to the aunt of naama. >> levy, one. >> of the four. >> women hostages released by hamas over the weekend. and back home, we'll go live to el paso, texas for an on the. ground up

so that's that's where i think we're at with tulsi gabbard. >> so, so then you you think that if shenfirmed, then if no republican senators push back? >> yeah, i do, and i think that would be probably the worst confirmation we've seen in the history of that position. yeah, i can i get clear on that. let me ask you quickly. >> i want to get a question about jack smith, because this week, the special counsel, former special counsel, released his report detailing trump's election subversion case. and among the notable takeaways, smith is confident he had the evidence to convict trump. had that case gone to trial and trump knew his allegations of voter fraud in the election were false, and trump should be charged. despite the supreme court's presidential immunity ruling. did that report deliver what you expected on the legal side? >> it did, but on actually the command and control infrastructure it did. and i think it was woefully lacking on the military ops portion of it. you know, when we talk about the legal, political and the operational and military aspect of what happened on januar