Pete Hegseth (4:53)

So as somebody who used to be in law enforcement, this is. So the technical term would be asked backwards in terms of how this is being approached. So you have them freeing a major drug dealer, a major convicted drug dealer. We talked about how he was found by the judge to have run an organization that brought 400 tons, that's over £800,000 of cocaine. And at the level where it could be cut to over a billion, a billion with a B doses so that person is freed. Yet we are bombing and killing low, suspected, low level drug dealers. And so that's our drug policy. We're taking DEA agents off of their task of fighting drugs and putting them onto immigration. That's a fine policy choice. But don't tell me you're serious about counteracting the drug problem when you're freeing major drug dealers and going after small fry. Going after boats in the Caribbean is not how you stop drugs coming into this country. You think little boats in the Caribbean is how our drugs are getting in? I mean, there are cargo containers, there are all sorts of ways that massive amounts of drugs are brought into this country or manufactured here in the case of fentanyl. So the idea that this is a serious policy is just performative when you're seeing all signs that this is just not a serious way of counteracting what is a real problem in this country having to do with drugs coming into the country and being used by people.

Rachel Maddow (6:46)

I think we're beyond anyone debating that the pursuit of illegal drugs is noble. I think everybody stipulates that. And I think we're at the point in this story where even Republicans are questioning are asking the same kinds of questions that you're asking, except for the ones for some reason that book themselves onto the Sunday shows. Let me show you this interview with George Stephanopoulos.

Andrew Weissmann (7:13)

Do you support this pardon of the former Honduran president?

Rachel Maddow (7:18)

I'm not familiar with the facts or.

Pete Hegseth (7:19)

Circumstances, but I think what's telling here.

Rachel Maddow (7:21)

Is to try to imply that somehow.

Pete Hegseth (7:23)

President Trump is soft on drug smuggling is just ridiculous. It's totally ridiculous.

Andrew Weissmann (7:30)

What do you mean you're not familiar with the facts and circumstances of the pardon? It's been well reported all across the country. As the former president of Honduras, he was convicted of conspiring to bring in 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Also guns and other materials. It's been front page news across the country. Aren't you curious about that?

Rachel Maddow (7:49)

Well, I'm curious about your pushback on that particular point with your previous guest.

Pete Hegseth (7:52)

You had zero pushback because he's giving the Democrat talking points like you spew.

Rachel Maddow (7:57)

Every single week, which is probably why your ratings are so bad.

Andrew Weissmann (8:01)

The pardon of the convicted drug smuggler.

Pete Hegseth (8:02)

Or not, George, like I said, what.

Rachel Maddow (8:05)

We'Re talking about here are the narco terrorists poisoning Americans.

Pete Hegseth (8:08)

This, this attempt to try to focus on a pardon is classic because you've.

Rachel Maddow (8:12)

Lost the debate now on the narco Terrorist question.

Rachel Maddow (8:16)

I'm not familiar with that individual, but this was indiscernible for me from like a South park or an SNL skit. The debate about narcotics, terrorism is raging in Congress right now. And there's a move to make public a video that shows a second strike. And I think these questions, I mean, the presidential pardon powers in the Constitution, no one's debating that, although Ro Khanna actually is suggesting we should have a national debate about that. But I wonder what you make of these pardons that reach into Trump's own super Trumpy Justice Department and undermine cases that they've prosecuted, like the one last week.

Pete Hegseth (9:00)

Well, first, let me just say sort of a telling sign that somebody is losing a debate is when they just go ahead and attack the person who is asking the question. Attacking the media is a fail safe, but it doesn't actually answer anything. Both things could be true. The media could be doing a bad job on something and you still aren't answering the question. With respect to the pardon power, I think this is a really good example where people need to separate in their head something that is unlawful and something that is just really, really bad policy. So the President has this sort of incredible pardon power. It is. But we are able to judge as citizens how it is being used, even though it is not illegal, as we talked about, it is being used to free the big fish. And yet they're saying they're serious about drugs.

Pete Hegseth (9:55)

In terms of the Department of Justice. Just think about it this way. You have with the James Comey and Letitia James case, the President of the United States being able to decide who is getting prosecuted. With the Tom Homans case, you have the president being able to decide who is not being investigated.

Rachel Maddow (10:14)

Yeah.

Pete Hegseth (10:15)

And yet he also has one more power. He can actually, with respect to everyone else who has been charged and convicted federally, including even from, as you pointed out, Nicole, his own Department of Justice, he can also free them. So it is completely eradicating the rule of law. To quote one conservative jurist, it is the path to complete lawlessness.

Rachel Maddow (10:41)

Yeah. I want to show you Mike Schmidt, Ro Khanna actually suggesting we should have a debate as a country about this presidential pardon power.

Rachel Maddow (10:52)

My own view, and I'm discussing this with other members of Congress, is that.

Andrew Weissmann (10:55)

We need to abolish the pardon power for the president.

Pete Hegseth (10:58)

It's archaic.

Andrew Weissmann (10:59)

It's a vestige of the monarchy, and.

Pete Hegseth (11:02)

It'S something that Trump is abusing to the maximum degree.

Rachel Maddow (11:05)

It was an abuse with Representative Cuerr. And I say this as someone who's.

Pete Hegseth (11:10)

Worked with Representative Cuerr.

Andrew Weissmann (11:11)

The president shouldn't be pardoning in these cases.

Rachel Maddow (11:15)

Now, I don't know if his colleagues on either side of the aisle agree with that, but if there is debate, you could put up, you know, six categories, really, of pardon abuses, and one of them is a story you've been reporting on since the first Trump presidency, and it's someone who represents the threat of physical violence to his own family. Jonathan Braun.

Pete Hegseth (11:35)

Yeah.

Andrew Weissmann (11:37)

Dating back to the end of the first administration, Trump had commuted the sentence of a man who had a violent history, who seemed to have no regard for the rule of law and was not a normal candidate for a partner, and after he got out, proceeded to get arrested more than five times on a range of different sexual and physical assault allegations. And it showed me a few different things. And one of them was that Trump's pardon power can't actually necessarily always protect those who he pardons, because Jonathan Braun is back in prison now, like others who have received pardons and commutations from Trump.

Rachel Maddow (12:18)

How do you get on Trump's radar? Had someone like that.

Andrew Weissmann (12:20)

He had a link to the Kushner family that his family was able to exploit, and Alan Dershowitz wrote him a letter, and that got before Trump. And that looks like sort of the playbook of what's going on here. It's just a little scattershot in terms of all the different types of folks that are receiving this. In the. The Braun reporting, I tried to go back and understand, like, why is it that we get, you know, that people become so outraged by the pardons and commutations? Pardons and commutations are supposed to be you in the eyes of, you know, 200 years of American legal history. For the downtrodden, for those people who really paid the price or have circumstances around what happened to them. That means that, like, you know, the average person would look at it and say, you know what? This person should be cut. Cut a break. When presidents go to use their clemency powers, they're supposed to do it thoughtfully, because what they're trying to do is ensure the notion that. That we're all treated equally under the law, that we're going to be treated the same no matter what. So, like, in the Obama administration, they did all these studies and they went back to figure out if all these folks that have been convicted on drug convictions should receive clemency. And it was a whole process to it for them to try and show, okay, we're trying to treat everyone the same. The Trump process is the complete opposite of it. It's clear that it's all about access and it's not even necessarily all about political affiliation. It's about the access. And can you get to the President of the United States through the people around him who are monetizing. Monetizing the ability to deliver clemency?

Rachel Maddow (13:52)

Yeah, I mean, Claire, there's always a grift angle and the pardon story is no exception. Let me read you this. The pardon frenzy has given rise to a lucrative cottage industry. The Washington Post previously reported public disclosures show that lobbyists have spent more than $2.1 million this year on firms that advocate for Paris pardons, clemency and other forms of executive relief. More than double the total spent in 2024. The records also show that individuals seeking pardons have paid up to a million dollars to hire people close to the President to plead their case.

Claire McCaskill (14:28)

Yeah, I mean, first, Andrew's point is so well taken that this is such incompetent policy because he's trying to say that these low level mules are somehow going to, by killing them, it's going to stop the flow of drugs. And meanwhile he letting loose people who have literally killed multiples of people. With drugs being brought into this country, thousands and thousands of deaths are at the feet of the people he's pardoned. But the other point here is one that Mike made, which is very important. What they're doing here is the boat's getting blown up. People can see it. It's a video, it's performative. Everyone sees the boats getting blown up and it makes Hexa feel like he's a real man. And it makes Trump feel like, oh, everybody can see I'm really getting things done. And he's banking on the fact that people aren't gonna think it through. They aren't gonna really think through. Well, what does this really mean? Drug trafficking's not an act of war, it's a crime in the United States. It's not an act of war. And then finally the pardons, you can't see those. Those are invisible to anybody but the guy who's being flattered by everyone coming to him going, only you can do this, sir. You are the only one who has the power. Which talk about catnip to a guy like Donald Trump. And if the people could see what they're doing, what is going on with this? Buying access to Trump and getting pardons for 1500 people in less than a year. I mean, that is a real revolving door of people coming in. I mean, that Pardon attorney. That guy needs to be called in front of Congress. And let's hope that the Democrats take the House next year and they can put him under oath. Because I'd love to see, I think the American people would love to see a movie on what's going on behind closed doors with all these pardons because I guarantee you it is ugly.

Rachel Maddow (16:31)

It's so interesting though, Claire, because in normal times it is a front page scandal because it is a volume business. To your point, 1500, you just, I checked that number four times. How could he part of 1500 people? How can that be Right? But they do come through at such a clip on the same days as other things are, you know, burning. Let me read you, you know, Donald Trump's quid pro quo is showing. Let me read you his response to Congressman Henry Culler announcing he's going to run for Congress as a Democrat. Trump. Trump just said this on social media, quote, only a short time after signing the pardon, Congressman Henry Culler announced that he will be running for Congress again in the great state of Texas, a state where I received the highest number of votes ever recorded as a Democrat continuing to work for the same radical left scum inexplicably capitalized just weeks before, wanted him and his wife to spend the rest of their lives in prison and probably still do, exclamation point. Such a lack of all caps loyalty. Something that Texas voters and Henry's daughters will not like. Oh, well, next time, no more Mr. Nice Guy. I don't even know what that means. But obviously Trump, in his own telling, didn't get the reaction from the pardon he granted in this instance. Claire?

Claire McCaskill (17:51)

Yeah, it sounds like to me that maybe his daughters were working for this pardon and they were rushed to tell him how much they loved him and how he was wonderful and how he was great. And he must have taken from that that their father was going to turn on the Democratic Party and become a loyal Trump supporter. And when that didn't happen, then all of a sudden the quid pro quo wasn't so great. But it also shows you how loosey goosey this whole thing is. I mean, I remember I had a man who was a minister and who had been activ community who I thought deserved a look. And getting through the process of getting a pardon in previous presidents was a very steep mountain to climb. I mean, it was very, very difficult. And it was never about who you knew. Now it's all about who you know. It's all about who you know, not about what you did. Or any policy. I mean, he could care less about drugs coming to this country or he wouldn't be pardoning all these big drug kingpins that are really to get behind bars.

Rachel Maddow (19:05)

The, the obliteration of the process. I remember being something that Jared Kushner took hold of, took the reins of in the first term, isn't that right?

Andrew Weissmann (19:13)

Well, this is one of the reasons that actually back in the first term, Don McGahn figures out he has to leave. It wasn't all, it wasn't all the stuff about that that Mueller writes about that really scared McGahn. It was Kushner trying to take over the clemency process from the White House counsel and then one of the Kardashians coming into the Oval Office to try and secure clemency for someone who had been convicted of a drug crime and had gotten into the Oval Office in a way that basically had circumvented the system. It was those things that made Don McGahn feel the most uneasy. It wasn't the obstruction of justice allegations and stuff like that. It was the clemency that as a lawyer, there's.

Rachel Maddow (19:55)

But do you think it was corrupted or pay for play or, I mean.

Andrew Weissmann (20:00)

I don't want to put words and thoughts in Don McGahn's whatever, but this is the reason that Don McGahn basically was like, enough is enough. I have to get out of here. And this was a guy who was trying to stay in the administration as long as possible because he wanted to remake the federal judiciary into a bunch of, you know, Alitos or, you know, Gorsuches.

Rachel Maddow (20:21)

All right, no one's going anywhere. We have much more to tell you about in this category of Donald Trump's abuse of his power. Still ahead for us as bipartisan calls continue for the release of the video of that second deadly strike in the Caribbean, it seems Donald Trump can't remember what he said about the release just last week. We'll show it to you later in the broadcast. Marjorie Taylor Greene speaking out about what Republicans say about Donald Trump. Behind Donald Trump's back. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after quick break. Don't go anywhere.

Rachel Maddow (20:55)

The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info and more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US Based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry. With lifelong LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com SpecialOffer Terms Apply Ms. Now.

Andrew Weissmann (21:26)

Presents Season 2 of the Blueprint, hosted by Jen Psaki. In each episode, she talks to leading.

Rachel Maddow (21:32)

Democrats about how they plan to win.

Andrew Weissmann (21:34)

Again, including Texas Congressman Greg Cassar, who.

Rachel Maddow (21:37)

Chairs the Progressive Caucus Congresswoman Sarah McBride of Delaware, the first openly trans person elected to Congress and more who are.

Andrew Weissmann (21:46)

Helping to shape the future of the party. The Blueprint with Jen Psaki Season 2.

Rachel Maddow (21:51)

All episodes available now.

Rachel Maddow (21:57)

And just because we're talking about absolute presidential powers, like the power to pardon, we wanted to tell you about this story too. Today, the United States Supreme Court appears poised to expand presidential elections powers by giving Donald Trump more control because he needs more control over independent agencies. Here's how one liberal justice describe what could be the fallout of that.

Claire McCaskill (22:22)

Independent agencies exist because Congress has decided that some issues, some matters, some areas should be handled in this way by nonpartisan experts. That Congress is saying that expertise matters with respect to aspects of the economy and transportation and the various independent agencies that we have. So having a president come in and.

Rachel Maddow (22:51)

Fire all the scientists and the doctors.

Claire McCaskill (22:54)

And the economists and the PhDs and replacing them with loyalists and people who don't know anything is actually not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.

Rachel Maddow (23:06)

Claire, to me, the interesting thing about that legal analysis is that the political analysis syncs up exactly. And oftentimes the political fallout is a lagging indicator to the legal and constitutional fallout. But in this instance, Donald Trump is harmed amid his own voters by doing every wackadoo thing he wants to do with tariffs and whatnot and destabilizing the economy.

Rachel Maddow (23:32)

It is absolutely creating the greatest and gravest political deadweight on him. This war on expertise is what he wants to consolidate power, but it is not what he needs to rescue his plummeting political fate.

Claire McCaskill (23:48)

Yeah, loyalists are not going to help his numbers with independent voters. And that's where he is sinking like a big giant block of cement in a shallow pond. Independent voters are, are really frankly losing their patience with Donald Trump and some of his shenanigans. And here's the thing about this Supreme Court argument, and Andrew may want to weigh in on this, but I remember when conservative folks would get nominated, my first two years I was in the Senate, President Bush was in office. And so I had the opportunity to, you know, learn about people who were nominated who were very conservative, had very conservative values. And typically that's about not making law. It's about interpreting the law Very carefully and being very rigid about staying true to the words as they are written and the legislative intent this court is, its legacy is going to be that Trump enabled. It enabled a president to take unprecedented power and engage in all kinds of reckless behavior without any chance of accountability. I mean, if Roberts thinks he has some legacy, that's going to be talked about in the future other than what they're doing for Donald Trump, this isn't some academic exercise in what the founders really meant. The founders didn't want a king. The founders fought hard, do not have a king. And what they're doing is they're making this guy a king. And that's not what the law says and certainly not what the Constitution says.

Rachel Maddow (25:33)

Yeah, I mean, Andrew, I know you have an aversion to political questions, but I'll take a stab at it. I mean, the court seems to agree that their standing in the public is at risk and they don't face voters, but they. They are telling us in every way public people can express themselves by complaining bitterly, by maligning the press, by refusing to be transparent, by refusing to have any ethics code that parallels anything any other federal judge has to abide by. They know that, at least according to Gallup, their sort of acceptance and approval rating among the public is as low as it's ever been since Gallup has been asking the questions. And yet they seem to want to do everything in the vein of immunity and helping Donald Trump with his political project, which is to consolidate power.

Pete Hegseth (26:32)

So there's a legal aspect, and there's the real consequence that Claire talked about. Legally, this is what's so just unbelievable about what they're doing. Congress has created these agencies that the executive then oversees. And Congress, in creating them, has put in very few restrictions. They have reporting requirements. You can't fire people without a reason. That's not a big deal. You can still fire people. You have to actually have good cause. So Congress is spending and has the power to spend, and they can create these agencies, and they have conditions. And now you have the Supreme Court saying for the first time, no, we're actually going to say Congress actually can't have those conditions. And what that means is civil service rules will be gone. But let me give you sort of a classic example. Let's just take RFK Jr getting rid of scientists, real scientists. And then you read about what's happening there. It is the eradication of what my father used to call, who was a scientist. The 20th century was sort of the century of American modern medicine. It was it was the thing that the rest of the world looked up to and that is being thrown away because you have a court that is saying that RFK Jr. And Donald Trump can just get rid of people for no reason. And to be clear, against Congress saying there has to be a reason, there has to be good cause. So you have a legal component, but you have real harm, of which science is just one. It's sort of a long term thing, as Claire said. It's not something that you see. It's not an explosion of a boat in the Caribbean. But I have to tell you, that is going to lead to more deaths than anything that we have talked about, the eradication of science in this country.

Rachel Maddow (28:29)

Mike, some of it seems to be a product of Trump never seeing himself as he is. He is now the head of state. He is now in charge of the government. It is now only his fault if the FBI can't catch the bad guys. It is now only his fault. Fault if the economy falters. It is now only his fault if a pandemic can't be contained because he got rid of everybody else and has only the people he picked. It seems like someone in there is failing to tell him that he benefits from some of these smart people being in the government he leads.

Andrew Weissmann (29:04)

I mean, to me, it's the most fascinating political question, which is that that they came out of the gate hot. They had a running start and they did a lot of stuff, stuff that we've never seen before. And they, and he and his administration operated in ways that we'd never seen. What are the ramifications of that going to be? They basically hollowed out the government and they did it with intent, as hard as they could, you know, to the great lengths that they could. Are there going to be any ramifications for that? How is that going to, you know, is the story of the second year going to be okay? They did all this extraordinary stuff in the first year that's like highly unusual, like anything we've ever, ever seen. And does it come home to roost for them and are there consequences to them? Because I would think, just as watching it, that they are doing a lot of risky political things by doing this. Like, can you be in charge of the federal government at the same time that you're making it harder for the federal government to do its work, you're destroying it. It's just a basic sort of question of what's going on. And it's something we have to see to the point about the medicine and about the, the 20th century of American medicine. If you talk to the folks at Harvard, they would say that the cuts that they have had is all about that issue. It's all about whether the federal government's funding of research is going to be able to continue and are they going to be able to stop that. And Harvard hasn't been able to articulate that themselves, but that is what the issue.

Rachel Maddow (30:31)

So then how are they still at the table trying to do a deal with someone that, as Andrew just said, is doing more damage to science?

Andrew Weissmann (30:36)

And, well, one person I talked to in the, in the Harvard world said to me there's less of an argument to do a deal for Harvard today because in the future is the administration just going to cut research funding altogether to higher education?

Rachel Maddow (30:49)

Right. Right. And they're weaker now than they were when the whole thing started. Mike? Andrew, thank you so much for being part of this. Claire, we need you to stick around a little bit longer after the break. He's seen enough. Another Republican saying he is done with Pete Hegseth. As the former FOX Weekend morning show anchor battles multiple controversies, there is no longer credibility atop the Defense Department, according to yet another Republican. We'll show that to you next.

Pete Hegseth (31:22)

The US Military deployed on the streets of America, whole communities targeted for removal.

Margaret Donovan (31:28)

There was tremendous, tremendous anxiety as they.

Claire McCaskill (31:30)

Saw neighbors and friends being taken. And when accountability finally came knocking, the.

Pete Hegseth (31:37)

Burn order to cover it all up.

Rachel Maddow (31:39)

I never believed that America would be.

Claire McCaskill (31:41)

Doing this, a stain on this country, one that we said we would never repeat.

Andrew Weissmann (31:46)

Rachel Maddow presents Burn Order.

Pete Hegseth (31:48)

Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.

Rachel Maddow (31:54)

There are more bipartisan calls for the removal of Pete Hegseth as secretary of Defense. Here is Republican Congressman Don B. Taken, saying he's seen all he needs to see after Signalgate.

Pete Hegseth (32:05)

I think I've seen enough.

Rachel Maddow (32:06)

What I really wanted to see was someone take responsibility, own up to a mistake. And then when he blamed the media or the journalist for the story, it just, it ruined his credibility. And he had some issues going into the hearings. But once he got confirmed, I said, well, let's give him a fair chance. But what I've seen is what I call.

Rachel Maddow (32:29)

Just poor decision making.

Rachel Maddow (32:33)

There are more calls for the Pentagon to release the full footage from the September 2nd boat strikes in the Caribbean, including the highly controversial second strike, which killed two shipwrecked sailors who survived the first strike. Just a handful of congressional lawmakers have seen the footage of that second boat strike. Pete Hegseth was asked about whether or not he's willing to make the video public over the weekend. Here was his response to the question.

Pete Hegseth (32:57)

President Trump said he would have no.

Claire McCaskill (32:58)

Problem if the full video of the strike is released.

Rachel Maddow (33:02)

When can we see that video? When will you release it?

Andrew Weissmann (33:05)

We're reviewing it right now to make sure. Sources, methods. I mean, it's an ongoing operation.

Rachel Maddow (33:10)

Ttps.

Andrew Weissmann (33:11)

We've got operators out there doing this right now. So whatever we were to decide to release, we'd have to be very responsible about.

Rachel Maddow (33:18)

You heard the reporters say that Trump would have no problem releasing the video of the second strike. That's because that's what Trump said out loud. And just to remind all of you, here's Trump saying just that.

Rachel Maddow (33:30)

You released video of that first boat.

Claire McCaskill (33:33)

Strike on September 2, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike.

Rachel Maddow (33:39)

So that the American people can see for themselves? I don't know what they have, but whatever they have, we'd certainly release no problem.

Rachel Maddow (33:46)

Just last week, whatever they have, we'd certainly release it no problem. That's a quote. Well, in the last hour, Donald Trump, the guy who just said that we played it for you, quote, that would be no problem. Releasing the video of the second strike, was confronted with what he said not one week ago. And here's how he reacted when pressed on his commitment to his own words to release the video. Mr. President, you said you would have.

Claire McCaskill (34:11)

No problem with releasing the full video.

Rachel Maddow (34:12)

Of that strike on September 2nd off the coast of Venezuela. Secretary Hegstad.

Rachel Maddow (34:18)

You said that.

Pete Hegseth (34:19)

I didn't say that.

Rachel Maddow (34:20)

This is ABC fake news. You said that you would have no problem releasing the full bit. Okay, well, Secretary Hegseth. Whatever Hegseth wants to do is okay with.

Claire McCaskill (34:27)

He now says it's under review. Are you ordering the secretary to release that full video?

Pete Hegseth (34:31)

Whatever he decides is okay with me. So every boat we knock out of.

Andrew Weissmann (34:35)

The water, every boat we save, 25,000American lives. That was a boat loaded up with drugs.

Pete Hegseth (34:41)

I saw the video admitting to releasing the full video.

Rachel Maddow (34:45)

Didn't I just tell you that? You said that it was up to Secretary Hex. Noxious reporter in the whole place.

Andrew Weissmann (34:50)

Let me just tell you, you are an obnoxious.

Pete Hegseth (34:52)

A terrible. Actually, a terrible reporter.

Rachel Maddow (34:55)

And it's always the same thing with you.

Andrew Weissmann (34:57)

I told you, whatever Pete Hegseth wants.

Rachel Maddow (35:00)

To do is okay with me.

Rachel Maddow (35:04)

So I want to bring into our coverage former Captain Margaret Donovan. She was a captain in the army, serving in the 101st Airborne Division and later in 5th Special Forces Group. She was also captain of the JAG Corps and is a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Connecticut. She's now a visiting lecturer at Yale Law. Claire is still with us. I don't want to zoom past what just happened because I don't ever want it to be normal. I have a daughter, I have a son. And it should never be normal that the leader of the free world, well, two things should never be normal. Let's hit pause. Pause. One, Donald Trump is the commander in chief and he doesn't remember what he said about releasing the video the Second Strike four days ago. So if I said something on TV today that was the opposite or didn't remember what I said on Thursday, I know the names of the right wing bloggers who would be asking the question, does she forget or did she misspeak? And it's a fair question. Did he forget or did he misspeak? What do you think?

Margaret Donovan (36:01)

I could not pretend to know what is going on in the President's mind, but I will say this. We need transparency. When you have a Secretary of Defense who is backing into a corner and pointing at the other guy, when there is a scandal like this, when there is a very serious situation that requires stability and sobriety and calm headed thinking in an emergency like what the nation is going through right now with this boat strike, you cannot have a lack of leadership like Secretary Hexseth and his chain of command above him have displayed. So I think that the only way that the public is going to have answers and to be able to understand this is if we have a release of the strike. And it pains me to say that, and I know that you knew this, but I used to work airstrikes in Iraq and Syria. Those are not enjoyable videos. But you cannot use these videos for content on your social media feed for months and now suddenly say that there are some guardrails that you have to adhere to before you can release it. I think you just have to bear responsibility for your decisions and we're not seeing that here. And to your point, you know the Secretary of Defense, this might be one of the most important cabinet decisions in my personal opinion. It is the most important cabinet position and we cannot have our sons and daughters serving in uniform right now. To somebody who does not take responsibility, who goes back on his word, who.

Margaret Donovan (37:30)

You know is unclear about directions, whether it's the president or the secretary and who isn't going to be transparent with something as serious as this.

Rachel Maddow (37:39)

Clara, the second thing I wanted to hit pause on with both of you is in never normalize is the verbal violence the verbal assault on another female journalist. He called ABC's Rachel Scott today, quote, obnoxious and terrible. December 6th, he called Kaitlan Collins, quote, stupid and nasty. On November 27th, he said, are you stupid? To CBS journalist Nancy Cordes. On November 26, he called the New York Times Katie Rogers, quote, ugly. On November 18, he called ABC's Mary Bruce terrible and insubordinate. To whom, I'm not sure. November 14, he told a Bloomberg reporter, quote, quiet, piggy, this is sick. Shit. This is sick. And anyone in the room is in the room to do a job for their viewers or their readers, but they should go home tonight and think about whether their sisters or their daughters or their moms or their sons or their husbands or their fathers think that there's something else they should do the next time he calls a female journalist obnoxious, terrible, stupid, nasty, stupid, ugly, terrible, insubordinate, or piggy. Because maybe if Donald Trump can't live without being on TV and maybe if they said, you know what, we're going to have some solidarity, like they did with him wanting to change the names of oceans. I mean, either going to normalize this, and then you're going to hear all sorts of prominent people calling women all sorts of names. I'm sure by the time I get off tv, I'll have a few of those myself. But we're either going to normalize this and usher in an era of unprecedented misogyny, or that press corps is going to act as one and say no more.

Claire McCaskill (39:24)

Yeah, and you know he does it when he gets caught in a lie. And I think the captain was being, as I would expect, measured and calm and strong in the way she answered your question. Did he just forget or did he misspeak? No, he lied. And he lies so often, that is what has become normal. He thinks he can get away with lying if he attacks the person who's pointing out that he's lying. And Eric Schmidt, the senator from Missouri, you showed in a clip earlier in the program where when he was confronted with a difficult question, he attacked George Stephanopoulos. You saw Marjorie Taylor Greene do the same thing on 60 Minutes when she was asked a tough question. They are teaching young people that if you get a question you don't like, that will hold you accountable. You either lie or you attack the person asking the question. That's what they're normalizing. And it's very, very sad for people who are supposed to be mentors and role models in terms of how you serve the public. And I gotta Tell you, the idea that they used all this footage as a social media video game for the guy who says we're trying to make him into a cartoon. Well, he is kind of a cartoon. He's an insecure man, and he thinks he needs social media to prop him up. He's using all that video for them to now say they can't show the second strike because of sources and methods. Are you kidding me? You showed all the video. You've shown it all. Anybody who's running a boat through their nose. So this notion that they're using this excuse on the second video. You know why they're not showing that second video?

Rachel Maddow (41:19)

They're showing the second video because they.

Claire McCaskill (41:21)

Don'T want you to see it because it is ugly.

Rachel Maddow (41:25)

Yeah. They're not showing the second video because it shows what Congressman Jim Himes and others have been.

Claire McCaskill (41:32)

Exactly.

Rachel Maddow (41:32)

I want to come back to both of you on this line being drawn around Hegseth now as opposed to the line that could have or should have been drawn around him as a nominee to be the Secretary of Defense. I have to sneak in a quick break first. We'll have that conversation on the other side.

Rachel Maddow (41:53)

If you were to take the confirmation.

Claire McCaskill (41:55)

Vote again today, would you vote to make Pete Hexseth Defense Secretary?

Andrew Weissmann (42:02)

That's a question I can't answer without.

Pete Hegseth (42:04)

As much thoughtful research as I did.

Andrew Weissmann (42:06)

The first time I did that vote.

Rachel Maddow (42:08)

I think you might now you have evidence, not research.

Andrew Weissmann (42:10)

Yeah, but, you know.

Rachel Maddow (42:13)

This is a question I can't answer or I won't. That was Republican Senator John Curtis of Utah. Margaret, what does it mean to the men and women of the military to hear such equivocation? They don't have time to equivocate. When Pete Hagg said tells him what to do or issues in order. Look.

Margaret Donovan (42:30)

This is what you get. And from that confirmation hearing all those months ago, you knew what you were getting. The Senate that voted for him. He is somebody who has supported people convicted of war crimes. He is somebody with too many character flaws and a lack of leadership to even. Not even worth listing on this broadcast. And this is what you get. And our military deserves better. Pete Hegseth is not a serious person. And when you look at what's going on right now, we have the very first strike of this legally questionable operation. And it is, as we would say in the military, a cluster. It is a total disaster, strategically and politically and legally. And this is what you get when you have somebody like Pete Hegseth in charge of the Defense Department. And Our military deserve better. I would just urge lawmakers who have an opportunity to protect the public and to represent the citizens of this country. There is time to change. You can course correct. But look at where we are now and we're not even at land operations. Ask yourself before you go to sleep at night, do you want this man leading our country in war? Because I don't think anybody in uniform does. And I think many people out of uniform do not as well.

Rachel Maddow (43:46)

Claire, why isn't there the ability to break the fever with Trump as we talked about earlier, at 36% and falling Hegseth less popular than that he had bipartisan opposition and confirmation and sitting Republican United States senators can't or won't say that they would vote for him again. Why isn't this a break glass moment?

Claire McCaskill (44:13)

It's really interesting because what's happening here is for those senators that are from states where independent voters matter, it is a question I have why they are not speaking out. Because if enough of them did, frankly, if only a handful of them did, I think he'd be gone. But for Republicans who worry about primaries Trump, his popularity is calcified and stubborn within the people who voted for him. It's almost like they don't want to admit that maybe they made a mistake. So they're going to defend him no matter what the base. I mean, his popularity has not gone down with the people who decide Republican primaries. And back to our previous segment. We have a Supreme Court that's now said it's okay to gerrymander for partisan reasons. So now we have a green flag. You can draw districts just to favor one political party. And when you do that, then primaries take on an outsized power in our system and no one is motivated to find compromise or middle ground. And frankly, it just promotes the kind of extremism you're seeing right now in the Republican Party. So I gotta tell you, in the House, I get it more because those districts are so gerrymandered for people that are in states like McCormick in Pennsylvania or the senators from a senator from North Carolina, Thom Tillis, he's leaving. What about Susan Collins? What about this Dan Sullivan in Alaska? He's on the Armed Services Committee. These folks are the ones. I don't understand why they're not spe. Because it is a break glass moment. We're in trouble with this guy. He is incompetent.

Rachel Maddow (46:01)

Margaret, what is the best way to sort of honor the men and women of the military and how we talk about and cover the second strike?

Margaret Donovan (46:09)

I think that we should give them the leadership that they deserve, first of all. And when we talk about the second strike, we should be asking ourselves, why are we putting our service members in these scenarios where they are in unprecedented operations not supported by the law? Let's not put them in these scenarios. Scenarios. Let's not put them in a position where every single strike is going to be criticized because nobody knows what we're doing out there in the first place. Let's put somebody with experience and with leadership, with character and honor. Those are qualities, by the way, that Secretary Hugseth never mentions in any of his speeches. Talks about lethality, talks about strength and force, does not mention honor, integrity or character. That is the leader that our service members deserve and we should be doing everything we can to give them that.

Rachel Maddow (47:01)

Talks about haircuts and weight as well. Captain Margaret Donovan, thank you so much for joining us today. Claire McCaskill, thank you for spending the hour with us after the break. For us, the MAGA coalition now held together by fear. That's not us saying it. That's outgoing ex MAGA Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. Talk about that interview and deadline. White House continues after a quick break.

Margaret Donovan (47:24)

Home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning.

Claire McCaskill (47:26)

Joe, the briefing with Jen Psaki and more voices you know and trust. Ms. NOW is your source for news, opinion and the world.

Rachel Maddow (47:36)

Learn more at Ms. Now.