Chuck Rosenberg (5:02)

Not really, Willie. I think what Smith did was inevitable and necessary. Now, on three occasions, the Department of Justice under President Nixon, under President Clinton, now under President Biden, have more or less weighed the same question, whether a sitting president, in this case, a president elect, can be prosecuted. And the answer is no. And I think that's correct constitutionally and practically. And so what the Smith team did was move to dismiss the cases without prejudice, meaning at least theoretically, they could come back one day. But for now, they are gone. And I think it is exactly the right thing for the Smith team to do. Some folks may be disappointed, some folks may be elated. But I think as a constitutional and legal matter, as I said, inevitable, necessary and appropriate.

Willie Geist (5:51)

Bully and Ken, it was worth noting that Jack Smith, when he announced this yesterday, did not say, we're not dismissing the case because we don't believe the evidence isn't there. We believe we have a strong case that Donald Trump worked to overturn the 2020 election and to interfere in the outcome. We're just saying that president. We believe we agree, as Chuck just said, with the Justice Department policy that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted. So how about for you reporting this from the inside? How did this come to be? And were you surprised by anything you saw yesterday?

Ken Delaney (6:23)

Not surprised at all, Willie, because, in fact, Jack Smith felt he had no choice but to do this. And it also was a strategic move on his part. No choice because he's a Department of justice employee. And as soon as Donald Trump was elected, his office asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel whether that longstanding policy that presidents can't be indicted or prosecuted would apply to a president elect before he's inaugurated. And the OLC came back and said, yes, we believe it would apply. And so at that point, Smith felt he had no choice but to seek the dismissal of the case. Now, he could have potentially resigned first or kept the case around and let the Trump Justice Department deal with it, but he then would have lost control, control of what he would say in concluding this case. And you can imagine a Trump attorney general filing a document that says, we no longer stand behind this case. We didn't think we could prove it at trial. And to the contrary, as you pointed out, Jack Smith made very clear in this filing that this decision does not speak at all to his view of the evidence of the case, of his chance for conviction. They are standing behind the prosecution, and as you said, he will file a report. Now, there's some question as to whether there could be any new information in that report, given the compressed timeframe here, because normally the intelligence agencies have to review in a case like this whatever new information is released. They had to review everything that went into the indictments, and there just isn't time for a review like that. So I think we can expect not to learn much new information in the report. But we may see a hearty defense of the prosecution, a challenge to the idea that this was somehow weaponized or politicized, and an explanation of exactly why they brought These cases and why they thought they were important.

Jeff Lewis (8:01)

It's just extraordinary that this is where we are. We remember Those high profile January 6th House hearings that came ahead of the federal charges there in the election interference case. We remember the FBI search on Mar a Lago and the firestorm that that created politically. And yet after two years worth, this all ends, Lisa, with a whimper. This goes away in the most quiet possible way that Donald Trump and his legal team played the waiting game. They tried to delay, delay, delay.

Willie Geist (8:28)

It worked.

Jeff Lewis (8:29)

They pushed it past the election. He wins. These cases now are abandoned. Give us your analysis of what happened yesterday and whether or not you think there is a chance, even a slim one, that they could be revived down the road once Trump leaves office.

Lisa Rubin (8:43)

Well, first, in terms of what happened yesterday, I fully agree with Chuck that this was both inevitable and necessary. The department's internal policy did not allow for them to do anything else other than to dismiss these cases. But in terms of the contingencies, both of these cases have sort of like revival opportunities there, only if the Trump Justice Department sort of leaves them alone. And what I mean by that is, first of all, Jack Smith said in his filing to Judge Chutkan yesterday that there's an open question about whether the statute of limitations against former President Trump, it's a five year statute of limitations, could be told or paused while he takes office. That doesn't mean, for example, that the Trump Justice Department, through their own Office of Legal Counsel, couldn't issue a new opinion saying tolling is itself unconstitutional. And that's a possibility that might happen with respect to the Florida case, that dismissal is, of course, only against President Trump, not against the two other defendants. But were I the Trump Justice Department, I'd be thinking about pardons for Walt Nauda and Carlos de Oliveira, the other two defendants. The last thing that they want, and particularly if you talk to people in Trump world, John, they are much more angry about the classified documents case and some of the things that went on there than they are even about the federal election interference case. I think that we can expect them to pardon Carlos de Oliveira and. Well, nada. Because they don't want some of what happened there to be rehashed, particularly given the allegations of obstruction of justice against the former president as they manifest in the charges against those two individuals.

Jeff Lewis (10:20)

Yeah, it's a great point about what the Trump Justice Department may do. And you know, these two cases obviously very much in doubt. The Georgia case is future deeply murky. And even though there's a conviction in New York it's hard to say whether there'll ever be a sentencing there. That case might be tossed aside as well. So, Vaughn, you know, as so many Democrats have said to me in recent days, he got away with it. He got away with all of it. That this is that there were four criminal cases against Donald Trump. They have all now they appear to be all on the verge of going away. So let's talk about the politics of this now. This is now Donald Trump who has emerged victorious electorally and from the legal system. He's going to be emboldened and he might be seeking vengeance.

Jonathan Lemire (10:57)

When the next generations after us look back at this moment in history books, this is going to be twofold answer as to what happened. Number one, what was amounted to an effective delay in the doj, really pressing forward, particularly on the election interference case. Jack Smith didn't get his hands on this case until November of 2022 after the work of the January 6 select committee. It was not only until then that you started to see Vice President Mike Pence be called in and go before the grand jury and actually talk with the prosecutors and answer questions. Two years, almost two years after the January 6th attack. Then the second part of that, though, is ultimately who made the decision to bring these cases to the close and who was that? It was the voters. It was Americans that made the decision that the system of justice was not going to see the end in these particular cases. In large part, one year after January 6, I was out in Arizona. It was Donald Trump's return to the campaign trail, January of 2022, out in Arizona. And at that point in time, he was running what amounted to a propaganda campaign, that the election was in fact stolen from him. It was FBI instigators that were involved in the Capitol attack, not his people. And when you traveled around the country the last three plus years, you heard from a significant number of Americans that believed it or questioned its truth. And ultimately, In November of 2024, what happened, Americans said, despite watching what unfolded on January 6, 2021, and despite Donald Trump trying to hold onto power, that they wanted to return him to the White House and effectively end these cases against him.

Willie Geist (12:30)

And you know, Sam, how many times did we hear people say over the course of the last couple of years with Donald Trump running to get back to the White House, part of the reason, or perhaps all of the reason he's doing this is to become president and keep himself out of jail. Well, it appears he's done that for now. We'll see if they really do revive these cases down the road when an 82, 84 year old former president is sitting there. But this is mission accomplished as far as his team is concerned. And they effectively said as much yesterday.

Sam Stein (12:58)

Yeah, it's hard to imagine them reviving these cases four years from now, assuming Trump is no longer president four years from now. So I do think he wriggled out of this one. And it does get to the basic idea, which is that Trump has this incredible Teflon about him, and you just can't deny it at this point. And it does raise questions, too, including one I think I pushed to Chuck here, which is, did Merrick Garland fumble the ball? Obviously. Look, there's been an incredible number of convictions and sentencing involving people who rioted at the Capitol. That's undeniable. Whether those continue to stand once Trump gets back into office and potentially issues a blanket pardon, we'll see. But it is also undeniable that they took a while to go after Trump himself with respect to the January 6th case. And if you talk to senior Democrats now, including those in the White House, there is frustration over the attorney General's decision to what they think is slow walk this. And so hindsight's 20 20. But should Garland have moved faster on this case to give Smith more time?

Chuck Rosenberg (14:11)

Maybe, Sam. I mean, I understand the criticism. I was a federal prosecutor for a long time, at least in my world, which seemed a little bit more normal than the one I currently live in. You know, precision was more important than speed. So could he have moved faster? Should he have moved faster? Perhaps. But at the end of the day, you want to get this stuff right now. I've also been a critic, just generally, of the special counsel regulations, regardless of who the Attorney General is and regardless of who they appoint. I've always thought that the mechanism was flawed. And so, you know, maybe there's a lot of blame to go around here. But at the end of the day, the Department of Justice did appoint a special counsel. Jack Smith and his team, I think, were diligent and thoughtful in their work. And if you prize precision over speed, then it's hard to say that they were moving too slowly. Circumstances overtook them. If you're looking for someone to blame, I guess Merrick Garland is someone you can blame. But that's not how I think about it. Sam.

Willie Geist (15:12)

You know, Lisa, it is important to underline the fact, as I said earlier, that Jack Smith says we believe we have a strong case in both of these cases. We have the evidence, we have the witnesses. We're not pursuing these because of that. We're doing it because of this regulation. So I guess it does raise the question about statute of limitations. Do you really see a scenario where this case, first of all, the election interference case, but also the classified documentaries, where they do come back someday down the road?

Lisa Rubin (15:41)

I don't foresee that circumstance, Willie. I think they were smart to leave it open for themselves and leave that contingency, but for the reasons that I identified earlier. First of all, I don't know that there will be a political will to reopen these cases with respect to somebody who is then well into his 80s. But even beyond that, there are steps that a Trump Justice Department can take now that make that impossible for future departments of justice. And I expect that they'll exercise those. These are folks who have told us what they want to do at the Department of Justice, and we would be wise to take them seriously. I think there will be some repercussions for folks who were involved in the prosecution of these cases. That doesn't mean I necessarily think that they themselves will be prosecuted. But you can make people's lives extraordinarily difficult and tortured even without prosecuting them. You can refer them to discipline at bar committees, you can refer them for internal investigation in the Department of Justice. You can sue them civilly, you can force them to testify before Congress. There are any number of ways that these people will have to relive the decisions that they made during these prosecutions, and we should trust that that is going to happen. And on top of that, some of these people may lose their jobs and or be reassigned. Now, is it lawful for them to lose their jobs? Not necessarily. In fact, there are lots of civil service protections that would suggest that those who are career staff shouldn't be able to lose their jobs. But do I expect that some of them will be fired and will have to force, through litigation, reinstatement of their jobs? Yes, and that's an expense, too, both psychologically and literally.

Willie Geist (17:18)

So after years of meticulous investigation, building a case, a preponderance of evidence, the allegations now against Donald Trump, the case regarding his alleged interference in the 2020 election appears to be gone for good. MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin, former U.S. attorney Chuck Rosenberg, thank you both. As always, we appreciate it. President Elect Trump is likely to appoint former U.S. national Security Council official Cash Patel to a high profile position at either the FBI or the Justice Department. That is, according to a new report from Axios. Patel would be an extremely controversial selection for any leadership role, including director of the FBI. Patel served as a senior advisor to the acting Director of National Intelligence during Trump's first term. Since leaving the White House, he has repeatedly talked about using the Justice Department to go after Trump's political enemies and the media. The President Elect reportedly considering naming Patel deputy director or to an appointed investigative role within the DOJ to avoid a confirmation fight in the Senate. Trump is expected to fire FBI Director Christopher Wray, whom He appointed in 2017 to a 10 year term. Ken Delaney, what more can you tell us? Cash Patel has been a name that's been floating out there, that some people have been concerned about being at the important and leadership position in the government, particularly if he were to lead the FBI. What else can you tell us about where he may land?

Megan Casella (18:46)

Yeah.

Ken Delaney (18:46)

So it seems like the Trump team has made the decision that Cash Patel is not confirmable, particularly after the Gates debacle. And that may be not so much about what he said about going after the deep state. They're all for that. It's the kind of things that are in his background that have been out there, like, for example, that he appeared to have misrepresented his role in the Benghazi case. He said at one point that he was one of the lead prosecutors, and that's just not true. And there are other things over the years that have been raised in his background. And so the plan seems to be to install him in an appointed position where he could do a lot of damage and wield a lot of power. Let's make no mistake. Deputy FBI Director, for example, is essentially the chief operating officer of the department. It's a hugely responsible role. Or even if they set him loose investigating the investigators, because it's clear that that is going to happen in some form, that Jack Smith and his team will find themselves under some kind of scrutiny. He could make a lot of mischief that way. Look, Patel is sort of the personification of MAGA rage about the Justice Department and the FBI. He has been the lead in making really, what are baseless charges, that the FBI has been corrupted, that all these investigations were done with political interference by Democrats. I've covered these investigations for two years. There's not a shred of evidence that that happened. In fact, it's the opposite. That Merrick Garland, as you guys were talking about before, bent over backwards to stay out of this, to appoint a special counsel, to have the political people play no role in these decisions to a fault, some people would argue, but Patel has been saying that the deep state corrupted the FBI to go after Trump and He's going to mete out his revenge and it looks like he's going to have a job where he's going to be able to do that. He could do equal damage, by the way, at the CIA, where he's also waged war on the intelligence community for many years.

Willie Geist (20:37)

Guys.

Jeff Lewis (20:37)

So, Von, let's first echo what Ken said. There's no shred of evidence to any of these accusations. But let's dig in a little deeper as to who Cash Patel is and what he could do. I mean, he has sworn vengeance against those in the Department of Justice. He's also suggested that members of the media by name, you know, that he would be on his list as well. You know, tell us more about him. But also, like, what could this mean in terms of if he does, let's say, get a deputy job of the Department of Justice, how could he target these so called enemies?

Jonathan Lemire (21:12)

Right. Number one, let's be clear that Cash Patel is not a veteran of US Spy agencies or the intel community. He did float around during the first Trump administration working at the essentially the right hand to the director of National Intelligence, Rick Renell at the time. He then ended up jumping over to be the chief of staff to acting Defense Secretary Chris Mil during the events of the January 6th attack. This is somebody who is a political ally, let's be very clear, a political ally of Donald Trump's, a loyalist who over the last four years has been a frequent presence, for instance, on Steve Bannon's War Room podcast. He is somebody of that ilk who has been very open about saying, whether it be criminally or civilly, that they will go after not just folks that were part of the Biden administration, but also members of the press arguing that they have been part of the conspiracy to undermine Donald Trump and the political efforts that they went forward. And so to Ken's point, they could very well use the levers of the FBI or the DOJ to try to mount and convene a grand jury and try to seek an indictment over some conspiracy charge that loops in the press, loops in other prosecutors from the doj. It could be very vast effort that they would try to try to put forward.

Sam Stein (22:27)

Yeah. And let me just add, I mean, this is part of a larger pattern of potential appointees who want to take their institutions and agencies and effectively weaponize against their opponents. I was talking to Chris Murphy, the senator, last week, about what he was preparing for, and he very soberly was like, I'm preparing for them to try to arrest lawmakers. And look it may not happen. It may happen. I think the fact that they are considering the possibility certainly is frightening. In recent days, the mayor of Denver, I believe, has said, I'm not gonna cooperate with mass deportation efforts. And the response from Trump officials has been great. We'll arrest you. And I think that's really chilling, honestly, to see that people will cavalierly throw around the idea that elected officials, members of the fourth estate, could end up in the crosshairs and end up incarcerated simply because they disagree with the administration. But that is really essentially the through line for a lot of these picks, which is that they are there for vengeance and to carry out the political will of Donald Trump.

Willie Geist (23:31)

Yeah, we should take them at their word. And a lot of them either, as you say, want to use their position for retribution or just tear down the departments they're leading altogether. That's what they've been promising. NBC's Ken Delanian, thanks so much for your reporting this morning. We appreciate it. President elect Trump says he will impose new tariffs on goods imported from China, Mexico, and Canada. On his first day in office, Trump made the announcement on Truth social, explaining a 25% tariff on products from Mexico and Canada will remain in place until drugs and migrants stop coming over the border. The way he put it, the president elect also threatened an additional 10% tariff on China, saying the country is shipping illegal drugs to the United States. The tariffs likely would have serious implications for several American industries, including auto manufacturers and farmers, just to name a couple. Imposing tariffs on Canada and Mexico also would violate the terms of the North American Trade Agreement Trump himself signed in 2020. Joining us now, CNBC correspondent Megan Casella. Megan, good morning. So what more can you tell us about the actual implementation of this plan and the impact that will have on the economy?

Vaughn Hilliard (24:42)

Good morning to you guys. This is President Elect Trump vowing to follow through on all of those threats that he made on the campaign trail, threats that often had been dismissed as sort of negotiating tactics. Tactics or bluster. But what I can tell you, based on reporting, is that the president elect and his economic team have been focused for months now on finding ways to impose these tariffs and making sure that they can do it, because generally, presidents aren't able to unilaterally impose tariffs this way. To impose blanket tariffs like this, it's not how trade law is generally written. But I can tell you that they feel like they have some options. They've been studying this. The most likely way is that he'll declare an international economic emergency on his first day in office. That would then give him special emergency powers that that would allow for the enactment of these tariffs on these three countries. On China, it's actually even easier because he imposed tariffs in his first term against China, tariffs that President Biden then kept in place. He could simply turn the dial up and say we need to go a little bit higher, another 10% higher because of what he sees as these threats of fentanyl and migrants, as you mentioned, coming across the border. It's going to have huge economic impact. We're already seeing things happen just a little bit in Canada and Mexico, for example, their currencies falling against the US Dollar makes their economy shake just a little bit. And companies are gearing up for this. We've been looking through earnings calls over the past quarter for mentions of tariffs. We see that that mentions of it are way up among all sorts of companies. And we also found no shortage of companies saying that they, if they get hit with tariffs, will pass these costs directly onto their consumers. They're saying it right in their earnings calls. It's in black and white. So we know that one effect of this is that higher prices for consumers, at least on the most impacted good goods, guys.

Willie Geist (26:22)

Yeah. And President Elect Trump also saying he was going to impose a 100% tariff on vehicles manufactured in Mexico. Canada and Mexico are our two largest trading partners. So Megan, you touched on it briefly there at the end of your response. But just in terms of the everyday consumer, this is something that all economists warned about during the campaign. Liberal, conservative, you name it, said if you put a tariff on, it's a tax on the consumer. That's just an economic fact, always has been. What is your sense of what's this may do to prices in the short term?

Vaughn Hilliard (26:56)

I think in the short term prices certainly do go up because as you said, it is a tax. Everything that comes in into the US from those countries, importers have to pay a higher price. They'll pass that on to households. Then you mentioned the farmers. And I think an important point here too is that there's very likely to be retaliation almost immediately. Canada, Mexico and China are likely to say if you're putting a tariff on our goods, then we will do the same to yours. U.S. agriculture was really, really hit in the first term because they couldn't sell as much overseas to the point that President Trump in his first term even sent money to farmers, about $19 billion to help them out. So groceries likely to get more expensive. In the mix up of all of that, groceries likely to get more expensive. I will say it's still possible that he doesn't follow through on this threat. It's something that we saw from the president several times over in his first term. And he's leaving enough gray area in some of this language, the way the threat was written last night, to give himself something of a Runway that maybe any of those countries could come back and say we will do X, Y and and then the tariff never does take effect. But we do have to recognize that there's some destabilization here. There's some uncertainty here. So there's an economic impact even if it never takes effect.

Willie Geist (28:08)

CNBC correspondent Megan Casella walking us through this this morning. Thanks so much, Megan. We appreciate it. You know, Vaughn, you're struck seeing what the President elect has already announced, the mass deportation, this tariff. These are things, the appointment of some of these choices that he's making. Bobby Kennedy go down the line where during the campaign you would talk to people and say, oh, he's not going to do that. These are negotiating taxes. It's a campaign pitch. He's saying these things to win votes. And yet here we are seeing the real world implications of those campaign promises.

Jonathan Lemire (28:40)

Right? And we've lived this, Willie. I mean, back in 2018, 2019, we covered a Donald Trump trade war and we saw the economic impact for soybean farmers, corn farmers, lobster farmers in Maine. We saw that their markets not only disappear because of those retaliatory tariffs, so they were not able to export their goods, but they also saw their prices significantly drop year over year over year. And to Megan's point, the way that Donald Trump made up for those losses with farmers and producers around the country was by providing $28 billion in subsidies in order to make up for those losses here. And when we're talking about Mexico and Canada, there are two largest trading partners. And I think that the part of this tough style of politics that we see from Donald Trump when he's campaigning but then translate into the White House has questionable benefits. Howard Lutnick and Scott Bessett, they've backed Donald Trump's tariff proposals. But I go back again to his first trade war in 2018, 2019, Donald Trump justified it to American producers and manufacturers, the trade war with the idea that the US Would strike a major trade deal with China ultimately and that China would agree to no longer go forward with IP theft or providing unfair subsidies to their own state backed companies. And yet what happened? They signed a phase one of a trade deal in which China said that they would buy a certain amount of goods. They ended up only buying about half of those in the first year. But they never agreed to the other issues that Donald Trump and the Trump administration justified to Americans that this kind of trade deal would ultimately bear the fruits of. And so I think that's questionable about what can Mexico, what can Canada actually come through with? Because this would essentially undercut the USMCA trade deal that these three countries negotiated during his first administration.

Willie Geist (30:31)

Yeah. And on the campaign trail, Donald Trump promised that tariffs were going to pay for everything from education to healthcare. That was how he's going to fund everything. Appears Anyway for now, 25% on Canada and Mexico. We'll see if it happens. NBC's Vaughn Hilliard, thanks as always for your reporting. Still ahead on Morning Joe, what we are learning about a possible ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah. NBC's Keir Simmons has more on that. Plus, Russia launches a drone attack across Ukraine, striking critical infrastructure and damaging residential buildings. Love the latest on the state of the war there. Morning Joe comes back in 90 seconds. Every day, thousands of Comcast engineers and technologists put people at the heart of everything they create. Like Kunle, a Comcast engineer who began to approach work differently after becoming a father with two teenage boys at Kumle, thinks about the generation that he is building technology for. This continues to inspire him and his team to build a fast and reliable in home wifi solution for millions of families like his so everyone can work, learn and play together under one roof. Learn more@comcastcorporation.com this podcast is supported by.

Vaughn Hilliard (31:50)

Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Planned Parenthood Federation of America exists so.

Willie Geist (31:55)

All people can get access to the.

Vaughn Hilliard (31:57)

Sexual and reproductive care and education they need. Planned Parenthood organizations and advocate for health equity and policies that allow people the freedom to control their own bodies, lives and futures. More than 2 million patients a year.

Willie Geist (32:10)

Rely on Planned Parenthood health center services like STI testing and treatment, birth control, gender affirming care, abortion, cancer screenings and more. Reproductive health care and rights are under.

Vaughn Hilliard (32:21)

Attack from public officials who are out.

Willie Geist (32:23)

Of step with the will of the vast majority of Americans.

Vaughn Hilliard (32:25)

The constitutional right to abortion has been stolen and politicians in 47 states have.

Willie Geist (32:31)

Introduced bills that would block people from.

Vaughn Hilliard (32:33)

Getting the sexual and reproductive care they need.

Willie Geist (32:35)

Planned Parenthood knows that equitable access to.

Vaughn Hilliard (32:38)

Health care, including safe, legal abortion, is a human right. Right now, Planned Parenthood needs your help.

Willie Geist (32:44)

To protect access to healthcare.

Vaughn Hilliard (32:46)

Donate today by visiting plannedparenthood.org protect finding.

Willie Geist (32:51)

The music you love shouldn't be hard. That's why Pandora makes it Easy to explore all your favorites and discover new artisan genres you'll love. Enjoy a personalized listening experience simply by selecting any song or album and we'll make a station crafted just for you. Best of all, you can listen for free, download Pandora on the Apple App Store or Google Play and start hearing the soundtrack to your life. Israel's security cabinet is meeting today to discuss a potential ceasefire deal with Hezbollah in Lebanon. It comes as the IDF and Hezbollah have traded strikes in recent days with the Iranian backed terrorist group launching more than 200 projectiles into Israel on site. Joining us now from Dubai is NBC News chief international correspondent Keir Simmons. Keir, it's good to see you. So how close are they here?

Megan Casella (33:40)

Hey, Willie. Well, multiple European diplomats and U.S. officials signaling to NBC News that potentially we are on the brink of something a ceasefire deal would likely really look like. Hezbollah moving its heavy weaponry behind the Litany river and the Israelis moving out out of southern Lebanon. There are major hurdles, not least of which the difference between what the two sides are saying. So the leader of Hezbollah saying that that deal needs to be complete and comprehensive, whereas Israel saying that it reserves the right to deal with, quote, disruption. That's according to the Israeli ambassador to Washington. It has been incredibly destructive. We've seen 60,000 Israelis not able to go to their homes in northern Israel. Three and a half thousand people killed in Lebanon. And the killing and missiles have continued. Hundreds of missiles fired by Hezbollah over the weekend, more than 30 people killed in Lebanon on just on Monday. This is an escalation. Maybe it's the storm behind before the calm if you like. But if there is going to be a calm, then certainly the families of the hostages in Gaza are saying that they should be included too. This deal though, is unlikely to include Gaza. And the signals are that the idea is that you get this done and then you try and move on, move on to Gaza.

Willie Geist (35:21)

So, Keir, the Israelis are saying as part of this deal, of course, we will reserve the right that if Hezbollah attacks us, we can attack back or that we can preemptively attack if we see a threat coming to Israel. That appears to be a bit of a sticking point here. How do they work through that?

Megan Casella (35:39)

Yeah, it really is, I think. And we'll see. I mean, we're expecting, as you say, that vote by the Israeli security cabinet just in the coming hours. So it's possible that Israel feels that what it's seeing is enough for it. Certainly some on the right in Israel are already saying that they shouldn't vote for that one potential way that this is being kind of worked through, if you like, is a collaboration, a coalition of nations, the US The French that will oversee this, and the French putting out a statement overnight saying that clearly hopeful and talking about Lebanese sovereignty. So maybe with the French, maybe the British, too, and the US there will be enough confidence on both sides to get a ceasefire deal while both sides are kind of reserving the right, if you like, to, to take up arms against each other again.

Willie Geist (36:41)

And the Biden administration has been working on this deal for months and months trying to broker something there. We'll see if it comes through. NBC's Keir Simmons reporting this morning for us from the Middle East. Keir, thank you as always. Joining us now, former supreme Allied commander of NATO, retired four star Navy Admiral James Stavridis. He is chief international analyst for NBC News. So, Admiral, cautious optimism here it feels around a potential ceasefire deal between Israel and Hezbollah. What do you see some of the sticking points to make this actual actually hold and preserve a little peace there?

Admiral James Stavridis (37:16)

Well, I'll start with the cautionary note as, as Senator John McCain used to say, it's always darkest before it goes pitch black. And that is certainly the sensibility you've got to have developed watching the to use another metaphor, Lucy, with the football back and forth on ceasefires. I could catch count, I think 20 times that we've talked about a pending cease fire down south in Gaza, two or three times up north. But I think this one probably happens just because it's, it's kind of in the interest of the Israelis. And what I mean by that is, and sticking point number one, they, they must get those 60,000, I've heard numbers as high as 80,000 Israelis back into their homes. That's a political reality. Sticking point two is they're clearly going to hold on to the ability to go after individual targets up north. And I think that that is baked into the agreement at this point. And sticking point number three, back to Gaza, I think that deal is next in the queue. Those are the three things to watch as we go forward here, Willie, Admiral.

Sam Stein (38:33)

Samstein here, obviously, everything is colored by the impending return to power of Donald Trump. And I'm wondering, you're a leader of an Arab nation who cares about the Palestinian cause, who's looking at, not just Gaza, what's happening in the West Bank. And you recognize that you have an incoming president who's more or less gonna tell Bibi, you know, do what you want for a little bit and then tidy it up. How does that affect your posture not just with respect to what's happening in Lebanon, but on all these fronts?

Admiral James Stavridis (39:03)

Yeah, let's do Lebanon first, Sam. Here. I think if you're Hezbollah up north, you're Lebanese, you really want to cut a deal now. And so that, I think, is why this ceasefire is moving forward. Stepping back a little bit and looking at the larger frame of the Middle East. You know, the capital that is most disadvantaged by the return of the Trump administration is arguably not Kiev, it's Tehran. And so you're Iranian, you probably are looking for ways to avoid a sledgehammer coming at you that gets us to the Arab world. World here. I think you're exactly right, Sam Stein, meaning that particularly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman uae, the rest of the Gulf Arabs, the Arab world with money, are definitely waiting for Team Trump to come back. They have deep pipe there, including financial engagement with Jared Kushner, the president's son in law, who will probably, probably ride point for the administration here in the Middle East. So you're holding, holding, holding, getting ready to go all in, all in being defined as finally recognizing the state of Israel by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. That won't happen until after the inauguration. That's the next big strategic muscle movement.

Jeff Lewis (40:28)

So, Admiral, you mentioned Kiev. Let's turn to that theater now. It seems that both sides have really ramped up the fighting here as winter approaches and also as Donald Trump approaches. Both sides trying to get as much gains as they can. Russia even deploying a new missile, it appears. What's your analysis as to where the fighting could go in the months ahead before possibly a move to the negotiating table?

Admiral James Stavridis (40:57)

I think you categorize it exactly right, Jonathan, which is to say both sides are pushing hard for advantage.

Lisa Rubin (41:05)

No.

Admiral James Stavridis (41:06)

Knowing that they are going to be headed to a negotiation probably mid 25, if not sooner. And so on the Russian side, you see the deployment of the new weapon you indicated a hypersonic 10 times the speed of sound, very difficult to intercept missile. You're seeing 10,000 North Koreans thrown at the battlefield. Those are moves designed to enhance a bargaining position on the other side. Side went back as far as a few months ago, the attack into Russia by the Ukrainians to hold the salient around Kurz, and above all now the use of the ATACMS missiles. Finally, all of that, both sides pushing to strengthen their position. How does it come out? I would guess what you see now, if you got out of a map and looked at the battle positions, it's going to be pretty close to what you're seeing now. And that's attractive tragedy. At the end of the day, Putin will have managed to bite off 20% of a neighboring country illegally, immorally and using war criminal behavior. On the other hand, if that deal is consummated, the rest of Ukraine, the 80% sails on democratic free path to NATO, eventually path to the European Union. It's not the worst deal in the world. I think that's probably how it comes.

Willie Geist (42:31)

And Ukrainians fully expect down the road Vladimir Putin to come back for more. So they want that path to NATO, they want weapons, they want to be a harder target going forward. Retired four star Navy Admiral James Stavridis Admiral, thanks as always. We appreciate it. Coming up, we'll take a closer look at some of the people Donald Trump has picked to lead the nation's top health agencies and the impact they could have on key issues. Yes, like vaccines. Morning Joe's coming right back.

Lisa Rubin (43:13)

True crime podcasts There is no shortage.

Willie Geist (43:16)

To consume, and if you're like me, you've consumed them all. I'm Ashley Flowers, creator and host of.

Lisa Rubin (43:21)

The number one true crime podcast podcast, Crime Junkie. Every Monday we cover a case in.

Willie Geist (43:26)

A way that's not like you've heard before because I have built a one of a kind team of investigative journalists.

Lisa Rubin (43:32)

Dedicated to conducting original reporting, making sure.

Willie Geist (43:35)

That you get the inside scoop. Listen to hundreds of Crime Junkie episodes now. Wherever you get your podcasts, you've been prescribed medication for BPH or enlarged prostate. You don't like the idea of a daily medication for the rest of your life. If you have to take it from forever, is it really worth it? But that's what the doctor ordered and symptoms from BPH were negatively impacting your life. A weak flow, an urgent need to go interrupted sleep. Now you feel stuck between medications that aren't really doing the trick and the idea of invasive surgery. There may be another option, a minimally invasive procedure covered by most insurance called the Urolift System. The Urolift System may provide up to three times the symptom relief as a common BPH medication. Based on early data from a head to head study. Men 45 and over go to no BPH meds.com to learn more and find a Urolift System trained doctor near you. Most common side effects are temporary and can include discomfort when urinating, urgency, inability to control the urge, pelvic pain and some blood in the urine. Rare side effects, including bleeding and infection may lead to a serious outcome and may require intervention the minimally invasive Urolift system. Go to nobphmeds.com did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications, kids learn to earn, save and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money. With guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today@Greenlight.com podcast.

Admiral James Stavridis (45:18)

Here.

Willie Geist (45:18)

Is Hill Pete gets the first down and on he goes inside the 10 end zone. Touchdown Justice Hill Justice Hill juke at the line of scrimmage, bouncing it outside, then turning on the jets for a 51 yard touchdown run. Helps the Ravens cap week 12 of the NFL regular season with a win over the Los Angeles Chargers. Ravens superstar quarterback Lamar Jackson, accounting for three scores last night, throwing for two rushing for this one. Nice little side step into the end zone there. Derek Henry did not score. That was the first time he has not scored as a Raven, but he still racked up 140 yards on the ground. Having a big year for Baltimore, coach John Harbaugh improving to 30 in NFL games, coaching against his brother who's now the Chargers head coach. That's Jim Harbaugh, of course. 30 to 23 was the final score. Ravens over the Chargers in LA. So Jonathan Lemire, you start to look at we're now getting into down the stretch here, week 12 in the books, the AFC kind of looking the way it always looks. You got the Chiefs, who look a little vulnerable, a lot of close wins. You got the Bills, of course. The Ravens are near the top. Throw in the Steelers, but the good teams appear to be right where we expected them to be.

Jeff Lewis (46:36)

Yeah, that's exactly right. Chiefs have had the remarkable knack of winning close games this year, even against a bad Carolina team. But you know, outside of one, they've managed to pull it off all season long. Steelers took a tough one in the snow the other night. Ravens closed the gap there, you know, and Buffalo with Josh Allen, I'd say the MVP favorite right now looming as well. And Sam Stein. It feels like the NFC is maybe a two team race. One could argue. Lions and Eagles seem to be pretty clearly ahead of the rest of the field though. Packers and Vikings also in the NFC north, nipping at Detroit's heels up one team not in the playoff contention, the New York Giants, who of course now wonder who have ridden Themselves of Daniel Jones. I wonder if he's going to sign with the Cowboys for the Thanksgiving game this week. My question to you is, do you think that the. Should it be a fully clean house? Do coach and GM need to go to.

Sam Stein (47:28)

But you're really going to rule out my giants with Tommy DeVito, Tommy cutlets hanging in there.

Jeff Lewis (47:32)

Come on. Despite.

Sam Stein (47:34)

Did you not see us last weekend? Did you not see us last week? I think we scored pretty good. We suck. We're horrible. It's embarrassing. It's awful. They need to clean house. I will say I can't even care that much, but I don't know why I'm so exercised right now. I will say. Did you guys watch the Cowboys commanders game though? That was incredible. The ending of that game, that was insane. People in D.C. were sickened by it. So yes, I agree with your synopsis. The lines look amazing. Just a juggernaut. But you know, they have this Dan Campbell coaching ethos. You just know there's going to be a moment in the playoffs where something seems so spectacularly idiotic to do and he's just going to be like, yeah, I'm going to do it. And all the Lions fans are going to be pulling out their hair. So my money still has to go with. Honestly, I hate to say it, the Eagles and Saquon Barkley, they just look really good.

Willie Geist (48:32)

Yeah, Saquon. Speaking of salt in the wound for Giants fans, Saquon, who we loved as Giants fans who never really had a quarter quarterback or weapons on the outside or an offensive line having an absolutely phenomenal MVP style year, he just went off against the Rams the other night. I mean, just the raw athleticism. Oh man, Sam, he had a good year too for us, but he was, he was swimming upstream with that, that team.

Sam Stein (48:58)

And you're right, you know, you can't, you can't feel you. You have nothing but love for the guy. He deserves this.

Willie Geist (49:03)

Agree.

Sam Stein (49:03)

And honestly, we. We should suffer. We stink. We should suffer. And this makes it more appropriate. Okay. I'm glad he's having a great year.

Willie Geist (49:15)

Let it out, Sam. Let it all out. This is the right forum for that. This can be your therapy session. Totally agree. Couldn't be happier for Saquon. He's a great Giant, a great guy. So good for him. Now the nice thing, they have the Cowboys and Giants as that middle game on Thanksgiving. Gives you a nice time to be outside with the family, go play a little touch football, do whatever you need to do.

Sam Stein (49:34)

I would laugh. I would. I would literally do anything else than watch that game. I'll eat more turkey. I'll stuff myself again. I don't want to watch that game.

Willie Geist (49:43)

Yeah, you can watch the Lions early. Then you take a little break while the Cowboys play the Giants and you come back and watch the packers and the Dolphins at night. It's a perfect day.

Sam Stein (49:51)

Yeah, my Thanksgiving nap will be four hours precisely right over that game.

Willie Geist (49:58)

Who knows? Maybe Tommy Cutlets comes alive on Thanksgiving. We'll see. Season. Hey, I'm journalist Sam Sanders.

Jeff Lewis (50:09)

I'm Poet Syed Jones.

Willie Geist (50:11)

And I'm producer Zach Stafford. And we are the hosts of a podcast called Vibe Check. On Vibe Check, we talk about everything. News, culture and entertainment and how it all feels. That's right. We talk about any and everything on our show, from real life issues like grief to music and movie critiques. And that barely scratches surface.

Jeff Lewis (50:30)

Yes, indeed. And it doesn't stop there. We have got a lot to say, so join our group, chat, come to life, follow and listen to Vibe Check wherever you get your podcasts.