Full interview: Rachel Maddow talks with the bishop who asked Trump directly to show mercy

Thanks, you at home, for joining us this hour. I am really, really happy to have you here tonight.
We are going to be speaking with the Episcopal Bishop of Washington yesterday, who had that incredible moment at the National Cathedral, speaking directly to Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance about human dignity and decency and mercy in a way that seems to have short-circuited Donald Trump a little bit.
Just an incredible moment. We're going to be speaking with her live here tonight, just moments from now.
We also tonight look like we might be having a good old-fashioned debacle unfolding in Washington. This is the second full day of the second presidential term for Donald Trump.
And you will recall that he received less than 50 percent of the popular vote to win this term. He got more of the popular vote than Kamala Harris did, but he was still under 50 percent.
He was at about 49.8 percent of the national popular vote. Today, we've got the first national polling on how the country

feels about him as he starts his new term. And this first national polling shows that Trump's support has already fallen even below that level of support that he had in the election.
Reuters Ipsos today finds that Trump is starting with a national approval rating of 47 percent. And for context sake, that is historically low for new presidents.
Most presidents start over 50 percent. This is supposed to be the honeymoon period after all.
You actually expect that the number of people who voted for them will continue to be for them. But then you expect sort of other people who didn't vote for them or who didn't vote at all to also come over to their side with all of the momentum and the positive press that they get for the start.
In Donald

Trump's case, it has been the opposite. He has fallen from the amount of support that he had

in the election and what he had in the election was less than 50 percent anyway.

Again, most presidents start over 50 percent at the start of their term. Joe Biden, for example,

at the start of his presidency, he was up at 55 percent at this point. But Trump is starting with

Thank you. over 50% at the start of their term.
Joe Biden, for example, at the start of his presidency, he was up at 55% at this point. But Trump is starting with low approval numbers.
And you know, he may or may not care about that. He had pretty dramatically low approval numbers for almost all of his first term in office, and it didn't seem much to bother him.
That said, I bet he does mind that the TV ratings for his inauguration were way down, way down, like down by a third from what Biden had four years ago, down by a third even from what he himself had at his first inauguration back in 2017. I don't know if he cares about his approval ratings, but you know he cares about his TV ratings.
And they just dropped like a stone. So he's starting out with the American people not particularly liking him and people not particularly wanting to watch him on television.
That said, the bigger issue, even if you take those numbers away, the bigger issue for him on this just the second day of his new term is that he really does appear to have stepped in it in terms of public opinion, coming right out of the gate with this dramatically unpopular decision about pardons, this dramatically unpopular decision to free from prison all these people who physically attacked police officers with baseball bats and two by fours and bear spray and flash bang explosives while they were attacking the U.S. Capitol in Trump's name.
This same new Reuters Ipsos polling shows that a large majority of the public, 58 percent of the public, disagrees with Trump issuing this this blanket pardon and commutation for everybody convicted of crimes related to January 6th. And we're going to talk more about that tonight.
As one of Trump's January 6th violent felons who he released yesterday was then immediately re-arrested today on gun charges, that's not a good look. We've also had another day of Republicans just being fundamentally unable to answer questions about what Trump did here and whether or not they really support it.
Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson today earned laughter when he tried to say that he didn't want to talk about the pardons anymore. He didn't want to look back.
Didn't want to look back at those pardons from yesterday. He only wants to look forward.
And then right after he said that, he announced that Republicans are going to go back and reinvestigate all of January 6th all over again. House Speaker Mike Johnson not able to get out of his own way, not able to figure out how to answer questions about these pardons yet, and they're not going away.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich criticizing Trump's pardons today. The pro-Trump right-wing editorial page at the Wall Street Journal criticizing the pardons today, calling them rotten.
Senator John Thune, the Republican leader in the Senate, pilloried for trying to insist that the pardons were considered on a case-by-case basis when they absolutely were not. Everybody with a January 6th conviction, everybody got a pardon or commutation.
There was no case-by-case consideration, Senator. And on top of all of that, now tonight there has been an extraordinary rebuke of these pardons from the court system.
And again, we're going to talk about this more a little bit later on, but I just want you to listen to this. I'm not sure this is widely circulated today.
I do not think you will have heard about this. But this is from Judge Beryl Howell of the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C.
Just listen to this. I'm just quoting directly here.
The United States government moves to dismiss with prejudice the nine-count superseding indictment against defendants Nicholas DiCarlo and Nicholas Oaks. The two defendants in this case, one of whom founded the Hawaii chapter of the Proud Boys and served as a senior leader of the group, both admitted under oath their criminal conduct at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6, 2021. Both men admitted throwing smoke bombs at law enforcement while on the grounds of the Capitol.
Both men admitted to breaching the Capitol building and defacing the Capitol building and stealing equipment from law enforcement officers responding to protect the building and its lawful occupants from the rioters. The current posture of this case is that even after the defendant's admission of egregious criminal conduct, both outside and inside the U.S.
Capitol

Building, and the government expending significant time and resources in identifying defendants,

investigating their criminal conduct, and filing three separate indictments against these defendants,

the government now seeks to dismiss the pending indictment against these defendants. Judge Howell then explains that while the court under law doesn't have much of a choice to continue a criminal case if the government decides to drop it, she's sort of compelled to drop it if they wanted to drop it, she says the law does, quote, vest some discretion in the court in terms of how to handle the details of this unusual situation.
And check this out. This is astonishing.
Quote, To ensure that the government's request for dismissal of criminal charges sufficiently protects the public, the government may be required to submit a statement of reasons and underlying factual basis, which must be substantial to justify the dismissal of an indictment. Here, the government's cursory motion provides no factual basis for dismissal.
The only reason provided for this instruction is the assertion that this action quote ends a grave national injustice that has been perpetrated

upon the American people over the last four years and begins a process of national reconciliation. That was in Trump's order that all of these cases should be dropped.
End a national, ends a grave national injustice. Judge Howell continues, quote, No national injustice occurred here, just as no outcome determinative election fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election.
No process of national reconciliation can begin when, I'm quoting the judge here directly, when poor losers whose preferred candidate loses an election are glorified for disrupting a constitutionally mandated proceeding in Congress and doing so with impunity. That merely raises the dangerous specter of future lawless conduct by other poor losers and undermines the rule of law.
She says, quote, having pres prosecutions in this case and others charging defendants for their criminal conduct at the U.S. Capitol on January 6th present no injustice, but instead reflect the diligent work of conscientious public servants, including prosecutors and law enforcement officials and dedicated defense attorneys to defend our democracy and rights and preserve our long tradition of peaceful transfers of power, which until January 6th, 2021, served as a model to the world, all while affording those charged every protection guaranteed by our Constitution and our criminal justice system.
As to these two defendants, she says, as to these two defendants specifically, both admitted their criminal conduct under oath after consultation with their attorneys and pursuant to plea agreements to which they agreed. Bluntly put, the assertion offered in the presidential pronouncement for the pending motion to dismiss is flatly wrong.
Judge Beryl Howell goes on to grant the government's demand that she dismiss this case because she has to do that. But she refuses to do what Trump's order said she had to do, which was to dismiss it with prejudice, which means these charges could never be brought again.
She just refuses to do that. The judge says, quote,

Nothing about the government's reasoning for dismissal warrants entry of dismissal with prejudice.

Dismissal with prejudice, she says, would bar any further prosecution of defendants for their offense conduct at issue.

This result would be improper here when the defendants own admissions of criminal conduct, including throwing smoke bombs at law

enforcement officers who were trying valiantly to prevent rioters from entering the Capitol building, that conduct provides ample basis for criminal prosecution. Judge Howell then orders this case dismissed, this case effectively closed, but she flat out refuses to order the case closed

forever. This directive from Trump effectively told the judge to close it with prejudice so the case could never be brought again.
She said, no, you're wrong on that on the law and I won't do it. And also in so many words, by the way, what you're doing here is obscene.

This is one of three rulings by a federal judge today absolutely rebuking Donald Trump and his new Justice Department for trying to make these January 6th cases disappear, to try to make it like January 6th didn't happen. The decision to spring these guys from prison and to stop the ongoing trials of people convicted or charged with physically attacking police officers, this is a debacle.
I mean, morally, it's obviously a debacle. Strategically, in terms of our country holding itself together, it's a debacle.
But it's a political debacle. The public doesn't like it.
The police don't like it. Not even the Trumpy police like it.
Even the Fraternal Order of Police, which endorsed Trump and initially appeared flummoxed by this pardons decision, they've now come out and denounced it as well. The violent felons who Trump ordered freed yesterday are already today starting to be arrested for other violent crimes.
His political allies on Capitol Hill are supposed to start carrying major water for him on everything he wants to do. They are already finding it totally untenable to carry water for him on this first thing that he has decided to blow all his capital, all his political capital on.
I mean, some of the felons he freed, including one of the paramilitary leaders who Trump just freed from his 18-year federal prison sentence, this guy turned up at Capitol Hill today. Turned up on Capitol Hill.
There are rumors circulating that Trump had wanted to bring his felons, had wanted to bring these guys who violently attacked police and were convicted for it. He wants to bring them all to the White House, too.
That's the sort of thing that probably sounded great at a Trump rally. Probably sounded like it was something that people wanted when you were stewing about stuff like this at a Trump rally at one of your Fidel Castro Castro esque, you know, three and a half hour long rambly speeches where most of the people left before you were halfway through it probably sounded like a great idea that everybody would love you for.
But you know what? The country is not a Trump rally and the country appears to be repulsed by the very first big thing that Donald Trump has done in his new presidential term. And whether or not he can see it, every other Republican in Washington is learning it very quickly.
At least all of them who can read polls are learning it very quickly. any of them who can read polls or who can hear the questions from their own constituents back home and from reporters about the what about what the heck is this mess with freeing these convicted, violent felons.
And does the senator support it? Does the congressman support it? And can you explain why? And saying you haven't seen the details or you don't know how you don't know exactly what's happened here or you want to look more into it, that answer isn't going to fly. It's an absolute debacle.
And I think importantly, as my good friend Chris Hayes often says, politics did not stop when Donald Trump was elected. The laws of political gravity still apply.
And Donald Trump's first major action in his second presidential term on political grounds is a political debacle. And that matters.
And we will have more on that ahead this hour. But over the course of this week thus far, over the course of these last few days, we've been trying to keep an eye on where the bumps in the road are, where the friction comes from, where the things are, what things are happening in the country that might make the things that Trump wants to do harder to do.
And along those lines, there is

news tonight from another power center in this country, a power center that sits sometimes

uncomfortably alongside our political system. But it's one that when it's at its best, it can be a

source of deep moral suasion, deep moral force. When we think about the constraints on the power

I don't know. it can be a source of deep moral suasion, deep moral force.
When we think about the constraints on the powerful in this country, when we think about things that might stop people from doing bad things, that might persuade people to turn back, change their minds, when we think about what's available to us as a country, things that might instill some bravery in those who are weak or wavering or afraid.

When we think about things in our country that can move public opinion and move public attention.

Don't sleep on religion as one of those things in this country.

And I mean that in the broadest possible sense. I mean, just generally speaking, organized religious life in America in all of its stripes.
This was this weekend in Chicago. Today, priests on Chicago's southwest side held a mass to stand in solidarity with local immigrants.
Community members filled the pews of St. Rita of Kasia Parish in Chicago Lawn.
It's really important to be present, to let people know not only that we're praying with them, but we'll be there, you know, wherever we can to support them. Priests blessed pastoral packs for families who may face deportation.
The packs include a prayer shawl, rosary, and a statue of the patron saint of immigrants. Well, that Catholic parish in Chicago stood up for and stood up with its immigrant members this weekend.
Their archbishop gave a big Chicago broad shouldered speech in Mexico City on the same day, calling the Trump administration's plans for mass deportations targeting Chicago, quote, an affront, saying the Catholic community in Chicago would not stand for it. The new Catholic Archbishop of Washington, who was just named to the post by the Vatican, he also has said that mass deportations of the type described by the Trump campaign during the campaign and now by the Trump administration, now that inauguration has happened, he has described those mass deportation plans as incompatible with Catholic doctrine.
Again, this is the new Archbishop of Washington, D.C. He says the church will fight with all it has to stop those mass deportations.
And it isn't just the Catholic Church. You know, in Trump's first presidential term, hundreds of churches responded to his inauguration almost immediately by declaring themselves to be sanctuaries for immigrants and immigrant families who needed help and needed shelter.
In Los Angeles, the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles in the summer of 2017, they declared themselves a sanctuary diocese for immigrants. That's a diocese with 150 congregations in Los Angeles alone.
In 2019, two years later, the entire evangelical Lutheran church nationwide declared itself a sanctuary church body. That's 9,000 congregations nationwide and three and a half million members.
Yesterday, we saw the national leaders of the Episcopal Church in America, which is a huge church in America. We saw the national leaders of the Episcopal Church send a letter to their membership explicitly opposing Trump's mass deportation plans and more than that, calling on their millions of members to contact their member of Congress and tell their member of Congress to oppose Trump's plans.
Quote, to our siblings who are at risk of deportation or of being separated from those you love, know that your story is our story and your dignity is inseparable from our own. We stand with you, and we will face these challenges together.
It was yesterday from the National Episcopal Church. Also yesterday, the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C., looked into the front row of the National Cathedral in Washington during the National Prayer Service, looked into the eyes of the incoming president, and very calmly, very clearly gave us the illustrated dictionary definition of what it means to speak truth to power.
Let me make one final plea, Mr. President.
Millions have put their trust in you. And as you told the nation yesterday, you have felt the providential hand of a loving God.
In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country.

We're scared now.

We played a lot of this sermon for you last night here on the show.

It was played all over the country.

It ran on autoplay on the front page of The Washington Post, literally.

By the overnight hours last night, President Trump had responded by demanding an apology, by calling Bishop Marion Edgar Budde a, quote, so-called bishop, and by insulting her in personal terms. You all right, big guy? Today, of course, what has followed has been a day of threats and invective directed against Bishop Udy from the president's supporters, including what she describes as lots of death threats.
nothing is inevitable nothing that they want to do necessarily just gets done they have to do it and you

don't necessarily know what every action will cause in terms of an equal and opposite reaction. None of us know where grace or power or bravery or hard work or luck might come together to change the course of where the country is going, to render, for example, as a debacle, some of the worst ideas, or to change minds or change hearts about what might otherwise seem a fait accompli.
Bishop Marianne Edgar Budde yesterday at that prayer service, she surprised everyone at the National Cathedral. If that tells us nothing else, it should tell us that we should all be ready and open to more surprises that might come from very surprising places.
Bishop Buddy joins us live here next. Stay connected with the MSNBC app, bringing you breaking news and analysis anytime, anywhere.

All the stories that we're covering are live and happening as we speak.

Watch your favorite shows live.

What's happening right now is a hostile takeover of the U.S. government.

Read live blogs and in-depth essays and listen to coverage as it unfolds.

Go beyond the what to understand the why.

Download the app now at msnbc.com slash app. They may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.
They pay taxes and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches and mosques, synagogues, wadara, and temples.
I ask you to have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away.
That was the Episcopal Bishop of Washington yesterday at the National Cathedral talking directly to the president, directly, eye to eye,

about compassion, humility, kindness, honesty,

honoring the inherent dignity of every person,

talking to him about respect, about mercy.

This is not his usual bailiwick.

It is hers, though. Joining us now is the Right Reverend Marianne Edgar-Buddy.
She's the Episcopal Bishop of Washington, D.C. Bishop Buddy, I really appreciate you making the time.
I know you have

a lot of options where to be, and I appreciate you being here.

It's great to be here. Thank you.

What made you decide to make that appeal the way you did to ask him for mercy in that way? Well, as I was, as you summarized so well, as I was thinking about at the end, toward the end of my preparation, the pillars of unity, it struck me that I was missing one. And that one, that last one was mercy, to have mercy and compassion.
And rather than stated in sweeping turns, I thought I would acknowledge to the president, acknowledge that he had come to the highest office of the land, that he had millions of people had entrusted him with this power.

And I wanted to make, as you heard, a plea, a request that he broaden his characterization of the people that are frightened now and are at risk of losing everything. And I thought that that would be the more respectful way to say it and also to appeal to not only the president but to all who might be listening to appeal to what we know to be true about our immigrant neighbors, who they are, the kind of people that we're blessed to be among, and to remember them in our understanding of what it means to be America.
Your opportunity in that moment to minister directly to the president is a very unique moment. I know that you've been the bishop in Washington for a long time, and you were there for his first inaugural as well.
But I wanted to ask about the broader question of the role of the

church right now in moral leadership in this moment. We have seen the Catholic Church,

the Episcopal Church, elements of the Lutheran Church, other congregations all over the country,

very diverse types of churches, offer themselves, for example, as sanctuaries for people who are facing deportation. What do you see as the role of the church in helping lead the public and helping us understand what our moral responsibilities are right now? Right.
That's a great question. I would say the first and primary role that we have is by example, you know, to take the teachings of our faith, to welcome the stranger, to love as we've been loved, to be compassionate and to live that out in in real terms with real people in our communities.
So that's foundational. And then when given the opportunity to speak and to be at times a conscience, at other times a consolation, to be present ministering or pastoring the common good.
And so it takes many forms. It depends on the moment.
We're in a particularly harsh moment now when it comes to conversations around immigrant populations in our midst. And so that was the reason for the tone I took now.
But it could have been a very different tone in a different context, depending on how compassion needs to be manifest in a given time. Even before we had the sort of—now, you wouldn't use these terms, but I'll use it, sort of nasty reaction from the president in the overnight hours in which he demanded an apology from you and insulted you in personal terms.
Even before we got that reaction from him, a lot of people were describing what you did as brave. And I wanted to get your reaction to that.
I mean, as a high-ranking church leader who's been doing this job for a long time, I imagine that speaking in public isn't difficult to you and speaking on difficult truths isn't difficult for you. But what do you make of the fact that I think a lot of people are feeling, are seeing in you a form of courage that they hoped they would have themselves? Well, just a slight correction.
I'm afraid every time I step into a pulpit, right, that really never goes away. Large or small, it doesn't matter.
It's a huge responsibility, tremendous vocation, and how many people get that amount of time and interrupted speech, right? So it's a really big deal. And I take it

very seriously every time. So yeah, I was nervous.
I was scared. I think perhaps the reason why it had the effect that it did is because for a while now, there has been very little public...
there hasn't been much of a narrative outside of the narrative that the president has been describing, right? People have gone quiet or they've been ignored. And so this was a moment, you know, and I had no idea who was paying attention.
I mean, the inauguration was the day before. There, you know, there weren't that many people in the cathedral.
It wasn't crowded. It was a group of people who had gathered at his invitation.
But it wasn't something that was in public discourse. And so I think in some ways, that was perhaps the reason why it had the effect that it did.
It is also an audacious thing to address anyone directly from the pulpit. I typically do that for weddings, you know, when you talk to a couple.
Do you know what I mean? At funerals, you talk to the family you're seeking to console. This was a service of prayer for unity for the country, but it was on the occasion of the inauguration of a president.
And if you go back to other sermons in those moments, there's almost always a word to the president. So it wasn't unusual in that way.
But in the particular moment we're in, it filled a space that hadn't been occupied for a while. Bishop Buddy, I'd like to just ask you one last question, and I'll give you from the outset an opportunity to not answer this if you don't want to, because it's perhaps not fair of me.
But we did get that nasty gram from the president in the middle of the night in which he did insult you and demand an apology. And I know I've seen remarks that you made today that you've received a lot of not just invective, but threats, including death threats over the course of today since that happened.
And I would just ask if you wanted to respond either to the president or to the people who have wished you ill in response to this. Well, I've been I've had people wish me dead.
I'm not sure they've threatened to kill me, but they'd seem to be pleased if I met my eternal destiny sooner rather than later. And I would simply say,

I was trying actually to encourage a different kind of conversation that you can certainly disagree with me. You can disagree what I've said or did, but could we as Americans and fellow children of God speak to one another with respect? I would offer the same to you.
I would listen to your views and I would honor them, but we don't have to go to the highest extremes of contempt when we are in a position of disagreement. And I think if we could get that back as a country, we would go a long way in being able to work together to address the many problems that we face.
Well, at its best, no matter your religious faith or lack thereof, the ministry is both teaching and leading. And that, I think, is why you're having such a strong reaction from so many Americans to what you did yesterday.
And I am sorry for the vitriol and the negative reaction that you've had from some quarters, but I hope you know that there's a lot on the other side of that as well. Thank you so much.
Mary Ann Buddy, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, D.C., it's an honor to have you here. Come back anytime.
Thanks so much. Thank you.
All right. Much more here ahead tonight, including Senator Elizabeth Warren joining us live.
Stay with us. This is the headline from NBC News.
quote, Senators receive affidavit containing new allegations against Pete Hegseth, who denies the claims. Pete Hegseth, of course, is a Fox News weekend co-host and currently Donald Trump's nominee to be secretary of defense, because sure, why not? NBC News was first to report yesterday on this sworn affidavit concerning Mr.
Hegseth that has been filed by his former sister-in-law. She submitted this at the request of the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, Senator Jack Reed, NBC News reporting, quote, Danielle Hegseth describes in the affidavit allegations of volatile and threatening conduct by Pete Hegseth that made his second wife, Samantha, fear for her safety.
In the affidavit, the former sister-in-law details instances in which she says she was, quote, a witness to and even a victim of emotional abuse by Pete Hegseth. She says she personally witnessed him abusing alcohol numerous times.
quote, Among the should know that Hegseth's ex-wife, She tells NBC News that she will not be commenting on her marriage to Pete beyond saying, quote, NBC News further reports that as part of their divorce, both Pete Hegseth and his second ex-wife signed a court document that said neither parent claimed to be a victim of domestic abuse. Asked for comment by NBC News, an attorney for Pete Hegseth denied that he was ever abusive to his ex-wife.
The attorney said in part that Ms. Hegseth's ex-wife, quote, was, excuse me, has never alleged that there was any abuse.
She signed court documents acknowledging there was no abuse and recently reaffirmed the same during her FBI interview. Now, this is hardly the first time Pete Hegseth has faced and denied very concerning allegations.
Allegations concerning enough to like conceivably threaten his Fox News job, let alone his secretary of defense nomination. In November, we learned through his attorney that Mr.
Hegseth had paid off a woman who accused him of sexually assaulting her in 2017. Mr.
Hegseth denied the sexual assault allegation. Prosecutors did not bring charges against him for it.
The woman was treated at a hospital and had a rape kit examination done, though. In December, Jane Mayer reported in The New Yorker on Hegseth's work for two veterans groups, writing that Hegseth was, quote, forced to step down by both of the groups that he ran in the face of serious allegations of financial mismanagement, sexual impropriety, and personal misconduct.
A lawyer for Hegseth said the New Yorker's reporting was based on claims from a disgruntled former associate. Just a few days after that report, 10 current and former Fox employees told NBC News that Pete Hegseth drank in ways that were concerning.
Two of them said they smelled alcohol on him before he went on the air on more than a dozen occasions. Did I mention it was a morning show? A spokesperson for the Trump transition team said the allegations were, quote, completely unfounded and false.
After that reporting, Hegseth reportedly told Republican senators that he promised he would stop drinking if and when he was confirmed as secretary of defense. And maybe he would do that.
Maybe he would be able to do that. Maybe.
Maybe that promise alone helped to settle the qualms of Republican senators who would be considering whether or not to put him in charge of the Pentagon. But then came these new allegations, a new round of allegations, this time from his former sister-in-law.
In her sworn affidavit, Mr. Hegseth's sister-in-law says she made the same claims of abuse and drunken menace to an FBI agent last month as part of Mr.
Hegseth's background check. The Trump transition team briefed the top two senators on the Armed Forces, on the Armed Services Committee on the contents of that background check.
But two sources with knowledge of the briefing tell NBC News that these allegations from the sister-in-law weren't brought up. Even though the sister-in-law conveyed these things to the FBI and the Trump transition was supposed to brief senators on what the FBI knew, they didn't mention any of these claims that are now detailed in this affidavit that has been given to the Senate committee directly.
None of this, neither the content nor the process, is helping Pete Hegseth's nomination to be secretary of defense. One close source to the Armed Services Committee says more than 20 senators have now seen the full unredacted affidavit from the sister-in-law as of this afternoon.
Also this afternoon,

Fox News reported that three Republican senators may vote no on Hegseth. That would be enough

to force Vice President J.D. Vance to have to break a tie if all the Democrats stick together,

which on this nomination they will. If it's three Republicans that are already no's,

that means that his nomination will fail if only one more Republican senator balks. Now, the expected timing on the full Senate vote for Hegseth has been pushed back from Thursday to possibly Friday or even Saturday.
Meanwhile, the hard push on this from Senate Democrats is gaining some momentum. Senator Elizabeth Warren today joining a call for more information from Pete Hegseth himself,

saying, quote, it would be irresponsible and contrary to our constitutional duty for the Senate to vote to confirm this nomination without it. Senator Elizabeth Warren joins us here next.
the senate just received another report that Pete Hegseth has problems with alcohol and abuse that disqualify him to be secretary of defense. It is also clear that the FBI has not done a full investigation.
We shouldn't be voting on this nomination this week. We need a full investigation.
The nomination of Fox News host Pete Hegseth to run the Defense Department has been an uphill climb from the start because, obviously. But where does it stand now? Joining us now is Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.
Senator, I really appreciate you being here with us tonight. Thank you.
Good to be with you. So help us understand the process here.
The allegations that you were talking about there in that video, these new allegations that are detailed in this affidavit from Mr. Hegsess, former sister-in-law.
She says these were conveyed to the FBI, But then somehow they never made it to senators, except just now, upon invitation from Senator Reid, that the Senate sister-in-law should talk to the committee directly. What happened here? Well, it's clear that the FBI did not do a thorough job in tracking down all of the stories about drinking and all of the stories about sexual abuse.
It's obvious in part because we have a file from different people, and the FBI report just hasn't really covered everything. And that's clear now with the former sister-in-law.
But understand this about it, Rachel, when people are talking about what did we learn with this affidavit, it's all the same pattern. It's story after story after story after story about drunk.
And I don't mean, you know, a couple of drinks before dinner. I mean drunk.
I mean the kind of drunk where standing outside a hotel and peeing drunk. I mean, someone had to get you upstairs and into your hotel room.
The kind of drunk that you take work folks to a strip club and so drunk then that you try to get up on stage and dance with the strippers. The kind of drunk that has stopped the Uber because you're going to vomit drunk.
So we're talking about out of control drunk, passed out dead cold drunk. There's story after story after story.
And the Republicans, many who have looked at this, have said, no, no, no. These are just anonymous efforts to smear Mr.
Hegseth. That's been his response.
None of it's true. It's all just anonymous.
Now, it's not anonymous, but these are not people who've gone out there in public and put their names in public for a lot of reasons that are personal, not wanting to do that. What we have here that makes this different is it's the stories with all the receipts, the dates, the documents, when it happened, who was there.
But now it's someone has said this in a sworn affidavit with her name on it and under penalty of perjury. So there's not even a fig leaf to hide behind.
This is really about whether or not Republicans are going to confirm a secretary of defense who has a serious alcohol problem. Senator, do you believe that there are Republicans who are considering what you just described there in good faith, that there are a handful, potentially four, Republicans who may vote against him, either because they feel that the process hasn't been appropriate here, given the severity of the allegations made against him, or just that they've heard enough and what they hear means that he's not suited to this job? You know, look, I never want to speak for someone else.
But tonight has got to be a real soul-searching night for people to be saying, I could vote to make that guy Secretary of Defense. Remember, Secretary of Defense is a very, very special role in our government.
This is the person who gets the call when things are truly spinning out of control, when really scary data has come in, when information, when something around the globe has really gone in a bad way. Because it is the Secretary of Defense who makes the call on, is now the time to call the president? If so, what am I going to tell the president? Is now the time to call in other experts to get our allies involved? Secretary of Defense has to be ready to go 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Look, I understand there are people who have alcohol problems, but we cannot trust the safety of our country to someone who has demonstrated repeatedly, using very bad judgment with alcohol and doing it in ways that truly have incapacitated him. This is not a moment to take that kind of risk with our national security.
And I hope that all 53 Republicans are thinking very hard about that. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, thank you for your time tonight, Senator.
Thanks. We'll be right back.
All right, that's going to do it for me for now. In the meantime, you can find me at Blue Sky, matto.msmbc.com at Blue Sky.
I'll see you again tomorrow night right here at 9 p.m. Eastern.
Hey, everyone, it's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why Is This Happening, New York Attorney General Letitia James.
It's important that individuals understand that in our system of justice, that there are judges independently analyzing all that we put forth.

They make a determination as to whether or not our cause of action, our claim, has any merit based on the law.

Politics stops at the door.

That's this week on Why Is This Happening. Search for Why Is This Happening wherever you're listening right now and follow.