Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

Trump Delivers Shock And Awe With MAGA Cabinet Picks; Trump Taps Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) For Attorney General; Trump Picks Tulsi Gabbard For Director Of National Intelligence; "NewsNight" Discusses The Appointment Of Fox News Host Pete Hegseth As New Pentagon Chief; Biden Hosts Trump At The White House. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired November 13, 2024 - 22:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[22:00:08]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, fast and furious. Donald Trump races to fill out his cabinet, injecting the government with MAGA horsepower and ignoring the speed limit by promising to put a Florida man investigated for sex trafficking at the top of the Justice Department.

Plus, from Hawaii with love, the president-elect picks a former Democrat friendly to Putin, friendly to Assad, and foe to Hillary Clinton.

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: She's the favorite of the Russians.

PHILLIP: To oversee America's spies.

Also, whiskey, tango, foxtrot, pentagon officials complain about their potential new secretary and worry Pete Headseth's loyalty to the commander-in-chief will put American military interests downrange.

And heading for blue sky, liberals put X to the left and flock to MAGA free corners of the internet.

Live at the table, Ashley Allison, Coleman Hughes, Hill Harper and Madison Gessiotto.

Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.

Let's get right to what America is talking about, letting Trump take the wheel. Tonight, the system that Donald Trump wants to break, will it fight back or will the president-elect walk over a Washington with no checks, no balances? Here is one example, Matt Gaetz and whether the Senate will ultimately consent to him running the Justice Department.

Tonight, President Trump, who is the president-elect, is announcing his intent to make the Florida Congressman the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States. It is, to put it mildly, a novel pick, because Gaetz was recently under federal investigation and under congressional ethics investigation. It's ironic, also, because Gaetz publicly reviles the very system that he would be tasked with leading.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FL): They lie about me because I tell the truth about them and I'm not going to stop. So, when you see the leaks and the lies and the falsehoods, know this, they aren't really coming for me. They're coming for you. I'm just in the way.

I'm a marked man in Congress. I'm a canceled man in some corners of the internet. I might be a wanted man by the deep state.

We either get this government back on our side, or we defund and get rid of, abolish the FBI, CDC, ATF, DOJ, every last one of them, if they do not come to heel.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Joining us at the table, Robert Ray, former counsel to President Trump during the first impeachment proceedings. Also with us, Donte Mills, he's a national trial attorney and a law professor at Temple University.

Robert, there are a lot of things that the Justice Department does, but Matt Gaetz seems particularly focused only on a small sliver of it, the sliver, frankly, that involves him and perhaps also Donald Trump.

ROBERT RAY, FORMER INDEPENDENT COUNSEL: Look, I think the mandate that the American people elected Donald Trump to, in my estimation, requires a major shakeup at the Department of Justice. You can argue about whether or not Matt Gaetz is the right vehicle, but a conventional or establishment choice is not what the people elected Donald Trump to do vis-a-vis the Justice Department.

PHILLIP: Is Matt Gaetz the right vehicle? Because, I mean, that is actually the question.

RAY: Well, that's the question, but I mean, I think you know, we too often, I think, focus on the person and not think about what the mandate is for change at the Department of Justice. In my view, this is a once-in-a-50-year opportunity to really shake up the Justice Department top to bottom. I have said to you and others on many occasions that I thought it was an exceedingly bad idea that the country would rue the day that we traveled down the special counsel road with regard to Jack Smith's investigation. I think that you're looking at major changes, no matter who the attorney general is in this new Justice Department.

[22:05:00] And I know you can say, well, you can't divorce that from who the nominee is.

DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY: You can't do that.

RAY: And, you know, look, I think with Republicans in the Senate, I think you're going to see that they're going to be inclined to support this nomination. But that doesn't mean that the Senate doesn't have an independent role to play, which they clearly do, and they're going to exercise it. And that's going to be following hearings, which I imagine will be pretty fulsome. And then those senators are going to be on the spot to cast a vote as to whether to confirm this nomination.

MILLS: We can't be naive, right. We know that incoming President Trump is going to push his agenda forward. But if you can't find someone clean to push your agenda forward, maybe your agenda is dirty, right? If you can't find someone that's willing to step into that position as attorney general that's going to have at least an appearance that they're going to be fair, then maybe you're the one doing something wrong.

Donald Trump has to know that Matt Gaetz in that role is going to make his agenda harder to move forward because every case that he brings is now going to be questioned. Not because of the case, but there's going to be an assumption of impropriety because of the person who is sitting at the top of that food chain.

And I'm a lawyer. I respect that profession. We have to make it so people think it's being operated fairly. And Matt Gaetz is not the person to do that. He's under investigation himself.

PHILLIP: It's not the Department of Retribution.

RAY: No, but that's the politics of it.

PHILLIP: It's not the department of going back and taking a look at all the bad things that happened against Donald Trump. It is the Department of Justice. And I think that's fundamentally what's giving a lot of people on Capitol Hill pause.

You said you thought that the Senate would be inclined to approve. Here are some quotes from some Republican Congress people. Murkowski says, he's an unserious candidate. I think we can take her off the list of people who will vote for a Matt Gaetz. Susan Collins was shocked. Tuberville loves Matt Gaetz. Hawley says he'll support the president's nominees. It's going to be a fight because they have only a couple of seats of a majority.

HILL HARPER (D), FORMER U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE FOR MICHIGAN: I don't read that's the question though because I don't think that it's going to come to a vote I think that once Donald Trump got the Senate majority leader to agree to recess appointments. The first Senate recess is usually around president's holiday in February. You look, that's three weeks after confirmation. He does these recess appointments, and that means Gaetz would be in that role until basically the end of 2025 without having to go through the hearing process or any type of confirmation process.

So, therefore, it's kind of lining up for what Donald Trump said he wanted to do, which is hit the ground running very quickly, have retribution. He's not going to bring on an attorney general that you would want someone to focus on justice, but that's not exactly what he wants out of the gate, or Gaetz, so to speak. And so when we think about it, we have to think about, I think, in that lens.

And from a political standpoint, there is a shrewdness here. Why? Because number one, it satisfies a few things. One, it satisfies your MAGA base. It shows that you're willing to protect someone who literally would lie for you, no matter what, protects you, and you're getting them out. It's literally a get out of jail free card to get the --

MILLS: But it hurts our system.

HARPER: No, it crushes the system. I don't think that's the issue here. Trump is at the top of his powers one week after this election. And he's not going to be more powerful than he is now. For the next four years, this is it, this is the window --

RAY: But I said firebrand. You know, look, he's a firebrand choice because he's not an establishment choice. He's not a conventional choice. I do not, you know, beg to differ. I do not, with all due respect, believe that once in office, put the politics of it aside, he would be somebody who is attempting to destroy the Department of Justice. I think, I mean, I have higher hopes for the country.

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: You took a pretty deep breath when he said that.

COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I have high hopes too. I have high hopes for all these people, but there isn't that much reason to be hopeful about a guy like Matt Gaetz. His political activities over the past few years have shown us that he is from the extreme wing of the right -- of the Republican Party.

What else do we know about him? We know that he openly says, and he writes in his books, that he believes politics is all about performance, and that if he's not in the news continuously, he feels like he is failing. That is exactly the opposite of the kind of person I want in Trump's cabinet.

He said two years ago on his podcast with Steve Bannon that Republicans should prioritize investigating Democrats over public policy, again, precisely the opposite priorities I would want in a Trump -- I think there are a lot of -- just to say, I think there are a lot of I think there are a lot of people that would fill that mandate of shaking up the Department of Justice who could do it without -- in an ethical way, in an honest way and I don't expect much of Matt Gaetz, though I hope for the best.

MADISON GESIOTTO, FORMER RNC NATIONAL SPOKESPERSON: I think the reality is when you talk to people across the country, they're not looking at the nuances of how this is going to happen, whether it gets across the finish line. They want to know, is the job going to get done? So, many people voted for President Trump because they believed in the message that he put forward that they were going to not only have their lives changed when it comes to, you know, kitchen table issues. They're going to have cheaper groceries. They're going to have cheaper gas, but that he is going to shake up government. He went in, in 2017, it was a very different government despite having one party control. It was not the same type of one party control that we have right now going into 2025.

And so when you look at the Department of Justice, you look at so many governmental agencies that have incredible amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse, this is what people want to see addressed. And I don't think people really care whether it's Matt Gaetz or someone else. They want to make sure that these people are vetted that they're voted on and whoever gets in there gets the job done.

MILLS: I disagree with that I think people do care what it looks like, and matt Gaetz is under investigation himself. And his name won't be cleared because he resigned and now that report may not come out. So, we're going to have somebody leading the Department of Justice --

GESIOTTO: If there's something in that report, you and I both know --

MILLS: -- may have obstructed justice.

GESIOTTO: If there's something in that report that's bad, you and I both know that will be leaked. Do you know how many Kevin McCarthy supporters are still there that will leak that, if there's something in there.

PHILLIP: I want to bring in now to the conversation Congressman Dan Goldman. He is a Democrat from New York and was the lead counsel for the House Intelligence Committee during the first Trump impeachment.

Congressman, I guess the first question to you is the prospect here that maybe this is a recess appointment. What would the response from Capitol Hill be to Trump not waiting for a Senate confirmation process to even happen to put someone like Matt Gaetz at DOJ.

REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): Thanks, Abby. And first, I just want to say, I don't know what mandate some of your panelists think that Donald Trump had or received from winning. The exit polls indicated that people were most concerned about immigration, most concerned about the economy. I do not think there's a mandate to dismantle our democracy, to undermine our constitution, to destroy the FBI, all things that Matt Gaetz has advocated for.

But the reality is that recess appointment has not been locked in or guaranteed. And the only way that can happen is if the Senate majority leader, John Thune, bucks tradition in the Senate and decides to allow a recess to go a full ten days rather than have a pro forma session, which is the custom of the Senate to do regardless of what party the majority is in and regardless of what party the administration is in. The Senate takes their responsibility of advice and consent very seriously, as they should. And I do not expect new Majority Leader John Thune to allow for Matt Gaetz to be appointed as attorney general in a recess appointment.

PHILLIP: You know, I wonder what are you concerned the most about? I mean, in a moment, I want to bring Robert Ray into the conversation, but just your take on it, because there are going to be people, I think some of them sitting around me at this table who would argue

it's not so bad, that Matt Gaetz is just going to clean up a department that doesn't have a lot of accountability. But what are you worried about?

GOLDMAN: Well, I'm worried about the entirety of the -- some of the recent nominations and the clear effort by Donald Trump, which he had foreshadowed long before the election, to put political lackeys, political sycophants into the most important positions in our government who would execute Donald Trump's revenge, retribution and grievance plan, Project 2025 and otherwise, to use the Department of Justice as a weapon against his enemies and his -- and to protect his allies.

And Matt Gaetz is probably the best person Donald Trump could have picked to execute his lawless, unconstitutional, anti-democratic plan. Tulsi Gabbard is incredibly close, it seems, with Vladimir Putin and Assad in Syria. And now she's going to be overseeing our entire intelligence community when there's many suspicions about Vladimir Putin's influence in the Republican Party and Donald Trump? Pete Hegseth, who will be in charge of our military, if Donald Trump tells him to use the military to clear out a protest on the mall in Washington?

[22:15:00]

Is Pete Hegseth going to stand up to him like Mark Esper did, like Mark Milley did, stand up not just for the country, but for the Constitution?

And that is the real risk here, is that Donald Trump is clearly putting in people who will do whatever he wants, and he has made it very clear that he does not respect the Constitution, he does not respect the rule of law, and that he will dismantle our democracy if he's allowed to.

PHILLIP: I want to very quickly ask Robert Ray to just ask a question or direct something at the --

RAY: Look. I expect the guardrails to remain in place, you know, notwithstanding, I think, some overblown fears about what the future may lead us to. I expect prosecutors to continue in a new Justice Department to follow the principles of federal prosecution. The attorney general doesn't run the department all by him or herself. There's already discussions about who the next deputy attorney general will be. It may well be Todd Blanche. I know, Congressman, that you know Todd. I know Todd. You know, I don't expect anything other than what you would expect from a Department of Justice under the highest ethical standards and in accordance with, you know, the Pledge of Allegiance, if nothing else, that there'd be justice for all.

PHILLIP: Let me let the Congressman respond to that idea. You (INAUDIBLE) times, so let me let the congressman respond just because you put a lot there. Go ahead, Congressman.

GOLDMAN: I think that you're mistaken to think that everything will remain in place when you have Donald Trump, who convinced Bill Barr to intervene in Michael Flynn's case, prompting the line prosecutors who you are putting so much trust into to resign. He intervened in Roger Stone's case. He intervened in Michael Flynn's case and ultimately fired James Comey, because of the Michael Flynn investigation.

This is a president who has already demonstrated as president that he will weaponize the Department of Justice. And that was when he had people who would put guardrails on around him. Bill Barr ultimately resigned because of the bogus claims of election fraud. And he was the most egregious political actor of all the attorney generals who served under Donald Trump.

So, it's preposterous for you to say that the guardrails will remain on the bus when they weren't -- when Donald Trump tried to violate all of these rules and proper procedures that you're talking about. And he's trying to put somebody who is himself has retributive and revenge on his mind because of the investigation from the DOJ, at the head of the DOJ, and has himself said that we should eliminate the FBI.

This is not the Department of Justice that you or I worked for that they are envisioning and I think your faith in the Department of Justice is misplaced when you have Donald Trump or Matt Gaetz at the helm.

PHILLIP: Robert?

RAY: Well, look, I don't buy that. I mean, I think that's more of the politics of this than what I think is coming. I will tell you what I think is coming. The first -- you know, the attorney general and the new president, the special counsel regulations are gone. They are going to be overturned and abolished. I don't know what, if anything, will replace them, but that's a policy change that I think is coming that is different from just talking about politics, about what the Department of Justice is going to look like.

Look, everybody there takes an oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States. There's a principle of equal justice under the law. Politics aside, when somebody takes that job, I don't care who they are, I think they take that oath seriously. I don't have any reason to think that Matt Gaetz or anybody else won't take that oath seriously.

And the leadership of the department, again, is not just the attorney general. There's a whole slew of presidential appointments. From the head of the criminal division, to the office of legal counsel, to the solicitor general, to U.S. attorneys across the board, there's a whole lot of people involved who will independently exercise substantial power and authority and who would take an oath to abide by the Constitution.

PHILLIP: And we will obviously have to see.

Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you very much for joining us. Donte Mills and Robert Ray, I want to thank you both as well for joining us. Two radically different ways that this could all go, and we're going to continue to stay on it.

Everyone stick around. Coming up next, more of Trump's picks taking heat tonight. You heard the congressman talking about Tulsi Gabbard. Why is she in charge of America's national secrets if Trump has anything to say about it? Another special guest is going to join us in our fifth seat. That's next.

Plus, senior military commanders are telling CNN that Trump is picking a Fox News host to lead the Pentagon and it is, quote, an effing nightmare.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:20:00]

PHILLIP: More now on the MAGA makeover coming to Washington, the director of National Intelligence, that is a very important job. They prepare the president's daily brief, the readout of every clandestine and concerning development happening across the globe, they oversee the 18 spy agencies working to keep you safe. And Donald Trump wants to give the job to Tulsi Gabbard.

If you're not familiar, Gabbard is a former Army Reservist. She's also a Fox News talking head who, believe it or not, once ran for president, very recently, mind you, as a Democrat. And tonight, on Fox, Gabbard dismissed the concerns gripping the national security community about her getting this gig as the swamp, perhaps, fights back.

[22:25:01]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTEL NOMINEE: Of course there's going to be resistance to change from the swamp in Washington. I think that's kind of the point the American people are saying, hey, stop looking at yourself. Stop focusing on your own power, your own position, your own bank accounts. How about we have leaders in Washington who are actually looking out for the American people?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Ashley Allison is here with us at the table now. Also joining us in our fifth seat is Jamie Metzl. He is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and was previously on the National Security Council staff in the Clinton administration.

Jamie putting aside all the politics around Tulsi Gabbard, what, whatever happened to qualifications for a job that is actually a very technically important job?

JAMIE METZL, SENIOR FELLOW, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: Obviously, qualifications are important. Obviously, this is a critically important job for the United States, for keeping us safe. This job, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was created after 9/11, because we realized we were not safe because we didn't have serious people doing a serious job of integrating all of the data and information that was coming in through our intelligence agencies.

For sure, we've had an election. The election has an outcome. John Ratcliffe, who was the former director of National Intelligence, did a great job, a very serious person. He's likely now moving to CIA. Tulsi Gabbard has never worked in intelligence. She has no real background for this job, and she has been a booster, in many ways, for Putin, Assad, Erdogan, people who are not at all friendly with the United States.

And if you are part of a foreign government, even an allied government, are you really going to want to share your most your most important intelligence with the United States government, recognizing that there are people who are at central nodes in our government who are so sympathetic to our adversaries? It's really concerning. And this is not -- I mean, the good news is this isn't the worst of the Trump nominations but this is pretty bad. These are serious jobs and they need serious people doing them. We have very, very many, very serious people in the Republican Party. Those are the people we need.

PHILLIP: I don't understand how -- I mean, well, let me take that back. I do understand if your number one concern is having someone who doubles down on what you already believe is wrong with the intelligence community. Tulsi Gabbard might be a perfect choice. But if you have been president, as Trump has, and you understand the seriousness of what comes through on that presidential daily brief, this is a confounding decision.

HUGHES: It's a very confounding. I mean, look, call me crazy, but I think the director of National Intelligence should be a person who, A, trusts U.S. intelligence, and, B, likes U.S. intelligence. What do we know about Tulsi Gabbard? We know that when Assad gassed civilians in 2017 and our intelligence agencies determined that and Trump decided to strike those facilities, Gabbard doubted that. She doubted the findings of our own intelligence facilities.

PHILLIP: She also went to go visit Assad.

HUGHES: Yes. And she went to go visit Assad. And we know that she defends Julian Assange, who released classified information that imperiled the people we were working with in Afghanistan, and the Taliban went out there and were able to kill them one by one.

And so, you know, this is exactly the opposite of the person you would want leading national intelligence.

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, I remember the first day I started working at the White House nowhere near this type of level of appointment and it's not a place you want to learn on the job. You want to be qualified, especially at this level.

But I guess, you know, elections have consequences and I am not feeling great about this nomination. But this is why so many of us are sat at this very table for so long and screamed to pay attention with who Donald Trump is surrounding themselves with. And we were told that we were being hyperbolic, that we were being exaggerating, but now we have someone, to Coleman's point, and Coleman and I really agree on policy issues, he is making my point that I made before November 5th. This is what happens when -- we were not doing this for Democrats to win. We were doing this for America to win. And now I think America's national security could be at threat.

GESIOTTO: I think the key to her success moving forward, whether it's in this position or any position in the future within the party, is her being able to coherently explain to Republicans, you know, about her shift. I heard her speak recently since she made a huge shift to become a Republican and talk about a lot of these issues. And I thought she seemed very intelligent. She seemed very competent. And so I think it's about convincing people that she legitimately has a different worldview today than she did in 2017. Because I think there are Republicans out there that are still skeptical because of some of the things she said following the killing of Soleimani or other issues.

PHILLIP: You know, again, like put the politics to the side for just a moment. I don't really care what Tulsi Gabbard thinks about, you know, public policy around even national security issues.

[22:30:01]

The question is, can she look at the information coming from the intelligence community and assess what needs to get to the president? That is a -- analytical job that somebody -- she seems to be willing to fall for what Julian Assange -- or Assange is saying and what Assad is saying and what Putin is saying. That seems, on its face, kind of problematic.

HILL HARPER (D) FORMER U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE FOR MICHIGAN: You're actually right. I don't think the American public cares if there's an R by your name, a D by your name. They just want somebody who's going to do a job, particularly in a job like this.

Because you're literally talking about American lives at stake with this particular job. And the reports that get done, not everything can make it to the president's desk. And you're absolutely right. Everything goes through somebody and we have to trust that person.

Now, military service, okay. Member of Congress, okay. It's the things that were mentioned earlier that are extremely problematic. It's a -- those are judgment and actions that you can look back and say, this isn't necessarily the person that we would trust with this job. Now, I must say though, you know, Donald Trump's rarely against affirmative action. Maybe this is his affirmative action.

GESIOTTO: But I think that her worldview really does. Her worldview changes the lens in which she sees things. So, I do think it's important what she believes because that will impact what goes to the president's desk.

ALLISON: I just think that's a swing from, you know, we just went through this election and we questioning the candidate who changed positions from 2019 to now and that was disqualifying.

GESIOTTO: But she wasn't able to explain herself and I think that's what most people say. I'm saying the same thing you are Ashley and that she has to be able to explain this in a way in which people understand and believe.

METZL: But the shift isn't from being a Democrat to being a Republican. Lots of people shift parties.

UNKNOWN: That's right.

METZL: The shift is being from a patriotic American to an American who's supporting Putin, Assad, Erdogan and our adversaries. These are judgment jobs. There are going to be a small number of people who are going to be advising the president in critically important times.

If she has shown such terrible judgment, if she sided with Putin days after the invasion of Ukraine, if she's saying all of these kinds of crazy things, Senator Romney said that she was spreading treasonous lies about U.S. activities, U.S. alleged bioweapons factories in Ukraine. If these are the kind of people who are surrounding President Trump, we are really in trouble.

And the question now is, will the Senate do its job? Because if President Trump is able to force through all of these nominations, some of whom are really great, impressive people. I mentioned John Radcliffe, Marco Rubio is, I think, a very solid choice.

But if Gaetz, if Tulsi Gabbard, if some of these other people are just forced through, the message will be delivered, that this is a Republican party that is just kneeling before Zod. Superman reference. And if that's the case, then really all bets are off.

PHILLIP: Well look, all roads lead to Donald Trump. We were just talking about Matt Gaetz, we're talking about Tulsi Gabbard. You know, the common denominator between the two of them? The things that they believe, Donald Trump believes. The person who's the most skeptical of the I.C., that is Donald Trump. So, in a way, it makes a lot of sense that he would go here for these picks.

Jamie Metzl, thank you very much for joining us on that one. Everyone else, hang tight. Senior military leaders -- they are reacting now to Trump's pick for defense secretary. And the reviews are not so good. Another special guest is going to join us in our fifth seat. That is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:37:45]

PHILLIP: Meet the new boss, very different than the old boss. The current Pentagon chief, Lloyd Austin, is a retired Army four-star general who led U.S. forces in Iraq. The potential next Pentagon chief, Pete Hegseth, doesn't share quite the same bio or the same confidence in what he'll do. The reception inside of the Defense Department is, at best, skeptical.

At worst, pretty apoplectic. Senior commanders are describing Hegseth's elevation as, "Ridiculous", "An effing nightmare." And they're worrying about Hegseth's slavish fealty to Donald Trump.

Joining us at the table is Paul Rieckhoff. He is an Iraq War veteran and the founder and CEO of Independent Veterans of America. Paul, you know Pete Hegseth, or you've met him before. You had a pretty strong reaction, and you've been receiving a lot of strong reactions from people that you know who are in service, perhaps in the Pentagon, as well.

PAUL RIECKHOFF, IRAQ WAR VETERAN: Yeah, I've known Pete Hegseth for a long time. I think everybody in the military and veterans' community knows or anybody who watches Fox News. We actually co-authored an op- ed together, "The Wall Street Journal" years ago when we were trying to reform the V.A. Everybody was trying to reform the VA.

Pete is a well-known character in the community, and he is absolutely and totally unqualified for this job. Maybe the most unqualified nominee in the history of the job, back to when it was the secretary of war. And the reaction from the Pentagon has been overwhelmingly shocked, flabbergasted, outraged.

This is maybe the most important job in the Cabinet. This is the person who oversees the most diverse, the strongest military force on the planet, almost three million people. And this is maybe the most overtly political pick that Trump has made. This is like nominating, you know, Dan Bongino or Rush Limbaugh to run the Pentagon, to run our military. And that's maybe what's most outrageous.

You can pick someone who's a congressman or is a member of the Senate, but to pick someone who's so overtly political in a job that's supposed to be beyond politics, that's the big problem here. And I think that's why you're going to see pushback from both sides.

We need someone who can put party first. This was a chance for Trump to go moderate, to try to appeal to the rest of the country and the people who didn't vote for him. And he really drove a wedge and doubled down on really a culture warrior. He's a veteran but there are 16 million veterans in America.

[22:40:00]

He's more of a culture warrior than he is an administrator and someone who can effectively lead the Pentagon.

PHILLIP: Yes, just to that point, I'm going to play a little bit of, just the culture warrior of it all seems to be really at the heart of what Pete Hegseth has actually been kind of positioning himself as. Take a listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, FORMER RNC HOST: The dumbest phrase on planet Earth in the military is "Our diversity is our strength." It's one thing to have DEI inside your corporation or inside your university. It's a whole other thing to have it inside the 101st Airborne.

We only have one military and if the military goes woke, then it is less equipped to fight the wars it needs to fight. I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective, hasn't made us more lethal, has made fighting more complicated.

PHILLIP: Paul?

RIECKHOFF: He's got to lead over 200,000 women who are in combat roles, in combat-adjacent roles, people who've been wounded in combat, and, you know, 20 years of people who've served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So, how are you going to effectively lead the entire military when you come out of the gate with a view like that? How is that going to impact recruiting, retention, senior leadership? You have to be a uniter, especially in a political environment like this, you have to be someone who transcends politics, not doubles down on the most radical kinds of politics.

PHILLIP: Yes, I'm going to kind of, quote a little bit from Nikole Hannah-Jones, who was sitting right where you are sitting tonight, Ashley, yesterday, said and pointed out correctly that the military -- if you're talking about DEI, was the first institution to really insist on integration, to insist --

ALLISON: Yes.

PHILLIP: -- that black service members get the same benefits as other white member service members in this country. The reason people say diversity is our strength is because the military had to do it.

ALLISON: Yes.

PHILLIP: They had to do it.

ALLISON: And I think, yes, that's why I think teaching a comprehensive history is so important. So many black servicemen went and fought for their country and when they were turned back home, were mistreated, were denied. benefits.

They fought just as hard as their white counterparts. They fought because they loved the democracy even though they were not always represented fully in the franchise of what the democracy represents.

And so, to say it's not about having DEI, it's about having our armed forces represent who they are actually protecting and serving. I thank you for your service. I thank Tulsi and this new nominee for his service. It doesn't mean that they need to be over our military. It also makes me really nervous. I am a generation of 9-11. I had friends to go to war after 9-11 happened. I had a friend who died going to war after 9-11.

And this-- I don't know if the country is really aware. It's not just people's lives but people may have to go to war because of the decisions that some of these people do. And they --Republican or Democrat, people die on the battlefield and that bullet doesn't have a political party's name on it. This is why these positions are so important.

And I really just want to say I respect you because we've sat at this table and not always agreed on certain things, I think you call balls and strikes. And that's what we need to be doing when we're talking about our national security.

RIECKHOFF: And that's what you need to do with the Pentagon, right?

PHILLIP: Yes.

RIECKHOFF: Especially in an environment like this, the Pentagon has to be immune from politics. We've got troops in combat right now. The troops were hit with rocket attacks in Syria just a couple days ago. We are actively engaged around the world.

So, if you want to start pulling things back, like pulling women out of combat roles, if you want to start doing things like imposing a trans ban or removing the senior leadership, you are going to disrupt the military while it's actively engaged and that's the kind of decision that our enemies will be celebrating.

GESIOTTO: One of the things you mentioned earlier was about recruitment and retention within the military which is obviously a big concern and some of the more traditional picks haven't necessarily experienced improvement in those areas. I think I also know Pete for some years now and I think he's a great guy. I don't think people are really giving him a fair chance at this. I think he'll do a very good job.

One of the critiques I think that many are saying is, well, he's never presided over two million employees before, well, nobody has unless you're the Walton family. So, I don't think that's a fair critique about the managerial, you know. aspect of the job. I think he'll do a very good job and I have very much hope in that pick.

HUGHES: If you're about to manage two million people, you might want to pick someone that's managed 2000 or something like that.

RIECKHOFF: You've often got undersecretaries, you've got someone like C.Q. Brown who is imminently qualified, 40 years in service, and is commanded at multiple levels, and I think that's important, as well.

PHILLIP: This is an important part. You mentioned this, the qualifications, but I cannot put that to the side because the DOD and the Department of Defense secretary has become a much more complex job over the years.

That's one of the reasons why multiple presidents have had to dip back into the high ranks of the military, getting waivers from Congress in order to do it, in order to find defense secretaries who understand, who even understand the complexity of this agency. It's a hard, complicated job.

[22:45:02]

HARPER: Sure, it is but at the same time during that same period, you've seen people in place that have this corporate Department of Defense relationship with the big government contractors and there's no question that folks are railing about the NDAA being rubber stamped, increases, increases taxpayer dollars going out the window.

I don't know Pete. I went to Marine Corps Officer Candidate School in Quantico, Virginia. I have ultimate respect for service members. Apparently, he did 20 years. He's got two Bronze Stars. Is he qualified to run, oversee three million people? I have no idea. But if he's putting service members first and actually putting DOD contractors last, then I think that's something that the American people are having to answer.

RIECKHOFF: I'm not sure if that's even on the table. The question should be, is he disqualified? And I think if you take someone who is a partisan bomb thrower from Fox and transition him over the Pentagon, same thing if he worked at MSNBC or somewhere else. That should be disqualifying in this kind of a political environment.

PHILLIP: I mean, I think that it would be interesting if that were actually Pete Hegseth's position on contractors. I actually don't really know.

ALLISON: Exactly.

PHILLIP: Because most of what he talks about is how woke the Pentagon is, which seems to be, frankly, the least of this country's worries at this point.

GESIOTTO: But I think Pete has in the past, Abby, talked about wanting to make sure that our safety is first and foremost and that we put our service members and veterans first always.

RIECKHOFF: That's what everybody wants.

PHILLIP: That's what everybody wants.

RIECKHOFF: That's what everybody wants. Who doesn't want that?

PHILLIP: Paul Rieckhoff, thank you very much for joining us. As always, everyone else, hang on. Coming up next, some liberals are declaring that they are leaving X in the wake of Trump's election victory. And they're setting up an even more political separation. We're going to discuss what that looks like next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:59]

SARAH HAINES, "THE VIEW" CO-HOST: Whatever your reason is, I would never let my politics be the reason I don't show up to see my family because they won't always be there.

SUNNY HOSTIN, "THE VIEW" CO-HOST: I'm going to disagree. From the things he said and the things he's done and the things he will do, it's more of a moral issue for me. And so, I think when people feel that someone voted not only against their families, but against them and against people that they loved, I think it's okay to take a beat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: So, Hill, is it fair to disinvite some people from the Thanksgiving table or the cookout or what have you?

HARPER: No. I mean, seriously, we have to unify this country. And I truly believe that we aren't as divided as we are disconnected. And you know, when I was running, I met a Trumper outside of Midland, Michigan who, was like, man, I like you. And I was like, I like you guys. What do you care about? Just fundamentally.

And he said, well, I'd like a safe place for my kids to go to school. I'd like affordable food, affordable housing, you know, like a living wage and be able to take a vacation without going to the credit card debt. You ask a single mom on the east side of Detroit, what do you want? Safe place for my kids to go to school, affordable food, affordable housing.

We fundamentally all want the same thing. We fundamentally want the same thing at Thanksgiving. Good turkey, collard greens, some black- eyed peas. And so, we all can get there together and I think we have to sit around the table as Americans and I think we have to go there together.

PHILLIP: It seems like the verdict out of this on the left from some people, Ashley, has been that this was a victory for the bad people who are misogynistic and racist and those people need to be put to the side and left to fend for themselves.

ALLISON: I don't actually agree with that. I have been in conversation. I think there is, the left is broad. And I think there may be people who are very hurt with the election results. And I can accept their hurt, as well, and be in conversation about how we move forward.

But people have had friends that -- or family members that voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and maybe they took a beat like Sunny was saying and said, I just need to process this. Look, I have -- I work at this network. I have colleagues that are -- voted for Donald Trump and we text and some people don't understand it.

But at the end of the day, I go back to my dear friend Alice Stewart, who was a colleague here. Alice and I did not agree on anything, but at the end of the day, when things were good in my life, she was there and when things were bad in my life, she was there.

And that's who I want as my friends and that is who I expect my family members to be and that is the person I want to show up every time. Now, don't start talking politics with me if you know you're going to start some mess. Let's talk about shopping or let's talk about sports. We don't always have to talk about politics.

PHILLIP: There are other ways to love people in your life outside of politics. Even as personal as politics is.

ALLISON: Yes.

HUGHES: I think Van Jones said something really wise the other day. He said remember that other people in your family are literally seeing different set of news every day. They have a different algorithm, they're getting different facts, and the set of facts you are getting is almost certainly not entirely accurate either.

So, also have some humility. You may not be the first person in the history of the world to be very confident, but not particularly correct in all your opinions and you only get one family. So, don't ruin it over politics.

GESIOTTO: Yes, I think it's so sad when we see this happen. Unfortunately, my husband and I have even seen this within our own family and I think it's very dependent on the people.

Some people are on the other side of the aisle from where we are and we get along great and we still get together and we absolutely love them and they love us and everything's fine and we don't talk about politics and we talk about other things that we love and enjoy.

Then there's some people that just can't seem to let it go, that continue to reach out to family members, attack them, that continue to reach out to people and create issues. And it's very difficult to be around those type of people and it shouldn't be because we should all be able to sit at the table and have a good time and not talk about what we disagree on.

HARPER: And Abby this must be said. The biggest problem you and I will have if you're not rooting for the Detroit Lions on Thanksgiving.

PHILLIP: Okay, okay, there are some debates that transcend even politics. Everyone, thank you very much. Coming up next, a reminder of a long-standing American tradition, one that was temporarily paused four years ago.

[22:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JOE BIDEN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (D): Well, Mr. President-elect and former president and Donald, congratulations. And looking forward to having a, like we said, smooth transition.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Tonight, a reminder of long-standing American tradition, President Biden, who said he first decided to run for president because of Donald Trump, hosting his predecessor and successor in the Oval Office as a sign of the peaceful transfer of power between administrations.

We're told that the meeting lasted about two hours and that Trump had detailed questions about domestic and foreign issues. But just as a reminder, this meeting did not happen when Biden was coming into office in 2020.

[23:00:00]

And that's because Trump insisted that he won the election and refused to hold it. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.