Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad-free. Plus ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Deja News. And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad-free and with bonus content, including Why is this Happening, Velshi Band Book Club, and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Mr. Assoff, no. We're watching the last remaining Senate votes come in on the Senate vote, confirmation vote for Pete Hegset, the Fox News Weekend Morning co-host to be Secretary of Defense. We're watching this live along with you. Joining us now from the Capitals, Julie Sorkin, ABC News Congressional Correspondent, who's been covering this confirmation process. Mr. Sanders. No. Mostly, Julie. We're trying to listen, as I know you are as well. Can you tell us anything about how this vote is unfolding on the Senate floor right now, how it seems like this is going? We obviously saw a yes vote there from Joni Ernst, a no vote from Lisa Murkowski, two closely watched female Republican senators.

And so far it is just Collins and Murkowski that have voted no on the Republican side of the aisle against Pete Hexet. The two that I'm watching the most closely, I have not yet seen on the Senate floor, and that is Tom Tillis and Mitch McDonald. The McDonald had made on his way to the floor a short while ago and might just be waiting over there. I'm just keeping an eye on the screen here. Certainly, Pete Hexet can only afford to lose one more Republican vote and still get confirmed. I'm told JD Vance is in the building. He's close by just in case he needs to break a tie, any potential tie here. But, Rachel, my reporting all week on this has indicated that Republican senators who have had concerns about Pete Hexet's nomination, not only because of the allegations in that affidavit, but perhaps most importantly, the answers that he gave during his confirmation hearing last week on how he would handle potential war crimes, the Geneva Convention issues that are important for some Republicans in terms of the national security space on here. Certainly, we do not know yet how they are planning to vote.

I'm keeping my eye here on my phone. Pete Hexet just posted on his ex-profile a letter that he wrote to Senator Tom Tillis, appears to be answers to specific questions that he was asked. We know that Tillis sent him additional questions. This has to do, specifically, I'm just reading this, Rachel, now. It was posted on his ex-account about the affidavit of Danielle Hexet. It seems like Tillis had asked for detailed responses to questions to answers and Look, I have been talking to Tillis all week long. He told me that he is searching for witnesses to corroborate the information that Daniel Hexet had put in her affidavit. You will note, Rachel, that we've gotten a response from Samantha Hexet, but before that affidavit became public and after, right when we were about to report that news, all she told us was she denied allegations of physical abuse in her marriage. But there were plenty of allegations in this affidavit that still had the attention and concern of Republican senators like Tom Tillis. It's a two letter, and this is frankly stunning. I have to tell you, in my time covering the Capitol, I do not remember another moment in which a nominee came to the Capitol to observe his own vote.

He is sitting off of the floor with his children and his wife, Jenny. It is still not clear, again, how Tillis will vote or Mitch McDonald, but really, this is a live ball, and it's pretty stunning, Rachel.

Yeah, Julie, obviously, just describing that affidavit from the former sister-in-law of Mr. Hegsethe, what we were able to report here at MSNBC as of about less than 24 hours ago is that Samantha Hegset, Pete Hegset's second wife, appears to be under the constraints of a non-disparagement clause that was part of her 2018 divorce from Pete Hegset. Thus raising questions as to how free she was to discuss further details of the allegations that concerned her. We do know from open source reporting that in a recent interview with FBI investigator Samantha Hegset, reportedly told FBI investigators that not only had Mr. Hegset drunk to excess in his recent life history, but that he continues to do so. Senators have raised concerns about the allegations of fiscal mismanagement in veterans groups that he was part of the drinking allegations, obviously, and the allegations about his involvement with women that he was married to and women who he says he had a consensual... A woman who he said he had a consensual relationship with that nevertheless resulted in a police report, although no charges against Mr. Hexet.

Rachel, if I could just jump in real quick. We just have a new tweet or post on X from Senator Tom Tillis about Hexet saying, At the end of this tweet, that I will support his confirmation and look forward to working with him to rebuild our military and advance President Trump's peace through strength agenda. This is so stunning because it is coming seconds after Pete Hexeth posted that long document revealing the questions and answers that he had provided to Tom Tillis about the allegations in the affidavit that clearly concerned him regarding his nomination. I'm so glad you brought that up, that agreement that they had signed, because as I've been hearing from senators and we've been trying to report this, who have you talked to about these allegations? What have they told you? What background was there? What we kept hearing throughout this whole process was that it was really difficult to get some of these women to talk just because they could be bound by some confidentiality agreements. You mentioned the one in the case of Samantha Hexet, but it appears that he will have the votes as long as all Democrats stay where they are and all Republicans stay where they are, given that Tom Tillis has now announced that he will be supporting Pete Hexet's nomination.

Again, we have not yet heard from Mitch McDonald, who has his own concerns in terms of his national security qualifications, his expertise, whether he has a temperament for the job, how he would lead the Pentagon Department, which is the largest federal agency. But in this case, it does appear to be that he will have the votes with or without JD Vance breaking the tie.

Again, Julie, as we are watching for Senator McDonald's vote, if McDonald votes with Collins and Murkowski and votes no, that would put this vote, at least as far as we understand now at 50/50, where the tie could then be broken in Mr. Hegset's favor by JD Vance. Are there any other Republican senators besides Senator McDonald, whose vote is either not in or otherwise known to be in question here.

I got to be honest with you, I don't think so. I mean, a lot of these senators are up in 2026. We've been hearing for weeks now about the primary threats, not only when it comes to Pete Hegset's nomination, but just making it really clear that if any of these senators decide to cross President Trump or vote against any of these nominees or do anything that could cross his agenda or his campaign promises that they will be challenged, that money will be funneled to their primary opponents. It is for that reason that I just can't imagine any other Republicans coming out now in voting against Pete Hexet. It also is because throughout this process, some of the names that we've been watching closely already voted yes for him, Senator Coren and Senator Young. Senator Joni Ernst, who is up in 2026, sits on the Senate Arm Services Committee, had reservations about Pete Hexet, is a combat veteran, is a sexual assault survivor. But she made it very clear moments after the confirmation hearing last week that she would be supporting Pete Hexet, and we saw her vote on the floor today affirming that vote. At this point, we're waiting for McDonald, but it really does seem like this vote might be cooked, and it seems like Pete Hexet will, in fact, be confirmed as Donald Trump's defense secretary.

Now, I've seen stranger things happen before. This felt almost like it could have been that moment where John McCain, at the last minute, saved Obamacare, still several years ago. But since that moment, things have been pretty predictable in terms of how they're going to go, both under the first Trump administration, both under President Biden. This vote tonight had people really sitting on the edge of their seats. Tom Tillis wasn't even in the building all day. He He obviously just came in for this vote. I don't even know if he officially voted yet, but his position is clear in his tweet. He did his due diligence after the confirmation hearing. I know he had serious concerns. He's communicated those to the administration before that to the Trump transition. Certainly, there's been a lot of pressure on these senators, but ultimately, it does feel like even asking these questions of Pete Hexet up until the final moment, which Hexet just posted on X, which I find the timing so curious in that. But certainly, it does appear like Hexet will get confirmed. Tillis has officially voted yes for him, I'm told, on the Senate floor. Now we're just waiting for Emmanuel and potentially JD Vance if he has to break a tie.

All right, Julie, if you'd stand by, we've got Senator Tammy Duckworth joining us to talk about what she's saying and what she understands about this process thus far. Senator Duckworth, I really appreciate you being here as a member of the Arm Services Committee and as a senator voting tonight. What's your understanding of the state of play?

Well, I think the vote is cooked. Basically, this is not John McCain's Republican Party anymore. This isn't Mitt Romney's Republican Party anymore. The folks who have the courage to stand up to Donald Trump are gone. Even those who have real concerns are not willing to jeopardize their own political survival rival and are willing to jeopardize our nation's national security. It's really sad to be here watching this vote happen. I just cast my no vote on the floor. I voted for both of Trump's previous Secretary of Defense nominees in his previous term, but they were qualified to do the job. And Pete Hegset is by far unqualified to do this job, and they're just falling in line for him.

We've never had a defense secretary confirmed in terms like this. Depending on what happens with the final vote, it looks like Mr. Hegset will be confirmed either with 50 or 51 votes in the modern era. Actually, in history, the closest we've ever had to something like that was Chuck Hagle in 2013, who was chosen by President Barack Obama to lead the Pentagon. That was considered to be an unusually close vote. He got 58 votes, including multiple Republicans crossing the aisle to vote for him. This is a 50 or 51 vote margin. We're used to defense secretaries being confirmed on voice votes, or in Leon Paneta's case, at 100 to zero vote. What do you think it means for the Pentagon to have somebody come in as their leader with this little support and this controversial and accused of all the things that Mr. Hegset has struggled to parry during this process?

Well, it means very much a instability in the Pentagon. Remember that during the confirmation hearing, Mr. Hegset would not step away from the question when he was asked, Donald Trump says he wants to come in and fire all the generals, all the people with experience, would you oppose him? He wouldn't say that he would oppose Donald Trump. He was asked by Elise Slotkin, Senator Slotkin, if he would oppose Donald Trump, if Donald Trump told him to order military men and women to shoot peaceful protesters in the legs, which is what Donald Trump tried to do the first time around. And Petek Seth wouldn't say that he would oppose Donald Trump. This is a man that is not going to say no to Donald Trump. The Pentagon has absolutely have to be just horrified right now. You know what else is unprecedented, Rachel? The fact that he never met with a single Democrat on the Arm Services Committee prior to his confirmation hearing. I still have not met with him. They've kept him and hidden him away from us because they know how supremely unqualified he is for this job.

While we've been speaking, Senator Duckworth, we've just had word that Senator Mitch McDonald, former Republican Senate leader, has just cast his vote on the nomination, and he was a no vote. Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins, they had voted no on the procedural vote that effectively got us to this vote tonight. That was a strong signal that they would be a no vote on the substance in tonight's final vote. We did not know that Senator Mitch McDonald would also vote Can I get your reaction to that?

Well, I'm very much pleased to know that there's at least three Republicans who will put the well-being of our nation above themselves, which is really what our oath of office was about. I doubt that there will be another Republican who will cast a no vote. But you know what? I was there in the room when John McCain came in and went thumbs down and saved the ACA. So maybe there's one more person in the Republican Party who has some courage to stand up to Donald Trump. But remember that those who express even the slightest concern about peak Sethe came under just a torrent, a deluge, a flood of attacks from the MAGA base. Joni Ernst received so many threats and attacks, outright threatening her, saying that they would primary her all the way through to threats against her own security. Pete Hexet's second wife lives in fear. She has young children. As you've mentioned, she's under an NDA. She had to have a safe word because she was so afraid of him. You talk to sexual assault survivors, domestic violence survivors, they are terrified, and they're not going to speak out against their abusers. Here we are now at a place where we have a Secretary of Defense who is accused of these terrible, terrible domestic violence issues, is accused of having very low moral character.

He was described as being drunk, so drunk that he passed out in uniform in a strip club and has had no experience running an organization of any size, near the size of the Pentagon. In fact, the last company that he ran, not for profit, he ran. He so badly bungled their finances. They had to bring in a forensic accountant to figure out what he did with the $10 million budget. Now they're going to put him in charge of a $900 billion Pentagon budget. It's a sad day for our nation. I fear for the military. I fear for our national security. I hope that at least another Republican steps forward. But I have hopes, but I doubt that we're going to see that happen today, unfortunately.

You have hopes, but you also have eyes and ears to follow what is happening and how they've treated this nomination thus far. Illinois Senator, Tammy Duckworth, Iraq combat veteran. Thank you so much for making time tonight as this vote is still underway. I really appreciate it, Senator.

Thank you, Dr. Maddo.

Let's go back to NBC's Julie Sarkin, who's been watching this vote. Julie, since we last spoke with you, Mitch McDonald has cast a no vote here, which is something of a surprise. We have no, Republican no votes from Collins and Murkowski and McDonald, which means the maximum, if all Democrats stay united against this nomination, it means the maximum number of votes that Pete Hegset can get is 50. Have all Republicans voted at this point?

It seems like there might be a few left, but I'm watching the vote just as you are. It has not been closed yet. Tom Artilis came in, though, and did confirm that he met with Pete Hegset, or he spoke with him, rather, for two hours today. I think that is fascinating and indicative of how difficult this process has maybe been for him, how much work he's put in to do his, quote, unquote, due diligence, but I also think it's telling of his political realities. He is up in 2026, and I think if he had cast this vote against Pete Hexet tonight, his political future would probably be over. Mitch McDonald, having just stepped down as the longest-serving Republican leader in the Senate, clearly has different calculations. His term is also up in 2026, but I would put him in a different category from Senator Tom Tillis just for a second. He had real serious concerns about Hexet's experience or lack thereof, and his views on national security, his views on foreign policy, this is who McDonald is going to be for the next two years. He is going to be, in fact, a top appropriator on the defense subcommittee, on the Appropriations Committee.

He is going to take everything he cares about in in terms of Ukraine, in terms of foreign aid, foreign policy, the Middle East, things that he has been so strong on and even pushing back against in the Trump administration. Certainly, we've seen the relationship that just has fractured over the last year of Trump's presidency has gotten even worse since he got out of office. They seem to have made up in the last year or so. But all in all, I think McDonald is going to continue playing this role over the next two years. He clearly has made a calculation that he will not run again. He might, but he clearly has made a choice tonight. This is what I expect to see from Mitch McDonald going forward over the next two years, now that he no longer sits in the leader office, now that he no longer has that level of pressure under him. Certainly, that is the pressure that now Senate Majority Leader John Thune has. These senators might not like Pete Hexeth, But they've decided tonight that they are not going to stand up to Donald Trump about it. They are not going to cross him, and they've just seen the writing on the wall and that Hexet is going to be the Secretary of Defense, whether they like it or not.

Here we are.

Julie, while we've been talking, Tom Tell us has cast his I vote, as you said, that he had telegraphed that he was. I don't know if you have more information than I do about how many votes are outstanding. I know we don't expect further surprises here, but we also know that expectations are just that, expectations. Can you tell how many votes are outstanding?

I just asked my team who was diligently watching the floor. It's hard to tell with the screens that we're working with. It seems like some might be left, but I think for the most part, the votes that matter have been cast. Again, JD Vance might be needed to break the tie. I'm told he's around, he's close by. If they're holding the vote open just for that moment, that might very be well what's happening. We could hear sirens coming down if he's not in this building already, though I'm told he is. And JD Vance will break the tie. And Trump has predicted this morning calling out McDonald, Murkowski, and Collins. I mean, these are the names that he can predictably put in the column that will cross him on any big thing he wants to do. If Hexet sails through tonight, they're going to turn straight for his other nominees. Next week, there is a bunch of them up on the Hill having confirmation hearings in Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr. And Cash Patel. I think with Tulsi Gabbard and RFK Jr, you might see bipartisan pushback, but you might also see bipartisan votes potentially in their favor.

Cash Patel, so far, I'm hearing no Republican say that they're a flat out no on him. Mcdonald might be one to watch in that space. But I think Tom Tillis today, with his vote on Hexet, has forecasted how he will vote for the rest of the committees next week and what he plans to do with his political future here.

We shall see Julie Serkin, NBC News Congressional Correspondent. Julie, I'm here. As soon as soon Do you have any news? I'm not going anywhere, so let me know as things develop. We are waiting for the last couple of votes to be cast here. Again, the big news here is that three Republicans have cast no votes against Pete Hexet. He can afford to have three Republicans vote no on him because that brings the vote to 50 to 50. When it's 50 to 50, the vice president in his capacity as president of the Senate gets to cast the tie-breaking vote, JD advance, as Julie Sarkam was just saying, it's thought to be standing nearby to break that tie in Pete Hegset's favor. If, as expected, the vote settles at 50-50. Right now, the vote is not closed. I believe I may be wrong, but we believe that there are still some senators yet to cast their votes. There are three Republican no votes. There aren't other Republicans who were widely being watched in terms of being potential no votes, but the fat lady has not yet some. I want to bring into the conversation now, NBC News, Pentagon Correspondent, Courtney Kouby.

Courtney, it's really nice to see you. Thanks for being here tonight at this high-stakes vote.

Msnbc Films presents an NBC News Studio's production, the story of Oathkeeper's founder, Stuart Roads, leading up to his recent release from prison.

The government's evidence show that defendant Stuart Roads began planning to oppose by force a peaceful transfer growth power.

As told through the lens of his estranged family.

I bet everything on him being locked away forever.

King of the Apocalypse, Sunday, February second, at 9: 00 PM Eastern on MSNBC.

Hey, everyone.

It's Chris Hayes. This week on my podcast, Why is this happening? New York Times tech reporter, Kate Conger on Elon Musk in the Trump 2.

0 era.

I think a lot of other tech leadership is looking now at what Musk has been able to accomplish by aligning himself so closely with Trump and wanting to follow suit. It is this very transparent favor trading that's going on throughout the industry right now where people are feeling like, Okay, I can cozy up to the President, and that's going to have a beneficial impact for my business.

That's this week on Why is this happening? Search for Why is this happening? We're listening right now and follow.

Stay up to date on the biggest issues of the day with the MSNBC Daily newsletter. Each morning, you'll get analysis by experts you trust, video highlights from your favorite shows.

I do think it's worth being very clear-eyed, very realistic about what's What's going on here.

Previews of our podcasts and documentaries, plus written perspectives from the newsmakers themselves, all sent directly to your inbox each morning. Get the best of MSNBC all in one place. Sign up for MSNBC Daily at msnbc. Com.

Corteony, can you hear me? You got me?

I got you now. Yeah. Sorry, I think I lost you for a second there. There we go.

There we go. So, Courtney, we've had three no votes against Pete Hegset tonight. Collins and Murkowski, who had telegraphed that with yesterday's test vote. Also a no vote for Mitch McDonald. That means that if Pete Hegset is indeed confirmed tonight, as it looks like he probably will be, he'll be confirmed with fewer votes than, I believe, any defense secretary in American history We're used to defense secretaries being confirmed. We had one turned down, John Tower, famously, didn't make it through because of allegations of his treatment of women and heavy drinking. That's very awkward. Aside from him being voted down, everybody else who has been confirmed, 58 votes for Barack Obama's nominee in 2013. Other than that, we're used to voice votes or 100 to nothing votes for a defense secretary. What do you think it may mean at the Pentagon for Pete Hegset, both to get there and to get there by the skin of his teeth.

Yeah, and John Tau, remember, that's 1989, so that's decades with what is virtually often seen as a bipartisan support for the defense secretary nominee. Remember, during Trump's first term, there was widespread support for his secretaries of Defense. He went through several of them, but Jim Mattis was overwhelmingly supported and confirmed, same with Mark Esper. This is a very different situation here. The question that I have been asking, while this has been a very uncertain vote for a matter of weeks now, Rachel, is will Pete Hegset, if confirmed, come into this building in any way with weaker than other secretaries of Defense have come into the Pentagon? I got to tell you, I don't know if that's going to be the case. The reality is he has so much support from President Donald Trump, from the administration, and from this overwhelming amount of support, whether it be in social media, whether it be in Republicans, that we have seen. The pressure campaign that has existed to get Pete Hégsvés' vote above the threshold has been unlike anything I have ever seen before. There has been a real lobbying campaign to get him across the vote. Even what we were hearing from Julie, the fact that he went to the Senate tonight with his wife, with his children to watch this vote, that's not anything that we are used to seeing.

I don't want to say unprecedented, but it is very, very, very unusual to see something like that happen. When he was at his confirmation hearing just a week ago, there was this huge swell of veterans who showed up, many of them Navy Seals and Special Forces, troops, soldiers and operators that showed up and marched to show their support for Pete Hagset. Again, it has been this groundswell of support to really push this nomination across. The other big question I've been asking is, what will his immediate priorities be? He did have this extensive confirmation hearing last week, but the reality is a lot of it focused on his character, concerns about his character, with the drinking, the affidavit from his ex-sister-in-law was not out yet, but there were still a number of stories and concerns that senators had about his We didn't learn a whole lot about his policy, but a couple of things I will really be watching, frankly, potentially even from day one, is what will he do with regards to his past comments about the policy of women serving in combat? I do expect, very early on, him to announce some a review of the standards that exist for serving in various combat units.

He has spoken very extensively about that. I think if there is a change to standards, then people will be asking, how will that impact women and men who serve in these combat units? But the role of women in combat going forward is going to be a big issue here. I'm also looking to how he spoke extensively about the need for a meritocracy in the Pentagon. We are already seeing evidence of the DEI executive order that came down from the White House. But what about meritocracy when it comes to those men and women serving in uniform? Will we see him immediately Immediately take action on that? Those are two of the biggest things I'll be watching right off the bat here, Rachel, if in fact, he's confirmed and starts at the Pentagon.

Courtney, let me ask you about one other thing just to watch there. One of the concerns you mentioned that so many of the concerns and so much of the discussion around Mr. Hegset's confirmation process was about his character and his personal behavior. Some of it was also about his controversial statements about women and about his fellow soldiers and about the house cleaning that he wanted to do at the Pentagon. But the other level of concern about him is that he's never run any large organization of any kind. There were serious allegations about serious financial and other forms of mismanagement at the two small veterans, pro-Irak war veterans groups that he was involved in before going to Fox News, where he's a weekend co-host. If this is too big a job for him, and honestly, being Secretary of Defense is probably too big a job for everybody on Earth. It's just such a massive organization. It's so complex and the needs are so pressing and so interconnected. It's 3 million people to start. It's the largest organization almost of any kind on Earth nuclear armed, the whole rest of it. If this is too much for him, if this is a bigger job than he can handle, what we expect in those moments is for people at lower-level jobs to be to be the real operators, to be the people who can really handle the organizational needs and the complexity that a job like this takes.

At the Pentagon, are those the equivalent of senior executive service people like that, people who really know how the place works. Are those the kinds of people that Pete Hegset and the incoming administration has talked about clearing out the way they have at the Justice Department and other large agencies that they've targeted already in this first Not so much.

The Pentagon is different from these other agencies because there's this existing structure of the military, those in uniform here. The joint staff, the joint chiefs, they serve as a major arm of this building. The Secretary of Defense, really, I've seen it ebb and flow, depending on who the Secretary of Defense is. Some of them rely much more heavily on the civilian policymakers. Others rely much more heavily on the uniform service members. Look, I don't want to forecast where Pete Hegset will go if he's Secretary of Defense, but given his past, he talks a lot about having served in uniform. That was a huge part of his confirmation hearing someone who had sand and dirt on his boots. I could see him leaning quite heavily on the uniform. But then that brings us back to this question of, will he have some a widespread review of the senior uniform leaders in the military, writ large, not just here in the Pentagon? How could that impact leadership? Here. I really think that's going to be one of the first things that we hear about. Also, what Secretary of Defense will Pete Hagset ultimately decide to be? That's another thing.

I've been covering this building since Rumsfeld, and every sectF is very different. Robert Gates would talk to you about how difficult it was to inspire any real change here in the Pentagon. He talked about this bureaucracy that was just so immoveable and how difficult it was to break through that. Pete Hegset, I've spent weeks working on reporting on It seems as if he will be much more, less of a details, Secretary of Defense and more of the face of the Pentagon, the face of the military. I'm not saying that he won't make policy decisions, but people have spoken with him who've worked with him for years, decades, in some cases, think that he will be a bigger details Secretary of Defense, and there will be people underneath him, whether it be the Deputy Secretary of Defense, his Chief of Staff, realistically, the head of policy here in the building, all of those people have been named already, not confirmed yet, but named, who will actually do a lot of the day-to-day running of the military. Also, just again, what we have seen from Pete Hagset in his time at Fox News, I could see him wanting to be someone who's out and about with the troops and spending time with them more so than spending time here in the building, frankly, Rachel.

Courtney Kouby, NBC News, Pentagon Correspondent. It's always a pleasure to talk to you, Courtney, but it's just invaluable to have you tonight as this is unfolding live on Capitol Hill on this split screen. Thank you so much.

Thanks.

Back to Capitol Hill now. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts joins us. Senator Warren, we have been watching live as the vote has come in. I believe I saw you on the Senate floor approach the clerk and give a visible thumbs down on this nominee, which effectively translates as a no with an exclamation point. I know how strongly you feel that Pete Hegset is unqualified to be Secretary of Defense. What do you make of how the vote has unfolded tonight?

Look, every Democrat understands just how, not just unqualified, just how disqualified this man is to be Secretary of Defense. Now, at least three Republicans are admitting it openly. Look, when we go to the floor and talk about this, I've given a speech on this. Many of the other Democrats have. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, has. The Republicans who are in the room, often they keep chatting with each other while things are going on, they go about their business. They've all just stood there and watched. They understand what's going on here. The Republicans know what a man, Pete Hegsef, is. They understand the alcohol abuse problem and how that puts our nation at risk. They understand that the allegations against him on sexual assault are serious and undermine the good order of our active duty military. They understand that he has no experience running a big agency. All of those are a real problem for our national defense, and the Republicans have decided they're going to put Donald Trump and what he tells them to do ahead of their own understanding of how we protect our nation.

Senator Warren, heading into tonight's vote, we expected, frankly, and again, expectations are a mug's game, but we expected all Democrats to say no to this nominee. We expected Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski on the Republican side to say no. The question was whether two additional Republicans would join with Collins and Murkowski to make this a nonviable nomination. Now, we have had Senator McDonald side with them, which was not something that we knew to count on one way or the other. I wonder, at best, if he gets through here, it's going to be B-50 with J. D. Vance as vice president having to break the tie in their favor. I wonder if this vote tonight from Murkowski and Collins and also McDonald makes you feel any differently about some of the even more controversial colonies who are coming up next week. I'm thinking about Cash Patel for the FBI. I'm thinking about Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence. It was just this week, the Washington Post reported for the first time that when she was Syria, she not only met withAssad, she met with a Syrian cleric who had threatened to activate a network of suicide bombers inside the United States and Europe.

I mean, her history and all of its mysteries is still unfolding in a way that just seems like one more unbelievable controversy upon the next. I wonder if these three no votes for Hegsat make you feel any differently than you were previously about some of these more controversial nominations coming up.

I I see this as a reminder why it's important to stay in there and fight. If the Democrats had just rolled over with Hegg Seth and said, We think he's terrible, but not really shown up for the fight. If If we had just given him a pass in the hearings, if we had not taken to the floor and continued to beat the drum, continued to talk to the public about it, I think it would have been easy to let this one slip on through, which makes it easy to let the next slip on through, which makes it easy to let the next one. But what's happened now is, I get it, they're going to drag the vice president in here. He's going to break the tie for only the second time on a cabinet nominee in United States history. We're going to have the VP break the tie, and the Republicans in the Senate are feeling the heat because they recognize that these candidates are disqualified for public office, and they understand understand that we are taking that case straight to them. That's the lesson I think we have now. Understand the fight over Pete Hegset is not going to be the biggest fight of this entire season.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts joining us live just after casting her no vote against this nomination. Senator, thank you so much for your time tonight. Thank you.

Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. New episodes of all your favorite MSNBC shows now ad-free. Plus ad-free listening to all of Rachel Maddow's original series, Ultra, Bagman, and Deja News. And all MSNBC original podcasts are available ad-free and with bonus content, including Why is this happening?, Velshi Band Book Club and more. Subscribe to MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts. The first 100 days, bills are passed, executive orders are signed, and coincidencies are defined. For Donald Trump's first 100 days, Rachel Maddow is on MSNBC five nights a week.

Now is the time, so we're going to do it.

Providing her unique insight and analysis during this critical time.

How do we strategically align ourselves to this moment of information, this moment of transition in our country?

The Rachel Maddow Show, weeknights at 9: 00 PM Eastern on MSNBC.

It might be enticing to try and sleep through the next four years, but if you're wondering how to survive a second Trump term while staying fully conscious, Pods A of America is here to help you process what's happening now and what comes next. I'm John Favreau and Tommy Vittor, John Lovett, and Dan Pfeiffer and I wade hip deep into the week's political news and fish out some political analysis you can trust. Yes, Tommy's shoes get ruined. Yes, he'll do it again tomorrow because the endeavor is worth it, and so is your sanity. Tune into Pods A Of America wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. This vote is still open. We are keeping a close eye on the Senate at this Point. Best case scenario for Pete Hegsethe is that it is a 50/50 vote on his nomination, as Senator Warren was just explaining, that would result in vice President J. D. Vance in his role as President of the Senate coming in and breaking the tie in Mr. Hegset's favor. As Senator Warren correctly notes, that would be the second time in US history that has ever had to happen for a cabinet nominee.

Again, we're waiting for the last few votes to come in, but at best, he will be at 50/50. All right, right now, we're going to take a quick break. Still ahead, we have an I'm really, really looking forward to. One of the Justice Department lawyers who prosecuted several, I could even say many of the now pardoned January 6 defendants, this prosecutor resigned from the Justice Department today. And tonight, she's going to be here live on set with us. And that is next. We're keeping an eye on the United States Senate, where the vote It is 50 to 50 for Pete Hegset's nomination to be defense secretary. If you're thinking that sounds like a tie, you're correct. But in the Senate, the way you resolve a tie is that you have the President of the Senate cast the tie-breaking vote. The President of the Senate is the vice President. In this case, it's JD Vance. Jd Vance is expected momentarily, or at least at some point over the course of this evening, to come in and break the tie in Pete Hegset's favor, which will make Pete Hegset's nomination succeed by the narrowest margin of any defense secretary in US history.

This will only be the second time in US history a vice President has had to break the tie on a 50/50 vote. We'll keep eyes on it as the Senate action continues to unfold. One of the most emblematic and harrowing videos of the January sixth attack is the one that you're thinking of right now without me even having to describe it. This one, a police officer, Daniel Hodges, screaming in pain and screaming for help as he was being deliberately crushed against the doorway with a stolen riot shield. As members of the mob ripped off his gas mask and pumbled him and screamed in his face. Several members of that mob were ultimately tracked down and arrested by the FBI, charged as a group by the Justice Department, convicted in courts of law, and they were sent to prison. The man who crushed Officer Hodges with a riot shield was sentenced to over seven years behind bars. The judge in the case, who was a Donald Trump appointee, described him as a poster child of all that was dangerous and appalling about January sixth. Telling the man, Your actions are some of the most egregious crimes that were committed on that dark day.

The man who ripped off Officer Hodges gas mask as he was pinned against the door and screaming for his life, the man who proceeded to hit Officer Hodges with his own baton and scream and swear in his face, he also got seven years from that same Trump appointed judge. Sentencing another attacker from the tunnel to four years in prison, that judge said this to him from the bench. He said, Of all of the January 6 defendants I've sentenced to date, your conduct is the most outrageous, the most troubling. Then there was this guy, a New Jersey man whom the judge repeatedly rebuked for his shocking and lawless conduct, saying he was the most violent and most egregious of the nine and co-defendants in his case. From a Justice Department sentencing memo that was filed in court last year, quote, Defendant Christopher Joseph Quaglen was among the most violent of the January sixth rioters. He viciously assaulted numerous officers, and this court convicted him of six counts of assault, two counts of robbery, obstruction of the Congressional certification vote, and other offenses. On at least a dozen occasions, he stood face to face with officers. As he screamed at, pushed without stretched arms, punched, swotted, and slapped officers officers, pushed bike racks into officers, and even choked one officer to the ground.

He used his body as a battering ram and employed a stolen police riot shield against the officers in an attempt to force his way into the building. He sprayed several officers directly in the face with chemical irritant. He joined the collective mob pushes against the police line. In total, he was on capital grounds, wreaking havoc for more than three hours. Due to his egregious criminal conduct on January sixth, his refusal to accept responsibility and the need to deter him and others from further wrongdoing, the government recommends that the court sentence him to 168 months of incarceration. That sentencing memo was written by a Justice Department prosecutor whose name is Ashley Akers. The Trump appointed judge who heard that case and considered that memo agreed and sentenced the defendant to a dozen years in prison, just shy of what the prosecutors had asked for. Now, less than a year after that, he's out. One of the last things Ashley Aekers did as a prosecutor for the US Department of Justice was submit filings to dismiss charges against defendants in cases she spent years building. Dismissed the charges because these people have been now pardoned by Donald Trump.

I say that's one of the last things she did for the US Justice Department because after more than seven years as a federal prosecutor and involvement in many January sixth cases, Ashley Aekers left the US Justice Department today. She's here tonight for her first television interview since leaving her post. Ms. Akers, thanks very much for being here.

Thanks for having me.

Thanks for your service.

You're welcome.

After seven years of the Justice Department, did you want to leave?

No. I suppose yes, because I left, but the circumstances came in a way that I didn't expect.

What is it like to have worked on so many of these January sixth cases? I understand that you may have had as many, if not more January 6 trials as any prosecutor in the department. What is it like to have all of that work and all of those cases and all of those convictions and all of those sentences wiped away by the president?

It was appalling, really. I think that the pardons that happened were disturbing. They were disturbing for a number of reasons. They were disturbing because it condones the violence that you just described and that the prosecutors on the team have been describing for years in court. It condones that. This wasn't ordinary violence. As you described earlier, the police officers who were testifying in trials for years talked about this being the scariest day of their lives. They didn't know if they were going to come home. They talked about this being a medieval battle scene. Not only does it condone violence against those law enforcement but it undermines the rule of law. As judges in our court have continually repeated that the cornerstone of our democracy is the peaceful transition of power from one administration to the next. The crimes that were pardoned from January 6ths were crimes that disrupted that peaceful transition of power.

The way these pardons were handed down, blanket pardons and commutations without regard to criminal records, without regard to the specific crimes that charged here without regard to level of violence, without regard to anything else, anything potentially differentiating about these cases. Does that increase the threat that you were talking about? The reason I ask is because I think politically Essentially, it's being greeted not just as a favor to these individuals, but essentially, it's being greeted as an attempted vindication of what they did, not just an erasure of any accountability for it, but in effect, a celebration of what they did. Are you worried about that?

I'm worried, Rachel, because Donald Trump pardoned some very, very dangerous people. Liators who point-blank bear-sprayed officers in the face rioters who beat police officers with a baseball bat, a hockey stick, a hammer, a chair leg, protruding with nails. Liators who brought firearms to the Capitol on January sixth, expecting violence. Pardons, rioters who choked officers to the ground who gouged their eyes. I don't know what's going to happen, but is America safer today after these pardons? Certainly not.

Are you worried about FBI agents and Justice Department personnel and prosecutors such as yourself being personally targeted by the people who have just been pardoned and had their sentences commuted?

I think any prosecutor would say that that is a risk that comes with the job, and I hope not, and I hope that these people who are pardoned and given a second chance take it. But the rhetoric online, the rhetoric from these people that the President pardoned, doesn't suggest that that's true. This rhetoric has held true before January sixth, during January sixth, and after. It's dangerous.

There are some January sixth defendants who were charged with or even convicted for other offenses, especially guns and weapons charges, people having sought off shotguns, unregistered AR-15s, fragmentation grenades, explosives. Some of those charges were brought, not directly related to their January sixth crimes, but maybe the FBI was at their house searching and found those things because they were looking for them because of their involvement in January sixth crimes in the first place. Should we expect that people who have had secondary criminal charges, had other courses of criminal charges that weren't necessarily just about their behavior on January sixth. Should we expect that those things are going to be in court for a long time while their lawyers try to persuade judges that the January sixth pardons also should expunge any responsibility for the other things they've been charged for?

I think, Rachel, it's not just their lawyers, it's now the Department of Justice that's asking courts to interpret this executive order, or excuse me, this pardon order very broadly For example, I have a case where two defendants were subject to pretrial supervision. One of them had an ankle monitor. He cut it off. Him and his co-defendant fled the FBI for over a month, and so they were charged with a failure to appear. Completely separate offense from January 6th's conduct. They failed to appear for their court date. The Department of Justice has now interpreted that and has filed in court such asking the court to dismiss the whole case because the very basis of it was January sixth related. I think you can expect that this department is going to ask for an incredibly broad reading of the president's pardon.

The problem here is that means that if you committed an offense for which you pled guilty or were convicted on January sixth, what you just described would imply that the Justice Department under Donald Trump, their new position, is that any crime that could conceivably described as derivative from something that happened on January sixth, even if it is cutting off an ankle bracelet, even if it is harboring illegal silencers or explosives or other weapons or all these things, that people get all of those things expunged, that there's no way to prosecute them for any derivative or non-derivative crimes.

I don't know if the department is going to go that far, but the evidence that we have now, based on the filings of the department, are there are two cases where the department is moving to dismiss in its entirety defendants' cases who have fled the FBI and the courts jurisdiction?

The Justice Department, people who work at the Justice Department, career staff of the Department, and staffers at all levels have been given a bit of a shock to the system, not just with the change in leadership this week, but also with, I think, what were some unexpected decisions, one of which related to the DOJ honors program. You came to DOJ in the first place through the honors program. Can you explain what that is and what's just happened to that program?

Yeah, it's devastating. What happened to the program was, I believe it was yesterday, all DOJ honors hires, recent hires, were sent a somewhat crude email informing them that they were no longer going to be hired at the department, although they had already been hired.

These are people who already had an offer, already been hired.

They had four-went law firm recruiting. They haven't been interviewed doing, they have jobs at the Department of Justice, or at least an offer of a job. They expected and anticipated to work there. They were told this week that they no longer should expect that. It's devastating. One of the only ways to come into the Department of Justice as a young lawyer is through the honors program. It's an incredibly prestigious program. It's hard to get in. The people who come in are very bright attorneys. For those attorneys, top of their class, have all the awards, have all the credentials, decided not to go to a law firm, decided not to make all the money. They wanted to be public servants, and they were hired as such. Now, unfortunately, they're going to have to find something else.

We're also seeing senior career staffers at the Justice Department, including people who have been seen as the infrastructure of the department in terms of some of the ways, some of the most complex areas of the law work, essentially shunted all seemingly into the office where they're all being told they're now going to work on prosecuting sanctuary cities or something, going after local jurisdictions that have claimed themselves to be opposed to the administration's approach to immigration law enforcement. What do you think the impact of that will be? The intention seems to be to try to make all of those senior people quit.

That seems to be the intention. I think on the ground in this last week, what it's done is it's just terrified people. Everyone worried if they're going to be fired or moved. If the goal was to make the department more efficient, I think this had the contrary effect. It's also, in my assessment, and I'm not part of this, but it's nonsensical. You have people who are subject matter experts in certain sections who have committed their lives to litigating certain subject matters, and to pull them and to put them in a different unrelated section where they have no experience, no involvement, probably no interest. It seems contrary to the mission of the department.

Yeah, and it seems deliberately intended to both insult and wound the department in this transition period. Ms. Aekers, seven years of the Justice Department. You charged dozens of cases related to January 6. You had 14 trials, I believe, related to January 6. You've done a real service to the country at the Justice Department. I'm interested to see what you do next. I'm sorry you had to leave under these terms, but thank you for coming here first. Thank you. It's nice to meet you. We have had eyes on the United States Senate over the course of this hour. In just the last few moments, Vice President J. D. Vance, in his role as President of the Senate, he did cast the tie-breaking vote in the confirmation of Pete Hegset as Secretary of Defense. With a 50-50 tie in the Senate needing to be broken by the Vice President, that is extraordinary. Nothing like that has ever happened before for a confirmed Defense Secretary nominee. He will now be in charge of overseeing the United military, which is a real change from his current job as a co-host on Fox & Friends Weekends. That's going to do it for us tonight.

We'll see you again on Monday. I'll be back here at nine o'clock Monday night, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, Thursday night, Friday night. You are stuck with me five days a week for these first hundred days.

If you're with FBD Insurance and your van gets robbed, it's not a flippin' blooming disaster. That's not what FBD stands FBD stands for support. We support van owners like you by covering your work tools up to the value of €500 if they're stolen with your van. Fbd Insurance. Support.

It's what we do. Visit your local branch to talk to your FBD Insurance team.

Requires valid van theft claim. Excludes electronics and software. T's and C's and normal underwriting criteria apply. Underwritten by FBD Insurance, PLC. Fbd Insurance Group Limited trading as FBD Insurance is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland..