Welcome back to The Best & The Brightest. I’m Abby Livingston, here to report that the lame duck session is living up to all expectations for chaos. In tonight’s edition, Dylan Byers has an update on The Washington Post’s search for a new executive editor, and John Heilemann assesses the various hypotheticals of the Kash Patel situation with a pair of experts.

But first…

• The G.O.P.’s quiet rebellion: Despite his charm offensive on the Hill (and his mother’s soft-focus interview on Fox & Friends), Pete Hegseth’s nomination to run the Pentagon seems to be on the skids. Three weeks ago, it seemed plausible that Trump had enough command over his party to force Senate Republicans to bypass their advice and consent role and ram through an entire slate of objectionable, kooky, or unqualified cabinet nominees. But as Susan Collins made clear when discussing the Hegseth nomination yesterday, that’s off the table. Two other candidates have already gone down, one in flames (Matt Gaetz at D.O.J.) and one with barely a whimper (Chad Chronister at D.E.A.).

  Whether senators are emboldened or believe they’re pushing their luck with this much defiance to Trump remains to be seen. Democrats are taking some small comfort in watching their Republican colleagues squirm over the Hegseth allegations: sexual assault, on-the-job alcohol abuse, financial mismanagement, etcetera. Meanwhile, Republican members are bracing for the next shoe to drop. These inflammatory dramas aren’t just consuming media oxygen—they’re also depleting Trump’s political capital on the Hill.

• Johnson’s margin: We finally have the full picture of how the House races went down, thanks to Republican John Duarte’s speedy and gracious concession to Democratic challenger Adam Gray in central California’s 13th District last night. The Duarte loss—by fewer than 200 votes—officially clarifies the margin problem facing Republicans, who have ambitious plans for Trump’s first 100 days. Republicans won 220 races to the Dems’ 215, but since Trump plucked several House members for his cabinet, the near-term margin is actually 217 to 215. House Republicans can’t afford to have a single member flip on a vote, a reality that opens the door for backbencher power plays since every House Republican holds the power to sink a bill.

  Alas, this could play out in an unfortunate and public manner during Trump’s first 100 days. We’re currently headed toward a short-term spending bill—the deadline is December 20—that will likely extend funding through March-ish. This sets the table for what can only be described as miserable circumstances during what is typically a presidential honeymoon period, essentially scheduling a spending fight for a time when Republicans would like to be prioritizing tax cuts.

  House Republicans will begin picking up reinforcements on April 1, when the scheduled special election to replace Matt Gaetz in Florida’s 1st District takes place. For the two other vacancies—New York’s Elise Stefanik and Florida’s Mike Waltz—the special election clock probably won’t begin until after Trump’s inauguration. When those three seats are resolved (all should stay in the Republican column), Mike Johnson & Co. will have a little more breathing room.

In the more immediate future, as early as next week and certainly before the end of the year, Post C.E.O. Will Lewis will name an executive editor for the beleaguered mediaco—well, technically, the executive editor of the first newsroom, for those following along. (You can study up here if you need a refresher.) This, one hopes, will be the culmination of his long and tortured effort to appoint a permanent newsroom chief and move the storied D.C. institution beyond the woes of yet another year from hell: ongoing financial losses, rudderless strategy, staff uprisings, endorsement-gate, etcetera.

If you recall, the last time Lewis attempted an editorial restructuring, the feculence hit the fan. In June, he tried to appoint his old friend and Fleet Street veteran Rob Winnett to the position—while inelegantly trying to transition then-executive editor Sally Buzbee to the nebulous third newsroom, where she would oversee soft-focus, social-friendly content to grow the Post’s audience. Instead, Buzbee self-defenestrated, the staff turned on Lewis and Winnett over a litany of ethical concerns, real or perceived, and Winnett eventually opted to stay home in London. Amid all this, Lewis made an eleventh-hour appeal to Wall Street Journal veteran Matt Murray to steady the ship as the newsroom’s temporary leader.

In a best-case scenario, Lewis would use the anointment of a new executive editor as an opportunity to further nudge the Post out of its era of inertia. This new leader would not merely be tasked with overseeing a newsroom, but also establishing a new mandate for the coverage, and, indeed, even a new identity for the paper itself—one divorced not just from the rudderlessness of the Buzbee era, but also from the “Democracy Dies in Darkness” posturing of the Baron era, and perhaps with a little less nostalgia for Bradlee and Graham and Woodward and Bernstein.

Presumably, this new mandate would align with Bezos’s own desire to restore the Post to its former place as the paper of record for official Washington and, as I’ve noted before, as an at least semi-nonpartisan organization servicing all Americans, rather than a regional edition of the Times political report servicing anxious liberals. At best, the Post might once again establish itself as a compelling and authoritative source on the culture of power and influence in Washington, with its finger on the pulse of not just the White House and Capitol Hill but also Cleveland Park and Kalorama. For now, Lewis would at least like someone who can inspire staff to come into the newsroom and file a little more often.

The challenge, of course, is finding that leader among a particularly limited talent pool of editors who are actually willing to inherit all the aforementioned challenges, and whose identity won’t establish a second theater of war. Earlier this fall, executive recruitment firm Spencer Stuart approached dozens of candidates on the Post’s behalf, including Times managing editor Carolyn Ryan, Cliff Levy, and other members of the Times masthead—the majority of whom did not engage in anything beyond preliminary talks. Levy, who now oversees the Times’s Athletic and Wirecutter, did engage beyond preliminary talks, and is among the handful of candidates who interviewed with Lewis and submitted memos outlining their near- and long-term visions for the newsroom. There are other external candidates as well, though I don’t yet have their names.

Meanwhile, as previously noted, there are two internal candidates vying for the position: Murray, the acting executive editor, and managing editor Matea Gold, herself a 12-year veteran of the paper. Both have their strengths and weaknesses—don’t we all—but, crucially, neither is seen as the kind of change agent that Lewis would presumably favor to lead the newsroom. Frankly, they’re just hometown Cliff Levy types—well-pedigreed and smart, yes and of course, but institutionalists without track records of innovation and risk-taking. Long before his current sinecure essentially serving as the Wirecutter and Athletic’s liaisons to the mothership, Levy ran the ill-fated NYT Now app project, where he liked to point out the novel quirk of a Times product saying “hello” to its readers. Like others, he’s a multi-Pulitzer winner who commands respect and has been promoted out of power.

Murray, who served as the Journal’s editor-in-chief when Lewis was its publisher, may be his preferred candidate of the two, but many in the newsroom are unsurprisingly said to favor their longtime colleague. And, alas, he may have to settle on one or the other. But, boy, would that seem like a waste of time and energy—and, frankly, a nonsensical conclusion to Lewis’s year of magical thinking. He arrived, after all, to bandage up a bleeding business, offer a compelling (if not entirely lucid) vision of its future, and signal significant forthcoming change. To do all that… and then somehow suggest that the leading candidate was in the building all along… would seem like a bizarre management decision. Why come up with a plan if you aren’t going to bring in someone to execute it? Seems like Lewis would have a hard time explaining that one to his boss. —Dylan Byers

And, finally, Heilemann on the Kash sitch…

But it’s Patel who’s publicly vowed to use the most powerful law enforcement office in the country, in tandem with a Trumpified Justice Department, to exact vengeance against Trump’s perceived enemies in and out of government, including members of the media. Naturally, this will require a massive diversion of resources from what the F.B.I. should be doing—namely, pursuing actual criminals and terrorists—and one that leaves the country as a whole less safe.

In this conversation—which first appeared on my podcast, Impolitic, and has been edited and condensed for clarity—we discuss the bureau’s internal reaction to Patel’s appointment (a lot of “W.T.F.” texts among field offices); a case for cautious optimism about Pam Bondi at D.O.J.; and finally, the Hunter pardon and the rule of law.

Frank Figliuzzi: The people in that building drive the 30,000-foot view, which leads to a coordinated effort across the globe to fight the kind of transnational crime, cybercrime, espionage, and terrorism that actually threatens our communities and our public safety. Without that 30,000-foot view, you become disconnected among the field offices with regard to threats like MS-13, Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the flow of money across organized crime outfits. All of that is driven out of F.B.I. headquarters.

When I hear somebody say, on day one, they’re going to empty out 7,000 employees and to let them be cops to work murders and rapes, this is coming from a man who is totally ignorant of the F.B.I. mission. Emptying out the coordinating function would make us less safe, not more safe.

Andrew, what do you hear when Kash Patel talks about that kind of approach, even if it’s just a rhetorical flourish?

Andrew Weissmann: I hear ignorance and a cavalier approach that is not consistent with the safety of the American public. For instance, [counter]terrorism is centralized, particularly post-9/11. Who is actually going to negotiate with our foreign partners and adversaries dealing with national security issues? Is every field office going to be able to do whatever the hell they want? What about disputes within the field offices? Somebody has to be a front person for all of that. The idea that you can just get rid of headquarters, that the F.B.I. is supposed to be the “deep state.” The F.B.I. has never been run by a Democrat. In its entire history, it’s only had Republican directors. Until the Trump administration, no one has ever accused the F.B.I. of being some hotbed of radicalism.

Figliuzzi: I talked to a number of executives at the headquarters who polished up their résumés as soon as Trump was named as winner of the election, and are out there actively pursuing other careers. The chief concern is the degree to which Patel, in that position, is going to impact the field offices. If we start having politicians look at case openings and closings, if we start getting to the point where corruption cases aren’t opened on Republican elected officials, if counterintelligence cases are not allowed to be opened, we’re going to have a problem.

To the extent that the F.B.I. will still be made up largely of lifers and not political appointees, how will the culture clash play out when the appointees who don’t give a shit about their norms and customs are intertwined with the F.B.I. agents who honor and respect them?

Figliuzzi: The F.B.I. employees—it’s 37,000 of them—take their posts extremely seriously. There’s an entire structure to keep us all on the same sheet of music with regard to our collective core values, the kind of core values that we’re seeing no sign of in Kash Patel. So that clash is going to occur rather immediately. I’m sure the Agents Association and other law firms are ready to go on challenging him. Even if he’s not ultimately confirmed, Patel can do a tremendous amount of damage in seven months as an acting F.B.I. lead.

Weissmann: I’ve described this as being cautiously pessimistic. On the plus side, compared to other proposed nominations, she’s somebody who’s had a long career in law enforcement. So it’s not like she’s bringing nothing to the table in terms of understanding the craft and what it means to lead an office. On the other hand, what I’m missing from her statements [about investigating the investigators of Russiagate, for instance] is any factual predication, and the F.B.I. is trained to understand that you don’t take actions without factual predication to justify the activity; the goal is to keep building those facts.

Another thing I think is a little bit of a plus: She’s not totally shameless. She’s enough of a career prosecutor to understand that it’s wrong to just investigate everybody. What remains to be seen is how she conducts herself and what she says about that in her confirmation hearing—and then, if she’s confirmed, how much she is going to take that to heart in her role as attorney general.

When you hear Steve Bannon say the president is also the chief magistrate, is that true?

Weissmann: It’s true in the sense that there’s nothing in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has found that requires a president to hold off from telling his attorney general to prosecute certain people and not prosecute others, absent there being selective prosecution claims. That’s something the president can do. The precedent in the recent Trump immunity decision is all about presidential power and the president’s preclusive and conclusive power to deal with his Department of Justice.

What’s your take on Biden’s decision to pardon his son Hunter, despite having assured the country a lot of times that he wouldn’t do this?

Weissmann: When looking at the gun charge, as a prosecutor for over 20 years and a defense lawyer for about 10 years, I don’t know of any case that would be prosecuted like Hunter’s was. It seems to me that the only reason Hunter was in that position is because he’s the son of Joe. If he was Hunter Smith instead of Hunter Biden, I don't think he would have been under investigation or ever prosecuted and treated this way. We’re not just talking about issues of holding Hunter responsible for the crimes he’s been convicted of, but we’re talking about a vendetta. So, to me, that would apply to Hunter Biden and others that Joe Biden has the power to alleviate that kind of retaliatory action by an incoming administration.

Figliuzzi: I think two things can be true at the same time. We could view this as a horribly unfortunate set of events and wish it hadn’t happened, and at the same time, we can say we understand why it happened. I spent 25 years enforcing federal law, and it pains me whenever the justice system is further eroded. It’s eroded enough—largely because of Donald Trump, not Joe Biden—but this doesn’t help with public credibility. At the same time, I’m also the father of adult sons. The concept that Pam Bondi is going to oversee the Bureau of Prisons under a Trump administration, where my son could be subjected to everything under the sun if he’s incarcerated, might be enough for me to say, I’m not letting that happen.