This Sunday, Trump indicted. It's been a long time coming. A Manhattan grand jury votes to indict Donald Trump, making him the first former president ever charged with a crime. There is no crime.
It's not even a bad act. I'll talk to former Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, who first opened this investigation. Plus the political impact. This is legal.
Boohoo. The gop, including many of Trump's potential primary rivals, rallies to his defense before knowing the specifics of the actual criminal charges he faces. This is nothing short of a, of a political prosecution. Will the twice impeached former president continue to be seen as a positive force inside the GOP politically?
It's a, it's a, it's going to be damaging, I think, for the public party. And what will this event do to our already divided politics? I'll talk to the Senate's leading centrist Democratic Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. And pay to play as the March Madness tournament comes to a close.
I'll talk to NCW president and former Republican governor of Massachusetts Charlie Bateman on the challenge of how to pay college athletes. Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News chief White House correspondent Kristen Welt, Washington Post senior national political correspondent Ashley Parker, former Republican governor of North Carolina Pat McCrory and former Obama White House senior advisor Stephanie Cutter. Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press from NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history.
This is Meet the Press with Chuck Connor. Good Sunday morning. For the first time in American history, a former president of the United States has been indicted on criminal charges. Mr.
Trump plans to travel to New York on Monday, say overnight Trump Tower before being arraigned on Tuesday in Manhattan criminal court on charges related to hush money payments made by the silence of adult film star Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election. Now, the exact charges remain under seal, but according to our reporting, Trump faces about 30 charges of document related fraud. The Associated Press is reporting that at least one of those charges is a felony charge. Now Trump's 2024 rivals have jumped to his defense, calling the indictment un American, a travesty, an outrage more about revenge than it is about justice, and saying it should not happen in America.
And the party, with exceptions you can literally count on one hand, has followed suit. Here's a sample. The unprecedented indictment of a former president of the United States on campaign finance issue is outrageous. It's the archetypal abuse of the prosecutorial function to engage a political hit job.
They want a picture of Donald Trump in handcuffs. They want a mug shot. Now he turns around purely for political purposes and indicts a former president on misdemeanor offenses that they're straining to try to convert into felonies. This is going to destroy America.
It is notable that Governor DeSantis conceded that Trump may have committed misdemeanors. Trump's indictment and subsequent trial will be a test for the rule of law. Will it further divide the nation or signal that no one is truly above the law? Recall that Senator Republican leader Mitch McConnell has not commented on the indictment since it was reported on Thursday.
But we should remind you what he said after voting to quit Trump at his second impeachment trial. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune for being accountable by either one.
By the way, it's worth noting, being charged with or even convicted of a crime would not disqualify Trump from running for president or even from serving as president. So what is the political impact? Well, the Trump campaign is trying very hard to act as if this is helping him. They've even circulated internal polling to the press this weekend showing that they are somehow increasing their leader, Ron DeSantis, in the primary.
And also according to the campaign, he's raised more than $4 million in the first 24 hours. Of course, after the night, of course, it was thanks to this flood of fundraising solicitations, the United is likely to freeze the presidential race in the GOP side for quite some time. This is going to make it difficult for Trump's opponents to seize the spotlight and break through. And part of the reason for that, a whopping 72% of Republican voters so believe that to twice impeach Donald Trump has had mainly a positive impact on the gop.
That was according to an open APF poll this week. But of course, longer term, huge questions remain. Ultimately, whether this will be a political problem for Trump may depend on whether he faces a second indictment, maybe in Georgia or third indictment or fourth indict by federal prosecutors here in Washington. So let's dig into the Manhattan case starting now.
It's former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Banks, who proceeded out of Bragg and it was Vance's office that began this investigation. Cy Vance, welcome to the press. Good morning, John. So let me just start with the basics here.
You work on. You began this campaign in 2018. I know you haven't read the indictment, but if you could perhaps help us sort out what does it look like the charges are going to be on Tuesday morning. Well, chap, the truth is, as you've already commented, I haven't read the indictment and we've read a lot about what the indictment may be about.
But I think we all have to sort of take a pause here and wait until the charges are released in court on Tuesday. If the charges are exclusively along the lines of the reporting before I came on, it'll be a class E felony. And there is a upward range that involves prison and a downward range, as you know, that involves no prison whatsoever. So that's what we have to wait and see.
Really, only Dictatorary Bragg knows what the evidence is. It's another thing we all have to be mindful of that we can speculate on what evidence we think they may or may not have. But even with the event published, we really will not know what the judiciary's evidence is and what they would present at trial. The Associated Press is reporting of at least one felony charge.
You expect this to be more than that, or is there probably only one charge that will be, as you described, a classy felon? That I don't know, Chuck. But in cumulative numbers of counts of classic fellows won't necessarily increase any exposure. Do you expect us to be a speaking indictment, essentially laying out the facts in some detail when we finally get unsealed?
I would anticipate, although I obviously don't know that it would be a speaking indictment and our office would, I was district use speaking indictments appropriately, I think, in order to explain the background facts that lead up to the specific charges in the indictment. I think it's a mechanism by which the public official can explain in a public and legitimate way why the case is being brought and what evidence, generally speaking, can be anticipated during the trial. Let me read for you editorial from the Washington Post. Just after the indictment was just after the indictment was made public.
Here's what they wrote. This prosecution is now bound to be the test case for any future former president, as well as, of course, proceedings against this former president. A failed prosecution of the house payment could put them all in jeopardy as well as provide Mr. Trump in addition for his accusations of quote, which this prosecution needs to be airtight, otherwise it's not worth continuing.
Is there any doubt in your mind that this case is airtight? Well, I, I do not know if this guy's case is airtight or not. I know that the DA's office has extremely experienced and seasoned lawyers. So this is, you know, the charges that might be involved here are, are not, are certainly well within their experience level and their trial experience level.
The quality of the evidence, again, we must relate to. But when you look back on the investigation, check, I mean, one has to remember that we went to the Supreme Court twice, our office, in order to get the financial documents which were finally released to us by the Supreme Court. And that resulted in indictment of the Trump Organization, as well as the CFO of the Trump Organization being, in effect and altered with the President. The life continued after.
After that event, the case was tried. It was a very strong case. The court imposed a fine, but the world didn't stop because the Trump Organization was indicted by our office. Why didn't you charge the hush money case?
Why didn't you ever charge it? 2018, 2019, 2020. I don't want to get into the deliberations that might be covered by grand jury material, but it's as I believe. You know, I was asked by the US treasury office in the Southern District to stand down on our investigation, which had commenced involving Trump Organization.
And as someone who respects that office a great deal and believing that they may have perhaps the best laws to investigate, I. And I was somewhat surprised after Mr. Cohen pleaded guilty that the federal government did not proceed on the areas in which he asked me to stand down. By that time, we were also well on our way in a financial investigation that ultimately led to subpoenas, which the President himself published in a lawsuit he filed against me in the office, and ultimately that long but successful journey to the Supreme Court.
And for those who think this is about politics, I think it's important to remind folks that the review of the President's objections to our seeking his tax on the financial records were reviewed by two separate district courts, two separate courts of appeal, and twice by the United States Supreme Court, all of whom found no evidence that politics was motivating their actions. Did your office conclude that a standalone felony charge for these flash money payments, was it worth it? Because of so many of the uncertainties around the legal theory, and that's why you're pursuing this larger issue, that this was just one part of sort of how the Trump Organization either lied or on their business records. Well, I think, Jeff, again, I don't want to get into our deliberations, but we have historically filed cases of false documentation, elevated to felonies when federal statutes were involved.
It's never been done that I know of with regard to federal election law, which is quite a specific area of law. But I think the question is not so much why didn't I do it or we did it, but why this district attorney is doing it. And that really requires us to be patient and to wait. This process isn't going to be accelerated by us, by us talking about it.
It's going to be moved by the court at the pace the court sees fit. And I guarantee the court wants this to move quickly. Would this case be stronger? Would you have brought this case yourself before you left office had the Allen Weisselberg, the former chief financial officer for the Trump Organization, cooperated?
Well, ultimately, Ms. Weisselberg, of course, you know, did testify at trial and provided, I'm sure, relevant evidence. I think his cooperation perhaps was not what the district Attorney's office hoped, but nonetheless, I think he was a, was a key witness at trial and the jury beyond a reasonable doubt found the Trump organization guilty of 17 counts, 17 felony counts. So I think his, his testimony was, was very helpful is my belief.
But I think although I was not in the room, I think he did not provide full cooperation in testifying against the president himself. Mark Pomerant. So you brought in to help with this Trump case. Former federal prosecutor.
He's a private practice. You brought him in. I had him on the show in February and he said essentially that you would bring lit an indictment on a sweeping financial fraud case to, to do that had you. I don't want to get actually Chucky to my deliberations of internal communications but, but I can say this where I to have relit the continuation investigation toward indictment.
I also understood for reasons that were just specifically about the time that we had the delays going to the Supreme Court, the delays occasioned by the Senate districts, a request for us to stand down. Covid was quite in the city during this investigative time period that had a material impact on our ability to get grant jury to sit and obtain evidence. So we so from a time perspective we had some unfortunate coincidences that that kept us back not going as fast as we could go because we were trying to move as fast as we could and ultimately I knew however that because I was not able to be the District Attorney at a time when all the evidence was in, this was going to be District Attorney Spragg's call. I may have made a different call than the district did on the case that I had or we had.
But when one is out of office really it's the District Attorney's prerogative to look at the case of fresh he did and then you've seen where he has pointed his point of his team resulting in the indictment today. Look again with all the stipulations caveats we haven't read the indictment. We know that the Trump legal team is going to try to get this case thrown out for a couple of reasons. One, claiming that the novel legal theory, meaning this first legal theory that Alvin Bragg's gonna be using to make a felony in state law, whether that is applicable here, there's the issue of Michael Cohn's testimony.
There's the issue of this section of limitations. As a. If you were the prosecutor, which one of those three hurdles would you see to be the highest? Well, I think this is obviously a case of great consequence and a case that's never happened before.
So it's novel in and of itself. I think there's, I think if I'm guessing about the president's strategy, it's only guess and he'll have excellent lawyers, is that they will take a run at the law first, perhaps on the question of whether or not the misdemeanors can be elevated. That's probably more a question of law than a question of fact. And we'll take a run there first.
It would not surprise me if the attorneys representing the former president tried to move into federal court on some ancillary action, as they did with us, and to have that action somehow be reviewed, try to be reviewed on the federal side and have some impact, therefore, on whether the state court could go forward, for example, asking for a stay because there's going to be an election in a year and a half in this case, this case should go forward. So those are avenues that I think that you'll see. Of course, Cohen will be taxed heavily. But the flip side of that, of course, is COHEN Work for Mr.
Trump and they obviously had a working relationship. So we often find in criminal cases that the witnesses who are involved aren't necessarily, they're not priests or non sports. They are who they are in whatever organization they have. Final question, is this?
What's the likelihood? No, go ahead. Well, I've got to say that I was disturbed to hear the former president speak in the way he spoke about the District 20, Bragg and even the trial court in the past week. And I think if I were his lawyer, and believe me, no one has called up to ask for my advice, I would be mindful of not committing some other criminal offense like obstruction of government administration, which is interfering with or by threat or otherwise the operation of government.
And I think that could take what perhaps we think is not the strongest case when you add account like that, put it in front of a jury, if you can change the jury's mind about the severity of the case that they're looking at. Likelihood this trial happens before election day 2024, that depends I think entirely on the judge. Judge Bashon is experienced. He's had already one trial with the Trump Organization.
The Trump Organization, the president are toughly against the control but he's going to want to set a firm trial date. He's going to want to maintain firm control over all the parties. And that could end up in some flare ups between the parties and the court as it goes forward. But I don't think the former president does himself any favors as it pertains to the ultimate outcome of this case if he's making more enemies in the courthouse than he needs to.
Cybance, the former district attorney for Manhattan really appreciate you coming on and sharing your expertise and perspective on this. Thanks very much. When we come back, what's the political impact of indictment of Donald Trump? I'm talking about the leading centrist in the Senate, Senator Joe Manchin.
West Virginia welcome back. Donald Trump's attorney in the Manhattan case has made clear Trump has no intention of settling. He decided we have to fight. Now.
President Trump will not take the deal on this case has not happened. There's no crime. I don't know if it's going to make the trouble because we have substantial legal challenges that we have to do front before we get to that point. Well, those motions and a trial will likely stretch well into 2024.
This will have major implications whether we like it or not for governing in Washington throughout this calendar year in 2023 and of course for the campaign year of 2024. West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin represents the state of voter for Trump by daily 40 points in 2020. He himself has not said whether he plans to run for re election next year or not or whether he may instead run for president on an independent ticket if they deem if he deems the parties too far left or right. And the nation's leading center these days, Senator Manchin joins me now.
Senator, welcome back to the press. Hey Chuck, it's always good to be with you. Look, there's always a lot to talk with you about. But I really want to ask you the first thing, your reaction to the news that the former president for the first time ever of any president has been indicted on a criminal chart.
Chuck is a very sad time for America and I feel like other people just very sad for our country to have to go through this. And a second society who believes that maybe it's biased that the system doesn't work for All I would have to wait and see what comes out next week. But I would hope and pray that whatever comes forth that they've done due diligence are very, very accurate in what they're doing and understanding that the rule of law is that basically no one's above the law, but no one should be targeted by the law. And we just got to make sure that we understand that we have to come together.
This country cannot, you know, we cannot be a house divided. As Abraham Lincoln said, a house divided cannot stand. And we've got to come together. And the rule of law makes us different any place in the world.
You know, a lot of your Republican colleagues in the Senate are already attacking this case, which only serves to go against what you've just been telling me. John Barrasso, who's not usually a bomb thrower, called a politically motivated prosecution by far left activist Ted Cruz called the death of the rule of law. Josh Holly called an assault in democracy. Thom Tillis said it doesn't pass the smell test.
I focus on brass and Tillis. I know you have the relationship with both of them. I to attack this now. I mean, doesn't that do exactly the opposite of what you're advocating?
Well, yeah, they have to understand we again I said we must come together. American people wants to do a job. The more you talk about that, the more you make people pick aside are they right or wrong. You get more credence to basically is advised or not.
Does the rule all work for all of us? Let's wait until what comes out next week. Let's see the direction this goes. But the bottom line is a very sad time in America.
You know, you have geopolitical interest around the world. Just think of the people that don't wish our society or our form of democracy to work, whether it be China, Russia or whoever. They're looking and saying, oh my goodness, let's sit back and kind of watch this melee unfold. Well, I want to show them that as Americans we can work together.
We can meet the challenges. We can basically lead the free world and come to the aid of our allies that have the same thirst that we have for the freedoms with democracy. And that's what I keep working on. And I keep saying, I talk to people around the country, they can't take it anymore.
They're just tired, they're wore out. Enough is enough. Please do your job, get a budget, live within your means, start getting this crippling debt down, get rid of inflation, give me energy that basically gives me security. But Also be able to invest in new technology.
That's what we've been trying to do. Senator, you sound like a presidential candidate. And I don't just say that here in this morning's Washington Post, you openly admit you're thinking about it. You told the Post in an interview today, if enough Americans believe there is an option and the option is a threat to the extreme left and extreme right, it will be the greatest contribution to democracy.
I believe this is. You were asked whether you would participate in a no labels ticket and you didn't rule it out in or out. But like I said, what you just sounded like there, that sounded like what a presidential candidate says when they're trying to bring the country together. How serious are you about this?
Well, first of all, Chuck, if you look the last four years I've been involved in public service to my great state of West Virginia. And since I've been assembly representing the state of West Virginia, it's always been about being a centrist in the middle. I tell people I'm fiscally responsible, socially compassionate, which I think most Americans, they've been driven to the corners to pick a side. When you're asking me what I'm going to do, what my political ambitions would be is to make the country work together and be a United States and not to divide the states.
And that's what I've seen happen over the period of time. I'm going to do whatever I can to have a voice in that middle that we can basically force both sides and say, wait a minute, you've gone to extremes. You've got to start coming back. You've got to find ways to solve problems.
You can't solve them from the extreme right and extreme left. You can't make people make a pick a side. What side are you on? Well, I'll choose the left or the right or the D or the R, because this one's not as bad as that one.
Neither one of them are doing the job the way we should do it, but one's not as bad as the other. So you pick a side. I think we can do better than that. And we can change that dialogue and have a movement chart.
Then we've done our job. 44% of Democrats this week in a Monoth poll said that they wanted Joe Biden not to run again. 25% would like to see him run again. There were sort of 30 in the messy middle.
Where are you? Would you like to see him run again or not? Let me just tell you this. I've always said this.
No matter who my president is, whether it's a Democratic Republican, whether someone I voted for or not, whether it's in same political party or not, doesn't make a difference once the, once the people of America speak and that's our President. And I'm doing everything I can to help them be successful, whether it's Donald Trump or whether it's Joe Biden. I've known Joe, Joe Biden for quite some time and I've tried everything I can. I will continue to try to be a productive senator and try to help my country move forward.
But I've got to speak truth to power when I know that we can do better. When I know a piece of legislation that we wrote was intended to give us energy security and lower prices and make us much more able to help our allies around the world. And it's only a different direction because they want to interpret it differently. Do you think Joe Biden lied to you?
Yeah, Chuck, I'm not saying that the President lied to me. I'm saying that basically what we agreed on, the President, I agreed on what this bill would do. It would give us energy security and bring manufacturing back to America as quickly as possible. We would not be relying on foreign supply chain such as China to run our transportation mode.
We talked about all of that. We would pay down debt for the first time in 20 years. We talked about all that. We agreed exactly that's what it should do.
And now to have different parts of his administration basically administering it and writing rules and regulation that are totally foreign to what we did is wrong. And I'm going to fight that. You need to speak truth to power, but basically hold people accountable. And I'm hopeful that the President will step forward and tell the administration we will follow the law, we will do what the bill is intended to do.
Let me ask you this. What's it going to take for you endorse Joe Bide? You don't seem ready to do it, that's for sure. I'm not ready to do anything this year.
Only in America does the next election start after the day after the last election ended. I don't do that. I got a lot of work to do this year. I'm going to work with everybody.
Come on, let's get our budget under control. Let's get our spending under control. Let's make sure we bring down inflation. Let's do all the things that we're supposed to do.
And if you're just throwing bombs and attacking everybody for two years, I think next year. When it starts in January 1st, you'll be enough to attack. You don't need an extra year. So bottom line, we'll find out if you're going for President January 2024.
My filing day is January 15th in 2024. And I will make my decision maybe a little bit before that, but not until the end of the year, I can assure you. And you know what, for sure, you'll be running as a Democrat or something else. Well, you know, the party identification is not going to change me.
Democrat, Republican. I mean, having a DNR should not change you as a person. I'm going to still fight for the things I do. Can't I be a moderate centrist with whatever identification or no identification?
I would think I'm not going to be changing as a person. I've been doing this for a long time. I'm going to continue to fight with the people of West Virginia, the people of my great country, proud to be in America. And when you hear people say that you might be a spoiler if you run for president, what would you say to that?
I would never intend to be a spoiler or anything. I would like to basically be a promoter of united, United government, a united government that basically has provided the greatest opportunities in the world. My great grandparents came to this country for the opportunities to provide it. I'm a product of that.
I'm very, very, very appreciative of that. And I'm going to continue to try to offer that to people, countless people in America and around the world. Senator Joe Manchin right now, a Democrat from West Virginia. It is always a pleasure to get your perspective on this program.
Thank you for sharing with us, sir. Well, it's good to be with you, Chuck. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
Enjoy the rest of your Sunday. Up next, Donald Trump's 2024 Republican rivals quickly jump to his defense even before they go into details of the indictment. Will they regret this decision? Panel's next.
Welcome back. Panelists here. NBC News chief White House fine Christian Walker, also coined for Weekend Today, Ashley Parker, the senior national political correspondent for Washington Post, former Republican governor of Carolina Patrick Corey and the former Obama bios senior advisor and Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter. I just want to put up one thing from one response from a senator I thought was kind of amusing to me about the indictment.
Ryan shocks. Here's what he said in a tweet. Just a reminder that there is no rule that you have to express your opinion before reading the indictment. Anyway, just wanted to give him a Shout out there.
By the way, Senator, we love to have you on the show. Kristen Welke. Now what? Well, now what?
This is going to be a months long process that will likely stretch into 2024, legally speaking at least. And there's no doubt that it has hardened support around the former president. Look at how his rivals are responding. But that's in the short term, Chuck.
And I think the big X factor is are there more indictments and do his rivals start to go after him? This might make him stronger in the primary, but it could make him a lot weaker in the general election. Well, the Trump campaign wants us to think this is topic. They sent a polling this morning.
Hey, look at our fundraising. I mean they're normal celebrate. They're acting as if this is a celebratory moment for them. They're doing that publicly and they're doing that privately.
You know, some of the numbers they probably raised 4 million and 24 hours after the 25% from new donors, they have 16,000 volunteer signups in the 24 hours after the indictment news. And I think one thing that's important to understand, Krishna is exactly right, that the short term is very different than a general election calculation is that Trump has always been someone who is trying to win the person directly in front of him the minute, the hour, the day. So the idea that Trump and his team are not thinking about well, what happens if I win this nomination and now you have a lot of voters who don't love voting for someone who's been indicted. That's truly not a calculation you would expect someone like Trump to think of in the 48 hours after this news is broken.
I'm a crowd your party seems to basically saying whatever, whatever reservations they have privately, they're not acting like publicly with this. They're running around, well, being former mayor, I hope this DA did triage because their DA's throughout the country right now with a lot of violent crime, which is a big issue. And by the way, with a lot of white collar crime with the crypto and banking collapses. I hope this DA has his case for the sake of our country and did his triage.
And even Vance said it's a novel idea on itself. I mean that's risky for our country. I am surprised the other Republican candidates, I understand them saying this shouldn't be taken to court. What I don't understand is them going even with that is Donald Trump the person that wants to represent the values of the Republican Party?
The character of the Republican Party, especially when we as Republicans are challenging the values of what's being taught in our schools, then we can't go and say, but Donald Trump is our leader because he is not representing the values that I think we used to stand for. Secondly, how should the Biden campaign look politics? Will you like or not? You gotta do a politics of this.
What do you do if you're the Biden campaign? You stay out of the way. And I think that that's, that's what the White House strategy is. They don't want to be part of this story and they shouldn't be part of the story if they are forced to comment on it.
The answer is simply the law applies to everybody and we should trust our institutions, trust our legal system to get this right, not prejudice it. We don't even know the charges are. We haven't even begun the process of both sides presenting their evidence. This is, this is going to be a long process and they need to set the parameters of how they engage early.
And they start to do that. I want to pivot to the conversation which I mentioned, because I do think there's a, there seems to be a group of folks who believe if Trump's the nominee and Biden's nominee, there's going to be a vacuum in the middle that's exploitable to actually win this election. Do you buy that? You buy that that exists?
No, I don't buy that. And you know, there, I've been involved in a lot of presidential elections. If you ask that question at this point in a presidential race, are you in favor of this guy or this woman or the other guy, or do you want a third candidate that is not a Democrat or a Republican? You're always going to get that third candidate rising above.
But once you start to put names on it, actually talk about these, what they've done, that position changes dramatically. You're pretty bulk of this no labels situation. What's the likely that this actually happens? I think there's a fairly good likelihood if the two candidates are Biden and Trump because the vast majority of people don't think they're the candidates to run this country in the future in the White House.
And we haven't seen that before. We haven't seen these numbers before. We shall see how that plays out. I think there's gonna be a lot more conversation about this going forward.
We come back. States across the country are moving quickly this year targeting transgender Americans. I'm going to show you the spike in new laws around the country about sports, gender affirming care and Much more. Welcome back.
Data Download time. It's no secret that today's GOP only has one thing that unites the party around it these days and that's the culture wars. They think it's the only way they can motivate their base. Just take a look at how state legislation across the country and the rapid pace that profile Republicans have tried to pass laws that ban or restrict things that they deem different, at least personally.
And all of it seems to be targeting the LGBTQ community. Let's start with this issue of banning transgender students from participating in high school. Sport believer not There was no law in the books before 2020 that dealt with this. We're talking about, by the way, 1/2 of 1% of the overall population identifies as strange.
1/2 of 1%. The number of students is even less. Idaho was the first state, a bunch of them have joined since. And most Republican legislatures that haven't passed one are looking about passing a ban to do that.
On the issue of gender affirming care, fewer states have done that. But since 2021 you've seen nearly a dozen and more Republican legislators are considering bans legislation that would ban gender affirming care in those states for those under 18. Overall, the folks at ACLU have noted there's over 435 pieces of state legisl introduced into states that are targeting the LGBTQ community. And they gave it targeting in a negative way.
And when you look at it, even the issue of drag shows are being brought into this state. Tennessee was the first state to restrict drag shows. Who could go and where they could be showcased. Now federal judge on Friday has already put a pause on that law.
We'll see if it ever comes into fruition. Look, guess what? Fifteen other states are already considering legislation targeting drag shows. And when you look at the polling on this, it's a really one sided poll.
Look, overall the majority of Americans oppose these bans on gender affirming care. They oppose these restrictions on drag shows. But this opposition is made up only of Democrats and independents. A large majority of Republicans support these bans.
This is why it's being done. It does unify the Republican base, but it may turn off swing votes. Before we go to break. Baseball is back and in 1996 Tim Ruster sat down with 3 time MVP, 10 time World Series champion Yogi Berra, who for many people is more well known off the field for as many yogiisms.
You have eight entries into Bartlett's book of Quotations, more than Voltaire. Let me go through a few of them on the screen and get your understanding first. How can you think and hit at the same time? You can.
I don't think you can. I think I wrote too much away about the picture out there. Why can't I take it at the same time? Now?
If you want it out, this is what you also said. Half the things I said, I never said. Oh, boy, you know, I'll tell you the truth, and I don't even know I say these things. I really don't.
I could be sitting at the table with the family and all of a sudden they say, dad, you said another one. I said, what did I say? I didn't even know. I don't know.
I really don't. It ain't over till it's over. Another generation needs to be introduced to you when we come back. There's real money to be made in college sports these days, and it's not just by winning your March Madness practice.
I'm gonna talk to Charlie Baker, he's the new president of the ncaa, about the debate over how student athletes should be compensated after the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in their favor that they can welcome back. In September of 2019, California became the first state to pass a law that allowed college athletes to be paid for their own name, image and likeness, essentially make money off of that. Nil became shorthand for many a college sports fan. And nearly two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled 9 nothing against the NCAA deciding restrictions on, quote, education related benefits violated antitrust law.
And it has transformed college sports ever since. We now have a patchwork of state laws creating chaos for 1100 member institutions and 500,000 student athletes. The question is whether Congress will intervene and win. And now, perhaps reluctantly, the NCAA is actually wanting Congress to act.
This week, the House subcommittee held its first congressional hearing on college sports in this issue of compensation. It was the first hearing that they held in nearly two years. Joining me now is the new president of the ncaa, and he's now University Press. They hired the former Republican governor of Massachusetts, Charlie Baker, to do this tricky job these days.
He joins us from Houston where, Sadly for me, UConn defeated the university of Miami last night, setting up the Huskies to play San Diego State, which advanced to their first ever NCAA final on Monday night after a thrilling buzzer beater victory over Florida Atlantic. Governor Baker, welcome to the press. Morning, Jack. How are you?
I am good. So let me start with that hearing with Congress. This issue with name, image and likeness in this patchwork of state laws, what exactly do you want Congress to do here? I know normally you would want intervention, but given what's going on, what is it that you're hoping Congress does?
Well, I think you pointed out the intervention issues associated with states sort of going a variety of different directions, the pressure that puts on conferences and schools, because we do want to have sort of what I would describe as competitive equity here, a level playing field. And I think Congress has a chance to do what I would describe as consumer protections here. One athletic director I think, put it pretty well when they said that the only thing that's true right now about NAL is that everybody lies. And that puts families and student athletes and schools and coaches and athletic departments and everybody else in a place where they don't know actually what the market is.
And I think we should have a public registry of NIL deals. I think we should have what I would describe as financial literacy opportunities for families and student athletes, a certification process for agents, and uniform standard contract. And these are all things we talk to folks in Congress about. And I was thrilled to see them have a hearing on this.
You know, the professional leagues essentially have players associations which do everything you're describing. They register agents. There is some transparency, There is some rules to the road. So would that be a better way to go about this, collectively bargaining with student athletes?
Well, keep in mind the 500, as you point out. Yeah, 520,000 student athletes, the vast majority of them participate in programming at many, most of our 1100 schools. That is really what I would describe as the traditional way people think about college athletics, which is it's just part of the college experience, and it's a chance for people to grow and develop and sort of find their teammates and learn a lot about accountability and discipline. That environment is not the one that would make the most sense for something like that.
In fact, the student athlete who spoke at that hearing, Kaylee Mai, she's a softball player from Florida State, made pretty clear that she didn't think turning them all into employees was a good idea. And she also said something that's really important, which is this is something we need to get right. Let me play something Charles Barkley said on 60 Minutes last week. I'm sure you saw this, but let me play for the audience.
It's a travesty under disgrace. I'm so mad now how we can mess up something so beautiful. In the next three to five years, we're going to have 25 schools that's going to dominate the sports because they can afford players. And these schools who can't afford or won't pay players are going to be irrelevant.
Governor, I make a confession. I'm a huge University Miami fan. I love that football program, and I'm sitting here as a fan. I want to make sure, oh, gosh, this city has and have nots.
I hope my team's on the Hassan. Then you look back and go, whoa, wait a minute. We're going to have just what Barkley describes. Two major conferences.
They'll control all the sports, and everybody else looks like a club sport or D3. Is that where we're headed? Well, first of all, you just commented about the fact that this is the weekend of the Final Four in men's and women's basketball. First time ever, not no number one, number two, or number three seed made it to the Final Four.
I think maybe in some respects, people need to sit back a little bit and take a look at what's really going on out there. I love Charles Barkley as much as everybody else does. I think in some ways, the demonstrated competitive equity that we saw in the basketball tournaments on both the men's and women's side was a big statement about the fact that there are a lot of terrific athletes out there in a whole variety of ways that they can be supportive. And I think NIL plays a big role in that, if we get it right.
Yeah. Ironically, Nil in the transfer portal, which some people have said has been terrible for college sports, isn't it the reason why college basketball is so competitive? It's a big part of it. And the other thing I would say about the transfer portal, we should remember that if you look at the number of kids, I think in some respects because of the COVID pandemic, who've been transferring who aren't athletes, those numbers are also up dramatically.
I mean, some respects, what's going on with kids and sports in the transfer portal on the athletic side is in some ways a reflection of what's going on with kids in college generally coming out of the pandemic. And I think people should keep that in mind. We addressed this earlier sort of on the side, but directly. What do you believe the impact would be if California passes a law that says student athletes are employees of universities?
You know, student athletes, Division 1 program. What do you believe that would mean? Division 1 sports? Well, first of all, we should all be careful about getting too far ahead of ourselves with hypotheticals.
But what I would say is I talk to a lot of schools about this, and the big message you get from most of them is and this is true. I mean, everybody pays attention to the big time sports that they see on tv. But the vast majority of college sports don't look like that. And at most schools, the athletic program actually costs them money.
They don't make money on sports. And they offer it because it's a big piece of how they provide an experience for their student athletes. I think that's. Many people have done the analysis and they basically said it would be very hard for them to maintain the current programming.
They have. A lot of the sports that they offer would probably either have to go club or go away. And I don't think these are idle threats based on the conversations I've had with school leaders and administrators. This has been a banner couple of years for women's college sports.
We've seen huge ratings in the NCAA women's tournament. Caitlin Clark is arguably the most famous basketball player right now in either tournament, men or women. And yet the women's. You do not put the women's tournament up as a separate media rights deal.
Is that going to change? The last deal sort of lumped it in with every other NCAA sport that wasn't football. Are you going to separate out the women and show the real value of the women's tournament financially? I think.
I think the women's tournament this year has been sensational, both in terms of the viewership, but also in terms of the quality of the play. You had last year's player of the year and Leah Boston and this year's player of the year, Caitlin Clark faced off against each other in the most watched game NCAA history in a semi final, which was just terrific. I think this is definitely something that's on our radar. The program, I think, is exactly the right time peaking here because the contract is up.
We do have an opportunity to put it out separately and we're gonna work really hard to make sure that those student athletes, those schools, those programs get what I would describe as what they should get. Bottom line is you have this job at perhaps the most consequential time in the history of the ncaa. Governor Charlie Baker, thank you for coming on A chamber perspective. Thanks, I appreciate it.
Thanks. I appreciate it. Before we go, at least 27 people have died over the last two days. It's a major storm system ripped through the south and Midwest.
We want to let you know if you want help these communities with relief in your building, please consider donating one of these organizations we have vetted and we believe they're doing good work. That's all we have for today. Thanks for watching. We'll be back next week because it's Sunday.
It's Meet the Press. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now.
But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes.
Hope you listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.