This Sunday, document defense. President Biden forcefully defends his handling of classified documents after the special counsel declines to bring charges. I did not break the law. But is the president facing a bigger political risk after the special counsel raised questions about his age and memory?
My memory is fine. My memory, take a look at what I've done since I come present. I'll talk to Biden's campaign co-chair, Mitch Landrew, plus the art of no deal. Democracy is messy.
We crushed Crooked Joe Biden's disastrous open borders bill. Republicans reject a bipartisan border deal they demanded and then failed to impeach Biden's Homeland Security Secretary. The resolution is not adopted. The people at home sent me here to get stuff done and to solve problems.
What is the point of being a senator if you let Donald Trump make all of the decisions for you? If Congress won't fix the border, who will solve the problem? I'll talk exclusively to Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and encouraging Putin. Donald Trump says he would tell Russia to attack NATO allies who don't pay their bills.
No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want. Would the NATO alliance be in danger in a second Trump term? I'll speak to former Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey.
Joining me for insight and analysis are NBC News Chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander. I'm Navaaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, and Republican strategist Brendan Buck. 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, the Kristen Welcome. Good Sunday morning. On a week in which Republicans suffered embarrassing defeats on Capitol Hill, it was President Biden who wound up dealing with perhaps the biggest crisis.
Democrats are reeling, using words like nightmare and beyond devastating to describe special counsel Robert Herr's report on President Biden's handling of classified documents. The special counsel found no criminal charges against President Biden or warranted, but the report says the president, quote, willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen, including marked classified documents about Afghanistan and notebooks containing sensitive intelligence sources and methods, which he shared with a ghostwriter. That's an allegation Biden denies. The documents found in a badly damaged box near a collapsed dog crate of Mr.
Biden's Delaware garage, especially devastating the report puts what it calls Biden's diminished faculties at advanced age front and center. President Biden fired back Thursday. Something the special counsel said in his report is that one of the reasons you were not charged is because in his description, you are a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory. I'm well-meaning and I'm an elderly man and I know what the hell I'm doing.
You take responsibility for anything careless with classified material. I take responsibility for not having seen exactly what my staff was doing. Now, according to the report, the president did not remember key dates about his term as vice president and the report claims he did not remember even within several years when his son Bo died. How the hell dare he raised that?
Frank, when I was asked the question I thought to myself, wasn't any of their damn business. I don't need anyone to remind me when he passed away. And in a rare pushback from First Lady Jill Biden calling the special counsel report including the comments about Bo inaccurate and personal political attacks about Joe. But Democrats worry about the age issue already looming over President Biden's re-election bid.
76% of voters have major or moderate concerns about Biden not having the mental and physical health for a second term. That includes more than half of Democrats. It's an issue President Biden has had to address for years. If I were to run, I think they would judge me on my vitality.
Can I still run up the steps of air force too? Am I still in good shape? Do I have all my faculties? Am I energetic?
I think it's totally legitimate for people to ask those questions. This is for the voters to decide. Take a look. Look at me, see if I have the energy, see if I know what I'm talking about, and make their judgment.
It's a legitimate question to ask anybody. Watch me. This past week, President Biden confused the names of countries of three world leaders in separate events. Former President Donald Trump, who is 77, has had his own flub, saying Nikki Haley was in charge of the Capitol on January 6 instead of Nancy Pelosi.
He has pleaded not guilty to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified documents. And this report argues the two cases are different. While President Biden alerted authorities and cooperated with the investigation, former President Trump quote allegedly did the opposite in listening others to destroy evidence and then to lie about it. Trump fired back at that on Friday.
They ended up with the now famous raid on Mar-a-Lago. We're having a talk and they raided my house. If he's not going to be charged, that's up to them. But then I should not be charged.
And joining me now is Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Secretary Mayorkas, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you for being here. Thank you for having me, Tristan.
We are going to talk about what's happening on Capitol Hill, but first I do want to talk about that special counsel report that we just discussed. You obviously work very closely with President Biden as a member of his cabinet, and I wonder have you ever seen anything that makes you question or concerned about his mental faculties? No, and let me take a step back because I served as a federal prosecutor for 12 years. The responsibility of a federal prosecutor is to investigate and learn the facts and apply the law to those facts.
The prosecutor did this, the special counsel did this in the case, made a conclusion that there is no case closed, then made gratuitous, unnecessary, and inaccurate personal remarks, and those are improper. The most difficult part about a meeting with President Biden is preparing for it because he is sharp, intensely probing, and detail-oriented and focused. You are saying some of the details are gratuitous. The Vice President called what was in the report politically motivated.
This was a special counsel that was appointed by the Biden administration. I wonder how you can ask people to have faith in the Justice Department investigating Donald Trump and not investigating Biden. The Justice Department acts with unflinching integrity, and the Attorney General of the United States personifies that every single day as do the career prosecutors and everyone in the Department of Justice. This special counsel report is an unfortunate deviation from the norms that guide the Department of Justice throughout its history.
Do you think that the President compromised national security and his handling of classified documents? This report says that he stored some of the nation's most sensitive secrets in his garage. Is that responsible? It is my understanding that national security was not in any way compromised by the retention of documents.
The President, according to the report, cooperated fully with the special counsel's investigation. Let me ask you about what we are hearing from some Republicans. More than a dozen Republican lawmakers are now calling for the 25th Amendment to be invoked just to give our viewers a sense of what that means. It basically would mean the Cabinet would have the authority to start the process of trying to remove the President if he or she is deemed incapable of serving.
What is your reaction to those calls? Has that ever been discussed? Kristen, I don't engage in politics. I'm responsible for governing and following the President's agenda, which I scrupulously do.
I have to tell you, I have met with the President many, many times over the course of the past three years. I prepare intensely for those meetings. I follow up intensely from those meetings to make sure that I deliver the answers to the questions that he has posed. He is probing in detail and focused on the mission.
But as far as you know, the 25th Amendment has not been discussed. Not at all. Okay, let's move on to what's happening on Capitol Hill. House Republicans are planning to vote for a second time, as you know, to impeach you on Tuesday.
They didn't have the votes this past week. They accuse you of willfully not following the laws and therefore not securing the border and lying about having control of it. Mr. Secretary, these are serious allegations.
How do you respond? They're baseless allegations, Kristen, and that's why I really am not distracted by them and focused on the work of the Department of Homeland Security. I'm inspired every single day by the remarkable work that 260,000 men and women in our department perform on behalf of the American public. I've got a busy day today after the show, a busy day of work.
I've got a busy day Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and so on. Let me just ask you though, big picture. You have now been in your position for three years, and let's talk about what's happened during those three years. More migrants have crossed the border illegally last year than ever before.
The asylum cases backlog has more than tripled since 2019. You yourself have said that more than 85% of migrants crossing the border illegally are being released into the U.S. as they await their court dates. Let's just put impeachment aside for a minute.
Why do you deserve to keep your job, Mr. Secretary? Kristen, the data that you cite is a powerful example of why we need legislation to fix what everyone agrees is a broken immigration system. And you take a snapshot of the data over the past three years.
Let's take a look before the last three years. That case backlog, which is about 3 million cases, has been growing year over year over year. The time between when we encounter an individual at the border and the time of final adjudication of an asylum case has been years, five to seven years, four years in years. I remember when I entered the Department of Homeland Security in 2009, we were wrestling with these very same issues.
The system has not been fixed for 30 years. A bipartisan group of senators have now presented us with the tools and resources we need, a bipartisan group, and yet Congress killed it before even reading it. No doubt, there is gridlock on Congress, but do you bear responsibility for what is happening at the border with the president himself? It's called a crisis.
It certainly is a crisis, and we don't bear responsibility for a broken system, and we're doing a tremendous amount within that broken system. But fundamentally, Congress is the only one who can fix it. You testified for years, really, that the border is secure. And now in recent comments, President Biden says it's not secure.
Do you now agree with President Biden's assessment that it's not secure? Kristen, the challenges of the border have been longstanding. The president correctly noted that those challenges have existed for ten years. Do you agree with him?
In fact, even longer, there is no question that we have a broken system. There is no question that we have a challenge a crisis at the border, and there is no question that Congress needs to fix it, and we're doing everything we can within that broken system short of legislation to address what is a not just a challenge for the United States, but one throughout our region. NBC News is reporting that President Biden is actually right now, considering taking some executive actions to deal with the border. As you know, Republicans are calling for him to shut down the border right now, something that undoubtedly would face legal challenges.
But Mr. Secretary, why doesn't the president just shut down the border, and let the courts just try to stop him? Well, the fact of the matter of Kristen is that we have taken executive actions already. We continuously review what options are available to us, but those are always challenged in the courts, and whether or not they see the light of day and actually are able to be operationalized is an open question.
That is why the bipartisan group of senators actually prepared and presented a piece of legislation that would base it in statute, the ability to close the border for a limited period of time and extreme measure, and it would be immune from court challenge because it is statutorily based. If it were done legislatively, no doubt you wouldn't have these legal challenges, but isn't trying to do something better than doing nothing at all? Why doesn't President Biden try to shut down the border? Are you encouraging him to do that?
Well, we have already taken important steps. We certainly haven't done nothing. I will tell you, we issued a regulation, the circumvention of lawful pathways, that increased, that actually created a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for asylum seekers if they did not avail themselves of the lawful pathways that we built. And so we've done a tremendous amount.
It's very important to remember, we have removed, returned, or expelled more individuals in the past three years than the prior administration did in all four. Let me ask you because I just heard you say that you are reviewing what is available to you, which suggests that you may be considering taking new executive actions. Would that include potentially detaining families? Kristen, let me be clear about what I said.
We always explore what options are available to us that are permissible under the law, and if we think they are advantageous in achieving our mission, we institute them. We have made a decision that we will not detain families. So that's off the table, detaining families. You've rejected in the past, you still rejected, it's absolutely off the table.
That is not come back up, we rejected it some time ago. What about reinstituting the remain in Mexico policy? That is something that you terminated. Do you regret terminating it given that migration has increased in the wake of that, and are you considering reinstating it, working with Mexico to do that?
A few things about remain in Mexico. First of all, it depends upon Mexico's agreement. And Mexico has articulated publicly that it will not allow the reimplementation of remain in Mexico. Number one, number two, it's been challenged in the courts.
And number three, remember something that remain in Mexico was implemented in January of 2019. In 2019, there was almost a 100% increase in the number of encounters at our Southwest border over 2018. I have to ask you finally, here we are on Super Bowl Sunday. I know you were just out in Las Vegas.
You were dealing with security matters there. Are you concerned about any threats on this Super Bowl Sunday? Will the Super Bowl be safe? We have no specific credible threat posed to the Super Bowl.
We are always vigilant, always ready. I was visiting with 350 Department of Homeland Security personnel that dedicate themselves to the safety and security of the Super Bowl and to the safety and security of the American people every single day. All right, Secretary Mayorkas, thank you so much. Hope you have time to watch the Super Bowl tonight.
Appreciate you're joining us very much. And when we come back, the National Co-Chair of President Biden's 2024 campaign, Mitch Landrew joins me next. Welcome back. The White House and Biden campaign officials appear to have settled on a strategy, attacking Robert Herr and the Special Counsel Report as politically motivated.
Vice President Kamala Harris defended the President on Friday. The way that the President's demeanor in that report was characterized could not be more wrong on the facts, and clearly politically motivated. Gratuitous. Joining me now is Mitch Landrew, National Co-Chair for President Biden's campaign.
Welcome to Meet the Press. Thank you so much for being here. Great to be with you. Well, let's dive right into that report.
As initiated by the Special Counsel appointed by President Biden's Attorney General, do you, does the campaign accept this report as legitimate? Well, of course, first of all, this was a 15-month investigation. The President and his team fully cooperated. And based on the law and the facts, which is what lawyers and special counsels are supposed to look on, the conclusion was that the President had engaged in no wrong doing, period end of story.
But unfortunately, that's not where the Special Prosecutor left it. He decided to add on hominom gratuitous attacks about the death of the President's son, which everybody knows is just an incredible personal thing, the only parent who's lost a body. And then extra attacks that even senators like Mitt Romney and White House counsel and to Trump Cobb felt was just ridiculous. And you can have a lot of other Federal prosecutors that come out and say that.
That's the thing that really stung the most about it. The most important thing to remember, though, is the President was found to have been engaged in no wrong doing. Unlike President Trump, which has 91 felony counts pending against him. And by the way, in over all the depositions that President Trump has taken in those cases says he doesn't remember or doesn't know over a thousand times.
So they're swooning over whether or not the President remembered the year that his son died and therefore is not fit to be President. It's just really sad and below the belt and unnecessary. Well, just to be very clear, the report didn't say he wasn't engaged in any wrong doing. In fact, it was quite firm in the fact that he mishandled classified documents.
He just wasn't indicted and criminally charged. But let me follow up with you. The documents found in the President- No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You can't, no, no, no.
I'm not going to accept that premise. In an investigation, a special counsel determines based on the facts and the law about whether somebody engaged in criminal wrongdoing. And he found out that the President did. As a matter of fact, he's the only special counsel that's been engaged in this kind of activity that had to say that he could not indict somebody.
And that is a fact. And so that's the big takeaway from this report from a legal perspective. From a legal perspective, that is absolutely right. He said he was not going to indict somebody.
Thank you. Let me, though, ask this question. Because he didn't have the law on the facts to do it. Right.
Well, right. But he did say that classified documents were mishandled and he said that national security could have been jeopardized. But let me ask you this. But he didn't say national security.
No, ma'am. I'm sorry. He didn't say national security was compromised. He said it could have been.
He said it could have been. He said it could have been. But it was not. And the facts and the law suggested that the President was not engaged in criminal activity.
To be distinguished between the former President who right now has 91 felony counts pending against him in four different cases. So let's just keep the facts right. And let's not make false comparisons between the two, which unfortunately people do a lot of these days. Speaking of the former President, here is how President Biden referred to him.
His storage of classified documents. He was asked about the fact that Donald Trump stored them at his private resort in 2022. Take a listen. How that could possibly happen.
How one anyone could be that irresponsible. And I thought what data was in there that made compromised sources and methods. By that, I mean names of people who helped there, et cetera. And it's just totally irresponsible.
Was President Biden's handling of classified documents also totally irresponsible, given that they were found, for example, in his garage? Kristen, one of the reasons why there was a special counsel appointed was to gauge that very thing. You will also remember that Vice President Pence went through the same examination. And the conclusion was the same as it relates to Vice President Pence and then Vice President Biden.
The special counsel concluded that the law and the facts and the evidence suggested that they could not bring any criminal prosecution against President Biden. That is juxtaposed to the 91 felony counts in nature, in tone and in content. They're not even close to being in the same cases. But that's not what the most egregious thing is about this report.
It is this ad hominid attack that questioned the president's capacity. And I want to speak to that very clearly because I can testify because I've been working very closely with this president for the past two years. I've been knowing it for 30 years. I have met with him personally.
I've met with him with two people, five people, 10 people. I have been on trips with him, crisscrossing the country, rebuilding America based on this incredible infrastructure bill that was passed. And I'm telling you, this guy is tough. He's smart.
He's on his game. And a Secretary of New York has said a minute ago, when you go in to breathe the president, you better have your big boy pants on. And this kind of sense that he's not ready for this job is just a bucket of BS that's so deep. Your boots will get stuck in.
You guys don't agree with what you're saying. In fact, our NBC news poll found that 76% of voters are concerned about whether the president has the necessary mental and physical health to be president for a second term. What is the plan to convince voters otherwise? Well, let's just say two things.
This election is going to be about two men, but really two different visions for the country. President Trump, just the other night, confused what day of the week it was. He is confused who the leader of North Korea and China are. He's confused the leaders of Hungary and Turkey.
By the way, Speaker Mike Johnson was on the other day and he confused Iraq and Iran. And of course, President Trump doesn't know the difference between Nancy Pelosi and Nikki Haley. And last night, President Trump saw fit to basically dump on Nikki Haley's husband, who is serving in the military right now because he hasn't around. That's what he continues to do.
So the people of America are going to have to make a choice. Are they for a guy like Joe Biden who wakes up every day thinking about the people of America, thinking about how to lift people up? Or are they going to be for Donald Trump who is already set? And you can believe him when he says this.
Even though when his lips are lying, moving, he's usually lying, that he is going to be engaged in revenge and taking us backwards. I think the choice is clear. You know what Joe Biden remembers? He remembers how to build 46,000 infrastructure projects.
He remembers how to build one of the strongest economies in the world. He remembers how to make sure that the unemployment rate stays as low as it has 50 years and it creates that is why the president says, watch me. And the president has demonstrated an incredible amount of accomplishment in a few short years that outpace anything that Donald Trump has done, including creating 15 million jobs. People are watching him.
And again, 76% of them have those concerns. And so does some of his donors. This is what the Washington Post is saying. Quote, top Biden donors were fielding calls and text messages from anxious Democrats asking if other Democrats still had time to jump into the presidential race.
When is Gavin getting in? Or how about Whitmer or Shapiro buzzed around democratic circles over the last 24 hours? How do you respond to Democrats who say they want to see a change at the top of the ticket? I'm in the process of doing it right now.
And demonstrating that the president's accomplishment has really been second to none. And Joe Biden is going to get up every day. The one thing Joe Biden is never going to do is count on this. He is never, ever going to quit.
Because that's not what he's done his entire life, notwithstanding the fact that by the way, he lost another child around his life and he went to work. And then he had difficulty with this other son and he got up and he went to work and he's going to keep doing that as we move the country forward. Very quickly. Was it a mistake for him not to do the Super Bowl interview to miss talking to as many as 60 million people?
No, I don't think so. I think people really want to watch the Super Bowl tonight and think about football. They don't want to hear from a politician. So I think he made the right choice for himself at this time.
All right. All right. Mitch Langer, thank you so much for being here on this Sunday. I really appreciate it.
And when we come back, he says he's going to do everything he can to stop Donald Trump from winning former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie joins me next. Welcome back. While Democrats are whispering concerns about their party's nominee, former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been vocally campaigning against the Republican front runner calling endorsing Donald Trump in 2016 the biggest mistake of his political career. Joining me now is former Republican Governor Chris Christie.
He's the author of the new book, What Would Reagan Do? Life Lessons from the Last Great President. Governor Christie, welcome back to me. The president's coming here.
Thanks. We're going to dive right into this special counsel report that we've been talking about throughout the morning. Former Attorney General Eric Holder said this about the report. Quote, way too many gratuitous remarks and is flatly inconsistent with longstanding DOJ traditions.
Did this report cross any lines for you? I don't think so. And look, I did this, as you know, for seven years as the U.S. Attorney in the fifth largest office in the country.
The fact is they had to give the reasons why they weren't prosecuting when you start off the report by saying that he willfully and knowingly retained classified documents. Well, that's a violation of the law. So the question then for the prosecutor is then why aren't you bringing charges? And he gave two reasons essentially.
One was President Biden's memory, lack of memory, his condition. And secondly, was that President Biden cooperated once documents were discovered. He let them go in and do whatever they needed to do to get those documents retrieved them, as opposed to what President Trump did. Yeah.
Well, you know, it's interesting because Donald Trump called the decision not to prosecute President Biden, as you know, proof that there is, in fact, a two-tiered system of justice. Do you agree with that assessment? No, because in fact, if there was a two-tiered system of justice, what would have happened would have been they just would have announced that they weren't prosecuting and they wouldn't have given any of the reasons. I have to say the truth, in one respect, I think the Biden White House would have been happier if he had been charged than for that report to have come out in the midst of a reelection campaign.
The fact is when you're questioning what 70-some percent of American people are already questioning, whether Joe Biden is too old for the job. And now you have an independent counsel, a special counsel appointed by his own justice department, concluding that he couldn't bring a trial for that reason. That's much more damaging politically than whether people would have agreed or disagreed with him being charged. And look, again, this is the problem.
Both of these candidates are people who are being questioned for their competence and being questioned for their character. And that's a problem for the American people. Well, speaking of which, we got a new set of comments from former President Trump overnight. He basically is recounting a story, a conversation he says he had with one of the NATO leaders about paying their fair share in the face of these threats by Vladimir Putin.
Let's take a look. I'm going to get your reaction on the other side. One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, well, sir, if we don't pay, and we're attacked by Russia, will you protect us? I said, you didn't pay?
You're delinquent? He said, yes, let's say that happened. No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.
You got to pay. You got to pay your bills. What do you make of that? Well, look, this is why I've been saying for a long time that he's unfit to be President of the United States.
Now, it's one thing, and I think it's right for a president to say to a NATO member, hey, you got to pay the dues you need to pay. I think the American people would expect that if a president. But the problem with Donald Trump is he can't just stop there. He's got to say, I would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they wanted to you.
That is absolutely inappropriate for a president of the United States or a candidate for president of the United States to be saying. But it is consistent with his love for dictators. It's inappropriate. Do you think it poses a national security risk to make that kind of a comment?
What poses a national security risk is the possibility that he could be President of the United States again. That's what poses a national security risk because we need to take him out his word, Kristin. And the fact is that, as I said earlier, Donald Trump, when he came to office in 2016, was scared. He was afraid to be president.
He was afraid of mistakes he would make. He knew he was not ready. And so as a result, he listened to a lot of very good people around. General Mattis, General Kelly, and others about these issues.
In a second term, he would not. Well, you, of course, dropped out of the presidential race about a month ago. But you say you are still determined to stop former President Trump to reaching the Oval Office. Again, how far are you willing to go to stop Donald Trump?
I'm here, aren't I? That should answer your question. Well, have you ruled out running as a third-party candidate? Look, I think that for anybody right now, what we should be focused on is looking at how best to serve the country.
And what I'm so concerned about in the primary was that our party, many of the things that I said, members of our party were saying in private all the time. You know they say it to you, too, about Donald Trump in private. But they're unwilling to do the hard work that's necessary to get out there and do it. Listen, Kristin, the primary was over at the first debate.
When six of the eight people raised their hands, said they supported them as a convicted felon. I'm not a third-party run guy. Look, I can't see anybody doing that at the moment. But, you know, no one knows what's going to happen as we go forward.
I've said this. Someone would have to see a path to 270 electoral votes to do it. And, you know, I've even taken a look at that. I've even taken a look at that.
Have you spoken to no labels? They obviously are interested in you. I have not spoken to anyone at no labels, nor has anybody from my campaign done that. Let me ask you, in 2016, you told wary Republicans that if they weren't working to elect Donald Trump, they were working to elect Hillary Clinton.
Let me put that back to you now. If you aren't working to elect President Biden, are you working to elect President Trump, former President Trump? No, I don't think so. I think what we have in this race is two really, really bad choices.
But, how is it different? Those are the choices. It is different. It is different because, well, for this time, we don't know if we're going to have a third choice or not.
And so, I'm not going to make any commitment. The one commitment I will make to you this morning is I'm not voting for Donald Trump under any circumstances. Now, who I might vote for? I'll wait to see the complete field before I make my judgment.
Do you rule out voting for President Biden? I can't see myself voting for President Biden. But you don't rule it out? No, you look.
I can't see myself voting for him because I don't agree with his policies. And I have serious questions about his competence to serve in other four years. So, do I rule it out? I can't imagine doing it.
My guess is, Kristen. If those are the only two choices, I'll move to the Senate race in New Jersey, and that'll be my first vote. But, you know, you keep talking about the fact that a third party likely won't get to 270. So, it looks like those are going to be your two options.
You've called Donald Trump a dictator, a threat to the democracy. So, why not vote for and campaign for his alternative if your goal is to stop Trump? If you disagree, look, you have two different problems here. You have someone who, in Joe Biden, who I think doesn't physically look up to serving other four years, whose policies I disagree with in the main.
You have Donald Trump, who I agree with a number of his policies, but who I believe his character absolutely disqualifies him for the presidency. Those are two awful choices. And by the way, Kristen, that's what about 70% of the American people are saying right now, is they don't like either one of those choices. And so, what I'd say about a third party candidate is this.
In my lifetime, I've never seen the situation more asking for a viable third party candidate, but whether that will happen or not, I don't know. Okay, let's talk about your new book, What Would Reagan Do? You write, at this divided, self-consumed moment in American history, what we most certainly don't need are any more visions of American carnage or a leader who promises that if given a second term, he'll be our retribution. Retribution was a word that never once entered Reagan's White House vocabulary.
Can the GOP be the party of Reagan and Trump at the same time, Governor? No, they can't be, because they can't be two more diametrically opposed men than Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump. Ronald Reagan saw mourning in America. Donald Trump saw American carnage.
Donald Trump sees things in terms of retribution for himself. The only time retribution was ever used by Ronald Reagan is when he was going after America's enemies. Let me ask you about something that Liz Cheney has said. She's obviously said she's determined to defeat Donald Trump as well.
She thinks that House Republicans have been so co-opted by Donald Trump that it would be better to have Democrats in control of Congress. That it presents a quote, threat if there is a Republican majority when it comes time to certify the election. Do you agree that a Republican majority in and of itself is a threat? Well, I'd say this.
I mean, if you listen to at least the fanics quotes this week of saying if she were vice president, she wouldn't have certified the election and she's a part of House leadership, that's certainly a concern. But what I would say is I want to see who gets elected. You look at folks like Michael Lawler in New York or Mark Mullen Arrow in New York. Those are the kind of Republicans who will be responsible about certifying elections.
I don't think they'll ever get to a majority not to certify the election. Have you considered leaving the Republican party? No. No.
No. I am ready to change the Republican party. I am a Republican. And that's what I'm going to continue to be.
And I don't want to change the party like I did before. And I wish that more people on our party would look to do the same thing. Very quickly on Taylor Swift, the conspiracy theories that she somehow trying to get Biden elected. Ridiculous.
Ridiculous. Look, Taylor Swift is one of the great American success stories. We should be celebrating her not having all these crazy conspiracy theories. But this is the kind of thing that Donald Trump brings about.
All right. Well, I know your beloved Dallas Cowboys aren't in the game. My Eagles aren't in the game. We'll watch anyway.
We will. Absolutely. Thanks for being here. And when we come back, it is Super Bowl Sunday.
Our Meet the Press Minute looks at the big business behind the sport. That's next. Welcome back. If it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press.
And once a year, it's also the Super Bowl. Three decades ago, Buffalo Bills superfan Tim Russert moderated the broadcast from Pasadena. Former quarterbacks Roger Starbucks and Jack Kemp joined Tim to talk about the business behind the game. Super Bowl is expected to make $30 million.
Doesn't this become just a big business and not the sport that you both played in? It is definitely a big business. But it's exciting, big business. It builds on itself.
It's like a two-week tail game party right now. Companies get involved. It's a reward system for their people and it's an excitement. So I think it's a healthy big business.
We recognize that this is a sport. It's a game. It's entertainment. It's business.
It's competitive. It's Darwinian. It's survival. And it's today bigger than life itself in many different ways.
So the players are doing well. Hopefully there's a profit to be made. It's providing a lot of jobs and a lot of opportunity. And at the same time, it's a tremendous form of entertainment.
That's why you guys are here holding Meet the Press on Super Bowl Sunday. Russert just wanted tickets. That's called sports journalism, Bob. Bet those were good tickets.
When we come back, can President Biden overcome concerns about his age and memory? The panel is next. Welcome back. The panel is here.
NBC News Chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander and co-anchor if we can today. I'm Nana Vaz, co-anchor of PBS NewsHour. Brendan Buck, former adviser to House speakers Paul Ryan and John Boehner. And former White House press secretary Jen Psaki, host of Inside with Jen Psaki.
Thank you guys for being here on Super Bowl Sunday. It is a jam-packed one. Peter, let me start with you because you were working your sources overnight. You got this extraordinary statement fundraising email from the first lady basically blasting the special counsel report.
What are your sources telling you about that and the potential shift in strategy? Well, she said among other things in that statement, she said that this Robert Herr, the special counsel, was trying to score political points that you don't measure the death of your son in years. You measure it in grief. I spoke to a series of officials including at the campaign, a senior campaign adviser saying basically the thinking behind this was if the special counsel is going to be attacking our son and using it as a political weapon, then she's going to have something to say about it, which is exactly why she spoke out.
And a person who's close to the first lady told me that she was directly involved in the crafting of this fundraising email. Jen, you know well, it's not always the case that it's like that. She said among other things that she wanted to speak out in real American mom terms. It wasn't just inaccurate that it was inhumane.
And then she also wanted to make another argument that the first lady did there. She said that Americans benefit from each of the president's 81 years, his experience, his expertise is what's allowed him to get things done quickly about the strategy going forward. I think a lot of folks as you indicated say, you got to hear more from the president himself, the campaign, excuse me, the White House is focused on doing more of that, sending them out to some of the key battlegrounds. I think we'll see some of that this week for more off the cuff authentic conversations with real Americans.
It does expose him to the vulnerability though is that he repeats some of these gaps that sort of underscore this concern. It's such a great point, Peter. Jen, I talked to sources who say the gaffster baked in, it's who Joe Biden is. He's the only one who can get out and fix this.
And yet here we are on Super Bowl Sunday for a second year in a row. He declined to do the Super Bowl interview. Was that a mistake? The chance to not see 60 million viewers?
And what do you make of what Peter's saying, the shift in strategy? Well, look, I think it's a close call if you're sitting in the White House because frankly, the media environment has massively changed since that Tim Russer close of him hosting Meet the Press from the Super Bowl. That just would never happen today. They know that.
The next year will be at the Super Bowl. Maybe if you're them, you're calculating first of all, they were asked to cut it down to three minutes. Any smart reporter, which CBS has plenty, would have asked them about things like Gaza and events in the world. People are just trying to have chicken wings at this point.
So I will say just to add to Peter's point, I mean, if you're sitting in the White House and on the campaign right now, you're absolutely banging your head against the wall at the way that the Thursday report has been covered, given all of the things that have happened this week, including, and I know you asked Chris Christie about this, the fact that Donald Trump yesterday suggested that Vladimir Putin should have free rein in attacking NATO allies. And what do we see when we wake up this morning? Wall to wall coverage of whether a guy who's four years older than his opponent is too old to be president. And we are going to get to NATO.
Part of the job to bring that to the front is the president's job to bring that and attack his opponent. He's not taking opportunity on Super Bowl Sunday. He's not taking really any opportunities. And we hear him.
That's not true. It's not being covered. He has traveled just as much as Donald Trump, as Barack Obama. It is hard to break through the cloud of Donald Trump in this media environment.
That is true. You know what's going on? When he's done fewer interviews, fewer press conferences than his predecessors. And we hear this.
We heard from his, spoke to people earlier. We're led to believe that there's two Joe Biden's. There's one behind closed doors, who's super shocked, who's not showed his age at all. And then when we step out, we see him every time.
It's just not there. And we have to imagine there are people making a decision because they are behind closed doors, and we're not talking about 50%, 76% say they have these concerns. It's a significant, significant amount of people who are worried about this, and the majority of Democrats, to Brendan's point. We know, look, the president's defense has always been, you asked me about my age.
He says, watch me. Watch me do the work. And the fact is, the chances to watch him are just rare. He's done much fewer interviews.
He says fewer news conferences than both Presidents Obama and Donald Trump at this point. And his presidency. I know we all have interview requests in. And this president would love to speak with you.
But the fact is, people are concerned. Democratic officials on the ground are also concerned. Not necessarily those who are in the room with him. They say he is sharp.
He is competent. But they're worried about the growing perception. And they say, well, what do you think about it? When the polls ask, are you worried about President Biden's age?
People say yes. But the polls aren't asking is, are you so worried you're not going to vote for him against a man who's pinned four times and died in his facing 91 felony counts? And that is where the rubber means the right thing. That's the question.
Well, and the question also, Jen, how much buzz is there in Democratic circles about changing the top of the ticket? What is in the Washington Post? What I read effective? Well, first of all, look, I was in the Biden world for about a year and a half from an official basis.
And if they, every time there was an anonymous person in the Washington Post or any outlet suggesting that they wanted someone to change it at the top of the ticket, if they listened that every time, they'd be in the field position under their desk. I don't actually hear a lot of people saying that they think that's a reality of what may happen. There's always speculation of looking for the magical unicorn of somebody who has 50 years of foreign policy experience, who's also 37 years old and can run across the field at the Super Bowl to campaign for President. That doesn't exist.
What the Biden campaign needs right now is for people to realize that. He is going to be the nominee. This is the choice. Peter, let me ask you about the point that Jen brings up about NATO.
We all woke up to these comments that he had made overnight effectively inviting Putin to attack NATO countries that don't pay their fair share. This is President Biden's strength for in policy. Where does the campaign think that they can try to make this distinction with President Biden? Well, I think there are a couple of things.
One of the points that Jen just made right there. It's obvious that they view Donald Trump as a real in terms of a contrast campaign as a real threat, not just to NATO, but to the United States and to the global order that exists right now. Think about the conversations you're hearing among NATO members, some of which are coming out openly right now about the real concern that the U.S. certainly under a new Trump administration would be less reliable.
And there's no one who would be more concerned about that right now than not a NATO member, though he would like to be, which is Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine. Right now, they are already short on ammunition as the president is trying to get new aid to Ukraine, $60 billion worth, new aid to Israel and the border plan as well. But it was ultimately the Republicans, as the White House wants to be on offense about, they want to focus on the Republicans who said no to this. That's the message they think they should be focusing on among others.
And Brendan, Ukraine aid is still being held up. They're still fighting over that and aid to Israel. And Ukraine, as Peter says, says, we can't continue to fight this war without this aid. Yeah, look, I had a lot of bad weeks on Capitol Hill in my time, but the last week was nothing short of a train wreck.
But it is the job then of the president to call it out. And it's not a novel strategy. Barack Obama ran very successfully against House Republicans and got himself reelected. Bill Clinton did the same thing.
At some point, you need to see them take advantage. It also doesn't really matter. And that's what I think is missing. The leadership from the White House to come in and set the tone of the discussion that we're having, and so far, I don't think I've really seen it.
I just want to say too, on this NATO point, one of the things that's obviously a political issue, we're talking about the campaign. But I spoke to the former NATO chief not too long ago, and he did point out the one good thing former president did, former President Trump did rather, was get the NATO allies to increase their contributions, which is a good thing for the transatlantic. Which was increasing before that under Obama, just correctly. But he also says, look, as much as our allies are watching and they're waiting to see whether America moves towards a more isolationist posture, which very well could under another Trump presidency, our adversaries are also watching.
And this axis of autocracy is that he points to China and North Korea and Russia. They are very much probing for weaknesses right now, even just the conversation about a weekend alliance is bad for national security. Well, that's why the president said you remember former president Trump said he would end aid in Ukraine within 24 hours of becoming president here. You speak about service today.
You're also reminded we talked about the NATO comments from the former president Trump. Just yesterday he made other comments where he was mocking Nikki Haley's husband, the combat veteran. It's widely known as serving overseas right now in Africa. And he said, where is he?
He's not side by side with his wife. I think that's what's in so well with the military commitment. Yeah, got a sharp rebuke from Nikki Haley and a lot of other Republicans as well. Thank you guys for a great panel.
That is all for today. Thank you for watching. Enjoy the Super Bowl, everyone. We will be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's me, the press.
I'm not giving you advice on how much for yourself. Search parent chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.