This Sunday, law and order. Today, we prove that noise above the law. A judge orders Donald Trump to pay over $350 million after finding him liable for fraud. A fine of $355 million for doing a perfect job.
And now a data set for his first criminal trial in the New York hush money case. I'm gonna have to sit here for months on a trial. I think it's ridiculous. It's unfair.
While the district attorney prosecuting Trump in Georgia takes the stand as a judge decides whether to remove her from the case. You're confused. You think I'm on trial? These people are on trial for trying to steal an election in 2020.
How will the GOP frontrunner's legal liabilities impact the 2024 election? Plus, Russian threat. The White House says Ukraine is running out of ammunition. And urging Republicans in Congress to act.
History is watching. While Putin's top critic dies in prison. Putin is responsible. And the House intel chair faces backlash for warning of another threat.
A new space that could target US Satellites. I'll talk exclusively to Republican Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio. And political motives. Even a trusted FBI informant has alleged a bribe to the Biden family.
An FBI informant at the center of the GOP efforts to impeach President Biden has been charged with lying. It's been outrageous effort from the beginning. Will impeachment efforts fade? I'll speak with Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota.
And in our Meet the moment conversation, Patty Davis, the daughter of Ronald Reagan. What do you think your father would say about our current state of politics? I think he would be really scared for our democracy. Joining me for insight and analysis are Mara Liasson, national political correspondent for npr, Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher, and Republican strategist Sarah Fagan.
Welcome to Sunday. It's Meet the Press from NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in Telev. This is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. Good Sunday morning.
We are one week out from the South Carolina Republican primary, but this week, the front runner, former President Trump, was on defense. His legal battle's growing Biden impeachment efforts suffering a setback and mounting concerns about how he would confront Vladimir Putin if he's reelected. On Friday, the former president faced a stunning legal and financial defeat. A judge in New York ordered him to pay a massive $355 million penalty, an amount which could rise more than 450 million with interest.
The ruling also bars Trump from personally running a business in New York for three years. The judges and prosecutors that were dealing with me are essentially all the same. Different rappings, tone, manner, but always the same. The blow to Trump's business comes after the special counsel investigating Hunter Biden charged a former informant at the center of the impeachment case against President Biden was lying to the FBI.
Leading House Republicans have repeatedly pointed to intelligence from that informant as central to their case for impeaching the president. Even a trusted FBI informant has alleged a bribe to the Biden family, who's one of our most trusted, highest paid, most credible FBI informants. That, to me, is really the heart of this matter. The most corroborating evidence we have is that 1023 form from this highly credible confidential human source.
An FBI informant at the center of the impeachment inquiry into you has been indicted for allegedly lying. Your reaction to that and should the inquiry be dropped? He is lying and it should be dropped. And it's just been a, it's been outrageous from the beginning.
Now, all of that comes against mounting tensions with Russia. Ukrainian troops were forced to withdraw from a key town on the Eastern front. The highest profile retreat by Ukrainian forces in months. Ukraine aid appears stalled on Capitol Hill this week.
The Senate passed a Ford aid package for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan. But so far that appears to have no path in the House. It's about time they step up, don't you think? Sit on a two week vacation.
Two weeks, they're walking away. Two weeks. The idea would need anything more to get the Ukraine aid. I mean, I mean, this is in light of a former president's statement that saying Russia, if they haven't paid the due to us, go get them.
Come on. On Friday, Russian authorities announced that opposition leader Alex Navalny, Putin's fiercest critic, had died at a penal colony in Siberia where he was being held. Ukrainian President Zelensky pleaded for more help after the murder of Alexei Navalny. It's absurd to perceive Putin as a supposedly legitimate head of a Russian state and he is a thug who maintains power through corruption and violence.
House Intelligence Chairman Republican Mike Turner caused the star on Capitol Hill this week after he issued an extraordinary statement calling on the White House to declassify information about an unnamed, quote, serious national security threat. The new intelligence now public indicates that Russia is moving closer to developing an anti satellite weapon for use in space that would have the ability to destroy US Satellites. Late Saturday, I spoke with Chairman Turner from Munich where he has been meeting with European allies. Joining me now is House Intelligence Chairman, Republican Mike Turner.
Chairman Turner, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you, Kristen, appreciate it. Well, we appreciate having you from Munich. As you know, you created a bit of a firestorm in Washington this week when you sounded the alarm about the national security threat related to a Russian anti satellite weapon.
The New York Times is now reporting that the concern is whether Russia might put a real nuclear weapon in space. Based on the intelligence you have seen, how serious is the threat? Well, the threat is very serious. Everyone who's looked at use the same language that I have.
It is a very serious threat. I'm very glad that the administration is beginning to take action. We met with Jake Sullivan and he began to lay out a plan that hopefully would begin to address this. I understand Secretary Blinken here at Munich with leaders from China and India, according to how the New York Times is reporting.
That's what would be an important big step to try to avert this. President Biden has said this is not a nuclear threat though. Do you agree with that assessment? How should people be doing this?
Well, I can't. I can't confirm or deny this, but I have called for is the administration to declassify this. I mean, my concern is that this is kind of like the Chinese spy balloon and the administration is kind of hiding perhaps, you know, some inaction. The.
But as this becomes more and more public, the administration grapples with what we're dealing with. I think they are going to be taking serious. I think they will be taking action. And that obviously is the goal.
Well, look, some of your colleagues expressed concerns that you were causing a panic with this warning. Others worried that you were jeopardizing intelligence. Was the way that you sounded this alarm about this threat responsible Chairman Turner? So our rules under the committee, and really the purpose for our committee is when we receive intelligence that the House representatives should view that we have the ability to share.
But the rules provide that we're supposed to first do this in consultation with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which we did. And including our statement which we sent to the Office of Director of National Intelligence and received no objections whatsoever. Our committee voted 23 to 1 to vote this out of the committee and send it to the members of Congress believing that they needed to know this information. And also the statement that we issued to the members was signed both by me and my ranking member.
So this was not just an action by myself, but I am glad after meeting with Jake Sullivan that the administration is taking this seriously and will now be able to see action from the administration. All right, well, let's talk about Ukraine specifically. A key city has now fallen to Russian forces. President Zelensky in his remarks there in Munich called for more U.S.
a, calling it vital. But many House Republicans have argued the US can't keep sending billions of dollars without a clear strategy. You've spoken to Zelensky. Is the Republican Party in danger of basically surrendering Ukraine to Vladimir Putin?
Well, the speaker has made commitments to secure the funding for for Ukraine. We met with Zelensky today. We did meet in the backdrop of Ukraine troops having conceded land to Russia as a result of shortage of stockpiles of weapons. Zelensky described the math that he's facing of dwindling stockpiles.
At the same time, Russia is turning to both Iran and North Korea for weapon systems. Zelensky, of course, did not blame his current situation nor boycott today on the delayed supreme, although he did indicate that he's certainly worried about and that the delay could cause a gap in weapons getting to Ukraine. Those in attendance of the U.S. delegation certainly pledged their support.
And I do think that there is an opportunity when we get back to Washington to move this important aid package forward because it is so critical if Vladimir Putin is a murderous thug and what he is doing in the atrocities and war crimes in Ukraine need to be responded to. I'm speaking to the mayor of Kyiv today and he was saying this is the front line of the authoritarian regimes and democracy and it is. Well, as you know, President Zelensky has been asking for this aid since October for five months now. Has Speaker Johnson given you any assurances that he is going to bring Ukraine aid to the floor?
Well, President Johnson has made a number of public statements committing to finding a pathway for the aid for Ukraine. I believe him. I think that we will and this does need to get done. This is absolutely critical for US Support for Ukraine and to oppose Russian aggression.
But as you know, a lot of Republicans oppose this. Chairman Turner, do you believe Donald Trump's opposition to sending more funding to Ukraine is the reason why it doesn't have more support among Republicans? Well, you know, certainly people are very disappointed that the negotiations on the border deal in the Senate broke down and did not result in a plan. Now, the House of representatives passed HR2, which would have resulted in closing the border.
They remain in Mexico policy of the prior administration and would have allowed for moving forward with aid. Ukraine Republicans asked for the border deal. A lot of Republicans said that the Senate deal was the best deal that they'd seen in decades. But sticking on this question, do you place some responsibility on Donald Trump for the reason that more Republicans don't support sending more a to Ukraine, which you have now just said is critical.
It is critical, and I think there's certainly sufficient support in both the House Representatives and the Senate in order to get that aid package done. I think members who are in opposition, you know, have had their own path to get there of their own concerns. But I do know that if you look at this issue of the. The effects of allowing Russia to continue in insecurity and the fact that it would jeopardize other areas of Europe, this is very, very important, the United States to stand strong and stand with Ukraine.
Well, let's talk about Russian aggression. Former President Trump recently said he would encourage Russia to invade NATO countries who he says haven't paid their bills. You have endorsed him. Are you comfortable with him saying that, Chairman?
This is what I know. When Donald Trump was president, he actually increased funding to NATO itself. He continues to push a country to fully fund to meet the 2% commitment that each of them have. I know that his, his work is important to get increased funding, Ukraine, increase money to NATO.
You're already seeing NATO countries begin to spend more as a result of Donald Trump's words. I think that's kind of important. He's motivating them to do so. But I think he is very, very strong in his support for NATO.
But, Mr. Chairman, the words that he said this week, he said, I would encourage them, Russia to do whatever the heck they wanted. You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills.
Are you comfortable with that? This is why. No, Donald Trump's political rallies don't really translate into Donald Trump's actual policies. If you look at his policies, if you look at his record, he actually increased funding for NATO, increased the European Reassurance Initiative, and in fact, for Ukraine.
He was the first president to give lethal weapons to Ukraine. So I think his record is strong. I think that's what's important. As we're having this interview, former President Trump has not yet spoken out on the death of Putin.
Opposition leader Alexi Navalny. President Biden said Russia is responsible for his death. You met with Navalny's widow in Munich. What did she tell you?
Mr. Chairman, during a dramatic moment here, she took the stage at the Munich Security Conference just as the war was learning that Navalny had passed. She expressed her surprise, that, really disbelief that her husband was dead. She later then met with the US Delegation.
We prayed with her, we shared her sorrow. And certainly she points the finger directly at Vladimir Putin, who had previously poisoned Navalny with a military nerve agent. And then of course, imprisoned him. And now Navalny is dead.
This is certainly very troubling. It's part of the murderousness that we see both in Ukraine and here as the record of Vladimir Putin. And it certainly shows how dangerous he is. Well, I guess the big question now is what happens next?
President Biden has said he's considering his response. What do you think the consequences should be? I think that as a result of Navalny's death, that we should even be that more strong in funding Ukraine and passing this in the House, in the Senate, and dedicated Navalny's in his legacy, sending a message to Putin. Well, let me ask you about another headline this week.
A former FBI informant has been charged with lying about Joan Hunter Biden seeking millions of dollars of bribes from Ukrainian company. Allegations are really central to the Republicans effort to impeach the president. Now, you voted to support this impeachment inquiry. Do you think it's responsible to continue this inquiry, given these charges against this FBI informant?
Absolutely. This is, this inquiry, and it is an inquiry is based upon actual bank records, documents, transactions of money, large sums of money, and doing an inquiry as to how these funds got to the Biden family from international sources. China, Russia, Ukraine. That is certainly an issue that Congress needs to take up.
I think the investigation will continue. But Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan said just a few weeks ago that the most corroborating evidence comes from this informant's allegations, and they're at the heart of the of the impeachment case. Even before that, Senator Lindsey Graham said to me, there's no smoking gun. So can you justify continuing with this impeachment inquiry?
I think I have to continue until it reaches its natural conclusion. But I'm not surprised at all that a business associate and associate of the Biden family might be untruthful. But we'll just have to continue to see what the bank records, the transactions tell, how that story unfolds. I believe that Jeremy Comer's doing a great job in this.
Just to be clear, he was an FBI informant, not necessarily an associate. I do want to turn to Trump's legal battles. On Friday, a judge ordered him to pay more than $350 million in his civil fraud case and has barred him from running a business in New York for three years. Do you trust someone who isn't allowed to run his own business to run the country, Mr.
Chairman? Actually, I don't trust this court decision. Being a practicing lawyer in commercial transactions. I think the whole premise of the case, which all legal analysts have said is unusual, is not really justifiable.
We'll have to see ultimately how the appeals run in this case. But I think if this case stands, it's going to be a threat to really just all businesses, including those who are currently operating New York. But as you know, Mr. Chairman, this is not the only time that Mr.
Trump has been fined for his business practices. In 2019, he was ordered to pay $2 million amid revelations that his charity misused funds. He was ordered to pay fines in 2018 related to his now defunct university. Does that undercut his trustworthiness as a leader?
You know, all of those issues were taken into consideration as the country elected him to president last time. And his record as president is what we really need to look at. Our country was stronger. Our economy was stronger.
And I think our border certainly being secured by the most important issue that Americans who look at the 8 million people who have gone across the border during the Biden administration is absolutely an invasion. This is something that President Trump had addressed. And the fact that President Biden reversed by executive orders that those issues have been put in place to protect our country are going to be important, diverse. Mr.
Chairman, as you know, the border migration has been an issue for decades under Republican Democratic presidents because there hasn't been comprehensive immigration reform. But let me ask you about something else. Because the House is on recess for two weeks, you only have a handful of days to avert a government shutdown. Do you think a government shutdown is inevitable given that?
Well, I'm absolutely opposed to government shutdown. And I do think that Speaker Johnson is diligently working with the leadership of the House and the Senate to put together a package that hopefully can pass the House and Senate and ethic. He certainly worked to ensure that we don't have a government shutdown. But I'm adamantly opposed government shutdown.
I do believe that it is detrimental not only to our country, but also our government. All right. Well, we will have to see what happens. Chairman Mike Turner, thank you so much for joining us for thanks for having me.
Really appreciate it. Thanks for Listen, when we come back, Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota joins me next. Welcome back. NBC News has learned that special counsel Robert her who investigated President Biden's handily classified documents, will Testify next month, March 12 before the House Judiciary Committee.
Her founding evidence was not strong enough to establish guilty on the reasonable doubt. Republicans on the committee wrote to Attorney General Merrick Garland asking that he provide the full transcript of hers interview with President Biden. Joining me now is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar. Senator Klobuchar, welcome back to Meet the Press.
Thank you. It's great to be back on. Thanks, Kristen. Well, it is great to have you, Senator.
Let's start right there. We do expect the special counsel, Robert, her to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. Will the Senate Judiciary Committee call her to testify? Should it?
Well, that is up to Senator Durbin, but I will say that Hur is conducting his own investigation and he has concluded very clearly that there was no criminal liability here for the president. And that was his focus. Right. And that got decided.
And I think there are many other things that we need to do on the Judiciary Committee, including passing some legislation when it comes to tech, including many other issues related to fentanyl and the like that we're focused on. But again, that will be Senator Durbin's call. Let me ask you this. The report described President Biden as a, quote, elderly man with a poor memory.
Do you think the White House should allow the release of the full transcript without claiming executive privilege for the sake of transparency? Senator, you know, that is going to be, again, up to the president and his lawyers. But I gotta comment on this just from my own personal experience. I was on Air Force One with the president going from Minnesota to Wisconsin for going from Washington, D.C.
to Wisconsin for an infrastructure project. And I was with the president for over an hour and talked about so many things, domestic, international. He was focused. His recall was good.
It was the same experience that my colleagues had who met with him for hours, Democrats and Republicans, about the Mideast only a few weeks ago. And so I think that we've got to evaluate what's happening right now by one what he has done, which is bring us out of this pandemic first time that we're finally seeing negotiation of prescription drug prices and focus on what matters to the American people and compare what he is doing to what we've got as the alternative on the Republican side, which is Donald Trump, who has nothing but standing up week by week for chaos. Well, Senator, you take me to my next point, which is on 2024. As you know, concerns have been growing for quite some time within your party about President Biden's ability to win a second term.
The latest person to express this, Ezra Klein of the New York Times, who said this week, quote, he is not up for this. He is not the campaigner he was even five years ago. The way he moves, the energy in his voice. The Democrats denying decline are only fooling themselves.
Senator, what is your reaction to that stark assessment, my reaction is, as someone who ran against Joe Biden, as someone who has spent significant amount of time with Joe Biden, that he is up for this job. And again, I just keep looking at the fact, country, the gdp, our unemployment rate, the fact that we're now at the place where we can tackle the challenges before us, which is things like housing and childcare. And then I look, you gotta look at the alternative here as well. Joe Biden has been standing up for women's health care.
Joe Biden is not the one that is called for a national abortion ban. Joe Biden is standing up for women's health care and believes that women should make their own decisions about their health care and not politicians. That is a stark difference. I look at the facts, the actual numbers.
When you look across the country, the fact that in New York, Congressman Suozzi won that race, swinging it by 16 points because he stood up for what Joe Biden is standing up for, infrastructure, finally doing something at the border on a bipartisan basis and giving the president the emergency powers that he needs, standing up against election deniers. You look at what happened in Kentucky with Governor Bashir, the abortion measure that was on the ballot in Ohio, the Supreme Court race in Wisconsin. Time and time again, the American people have stood with the policies and the work of Joe Biden because they do not want to go back to the chaos and madness of Donald Trump. Senator, let me just follow up with you a little bit here because you cite those figures on the economy, and yet the vast majority of Americans say they are not feeling it when it comes to the economy.
They give President Biden low marks on the economy. It's not resonating with voters. Why do you think. You obviously ran against President Biden in 2020.
He promised that essentially he would build a bridge to the next generation. Do you think it's time to pass the torch again? I'm a believer in President Biden because I believe he is a good, moral person that has the backs of the people of this country. And just the examples I cited this time and time again, people have sided with that over election deniers and the like.
So I'm proud to be supporting Joe Biden for president. As far as the challenges, the challenges are real. And that is why not just President Biden, but many of us in the Senate have been leading the way and bringing down costs. You've got to not just talk about which we have done.
Pardon? I didn't hear that. Voters say they don't feel it. They're not feeling the impacts, the numbers, the figures that you're talking about, they don't feel it in their pocketbooks and they go to the grocery store to buy groceries.
Why is that? And do you think he has time to reverse this, the low marks he's getting on that critical point of the economy? Okay, well, there are many challenges in front of us and people are going to have to decide if they want to go back to that chaos or look at someone that actually has the proof points of working on bringing costs down. And if you want to talk about numbers and polls and how people are feeling, let me give you some numbers.
$35 a month. That's how much insulin is going to be for seniors and actually for others as well as the prices are rolling out. Number two, 3.4 million. That's how many veterans are going to be helped by taking on toxic burn pits.
40,000. There's a number. That's how many infrastructure projects, including the bridge from Minnesota to Wisconsin that are getting funded and completed right now as we speak. So there is a case to make.
And there's also a case to make. He is not running, as the president has said, against the Almighty. He is running against Donald Trump. And time and time again, the voters have made clear where they stand on Donald Trump independence.
Moderate Republicans, they want to support someone who believes in democracy and has led the world against tyrants like Vladimir Putin, as opposed to Donald Trump, who literally a week ago said that Donald, that Vladimir Putin should be able to do whatever the hell he wants. Those are exact words where he says they as in Russia and Putin should be able to do whatever the hell they want. So what happens now? One of his leading opponents, guys, Vladimir Putin left.
We're talking about all the. He was killed. We're going to talk about all that. Let's talk about Ukraine aid.
The vice president spoke with my colleague Andrea Mitchell at the Munich Security Conference about the need to pass Ukraine aid. Let's listen and get your reaction on the other side. Do you think that Ukraine can serve, survive a year, this year on battlefield without American aid? Ukraine needs our support and we must get it.
It has been five months since the president made his first ask. Does he need to get Republicans to the White House and fight to get this over the finish line? Because clearly right now it's stalled in the House. I understand that's not the White House, but does he need to get back from their vacation, try to get a deal here?
The president has been doing that. I was heartened by Congressman Turner's words in your interview, just about the fact that there are Republicans among the ford on this. And let me Ukraine has been an absolute incredible force, President Zelensky. They have taken back half the territory from Russia that they got in the invasion.
They have just shot down a warship. They have opened up trade again on the Black Sea. They have done this despite the fact that right now, rounds of ammunition, Russia, 10,000 a day. Ukraine 2,000 a day.
So our job right now, if you talk about avenging the death of the hero, Navalny, if you talk about anything for our democracy and actually for our economic partners across the world, it is to get this security package over the line. And so extreme Republicans are stopping it right now. The president standing up for it. The Senate is standing up 22 Republicans.
The U.S. senate voted for it, including the lead Republicans on armed services foreign relations. It's time for them to get the job done. President Biden put the blame, swearing at the feet of Vladimir Putin for the death of Alexei Navalny.
He says he's considering next steps. What should the consequences be? What do you want to see the president do here? The best thing we can do is to make sure we have the backs of the Ukrainian people.
That is the best thing because when you look at what this funding is for, it is for making sure our own troops in places like Poland are funded so they can be a deterrent for any additional Russian invasions. Because who stops Vladimir Putin if he marches right into Kyiv, marches right into Ukraine from going further? I've stood on that order. I have been in Poland.
I've been with President Zelensky in Ukraine. And this is an international crisis. So the consequences are what has happened so far with Ukraine killing or injuring over 300,000 Russian troops. But the consequences are will mean nothing unless we stand with our allies and stand with Ukraine.
All right. Senator Amy Klobuchar, thank you so much for joining us this Sunday. We really appreciate it. Thanks, Kristen.
And when we come back, Donald Trump order to pay over 350 million dol his civil fraud case and now a trial date set for his first criminal trial in the New York hush money case. What will the impact be on the 2024 race? The panel is next. Welcome back.
The panel is here, NPR national political correspondent Mar lson, Democratic pollster Cornell Belcher and Republican strategist Sarah Fagan. Thanks to all of you for being here. Mara, let me start with you. We're one week out, minus a day from the South Carolina primary, of course.
We learned on Friday that Trump got slapped with this 350 plus million dollar fine for this civil fraud suit in New York, how does this all impact where we are in 2024 race? Because so far his legal battles have only bolded him. Right. I don't think it affects the primary at all.
It's actually been a benefit for him. But when we get to the general, things might be different. First of all, we're going to have maybe juries, actual juries of his peers potentially reaching verdicts, unlike just judges. We also know from polling that independent swing voters and some Trump supporters say they will not vote for him if he's convicted.
Now, we don't know if he's going to be convicted. We don't even know if these trials are going to happen before election Day. And to me, that's the biggest question, especially on the January 6th trial, which is the most important you can even argue. It's the only important one.
We don't know what that's going to happen before. It is one of the legends. It is one of the biggest X factors, there's no doubt about that. Sarah Vicki Haley has tried to make this part of her focus in these closing days.
In her home state in South Carolina, she's still trailing Trump by double digits, 30 points in some polls. Yeah, I agree with Mara. I don't think this is an issue that helps in the primary. And then the question is, you know, does it help in the general?
And I think there's some evidence to suggest that even though people say it'll affect their vote, there's so few undecided voters even at this very early date that, you know, a trial that happens before may not have much impact on the actual outcome of the election. I think, I do think this, I think it makes it harder for him to persuade voters. Right. We know general elections are voted that 46, 47%.
Right. He has a ceiling. He needs to grow that in order to we forget he lost the election like he lost the election. He needs to grow his base of support.
How does he grow his base of support with all this hanging over? I think it makes it more difficult. But also that Turner interview was really good, by the way, with Chairman Turner. But that is actually, I think the larger problem because you have Republicans in battleground congressional districts who have to answer the same sort of tough questions that you laid before Chairman Turner.
And I think it makes it harder for them as well. I mean, unfortunately, we live in a time politics where so many things get sensationalized. Impeachment is now just something that happens to the other party when somebody takes over power. And I, I think so much of this gets dismissed.
I mean, this is going to, this election will come down to 3 to 5% of the electorate. And perhaps there's a Supreme court ruling on January 6th that is impactful, but perhaps not. Well, when we talk about the Trump trials, one that was in focus this week was down in Georgia where District Attorney Fani Willis took the stand to defend herself against accusations she was having a relationship with one of her top prosecutors, Nathan Way. The Trump team is trying to get her dismissed.
Let's take a little bit of that in the test on the other side. So let's be clear, because you lie. Which one? You lying right here.
No, no, no. This is the truth. Mr. St.
Thank you, Mara. What was the impact of this moment, this testimony? Look, the impact could have gone either way. Some people felt that she was being treated unfairly.
Other people thought this undermines her case. The big question is, will Fani Willis be removed from this case, which to me is kind of a corroborating case of January 6th. It's another case about Donald Trump trying to change the outcome of the election, throw out millions of people's votes. He asked the Secretary of State to find him the vote, the 11,000 votes he needed.
This doesn't help Fonny Willis case, but I think this case could still continue even if she was removed. I think this is why so many people dislike politics. Right. And it is.
We all heard that. Finding some more votes. And the problem is, look, I get it, we gotta cover it because it's sex, lies and affairs in itself and people, there was some great stuff for social media that came out there, but it does not undermine the fundamental. Whether she don't get a fundamental case against him, it's fairly strong.
So at one point I thought this was the most problematic case for President Trump and his election prospects. I think because of this, it now just gets wrapped up in this whole broad politicalization of taking Trump to court. My own view is the New York case should never been brought. And when you look at it, it was a Attorney general bring the case.
It wasn't the insurance company, it wasn't the bank, and it was all politics. And this, I think, now gets swept up in that. And it's just now politics. And so very few people are going to decide based on these cases.
And that's the one going to trial next month. Remarkably the bigger problem. Yeah, that's going to trial. I think the bigger problem for Georgia is the timing so to Cornell's point, one of these cases actually has to get decided before the election if it is to have an impact.
And this just delays it. Well, a policy issue that has been in the spotlight this week, abortion because revelations New York Times first reporting news has confirmed that Trump is considering backing a 616 week federal ban. He likes, I'm told, a nice round number. What do you make of this?
What's the implication? Well, there's two aspects of this. Democrats are going to say he's for a national ban. He doesn't want states to decide.
Every blue state that's codified row that's going to go in the garbage can. So that's one impact of it. But the second thing I think is incredibly interesting is that Donald Trump is acting like a normal politician. He usually doesn't do that.
He's moving, trying, if this story is true, to move to the center on abortion for the general election to get more where the majority of voters are. And you know what? There is a consensus on abortion in this country. It used to be called Roe.
Sixteen weeks is a little earlier than Roe. But people want abortion to either be mostly legal with some exceptions, or mostly illegal with some exemptions. Sarah, we have about a minute left. What do you make of what Mar's saying?
Well, I think it's very politically smart for Trump because Republicans have been on their heels since the Supreme Court overturned Roe and it's been a debate about Republicans banning abortion. This is going to move the debate to Democrats being for abortion up to nine months. And so in that respect it's prudent politically. He should be for 15 weeks, not 16 weeks.
Why take that heat from your right flank? But that's. I know, I know, I know we're out of time. But, but no, this brings abortion front center.
It's a 15 point gender gap in 2020. So we have a 15 point gender gap right now with them pushing this abortion, this abortion issue is, it's a losing issue for them. I'm glad to push. It is going to be one of the biggest issues of this race.
There's no doubt about that. Thank you for a great conversation. When we come back, as world leaders gather to discuss global security, we'll reflect back on the warning from an American senator. Worry about the dangers of authoritarianism.
Our Meet the Press minute is next. Welcome back. The Munich security conference wrapped up today after a week marked by warnings on the Russia threat and the death of Putin critic Alexei Navalny. Seven years ago, freedom of the press was top of mind.
With then President Trump's repeated attacks on what he called the enemy of the people. Senator John McCain joined this broadcast from Munich with his reaction. I hate the press. I hate you especially.
But the fact is I, we need you. We need a free press. We must have it. It's vital.
If you want to preserve, I'm very serious now. If you want to preserve democracy as we know it, you have to have a free and many times adversarial press. And without it, I'm afraid that we would lose so much of our individual liberties over time. That's how dictators get started.
When we come back, Patti Davis, the daughter of Ronald Reagan, on what her father would say about our current political climate. MEET THE MOMENT is next. Welcome back. With presidential family members often in the spotlight these days, Patty Davis, the daughter of Ronald and Nancy Reagan, is reintroducing Americans to her family, one they've had in their living room for decades.
In a deeply personal book, dear mom and dad, written as a letter to her parents, Davis reflects on her father, who she writes parented America and her mother, who she had a more difficult relationship with, hoping her book can be what she calls a quote, comfort for others as they come to terms with parents and families who have left them. Searching for answers as our politics often feels broken, Davis joined us for a Meet the Moment conversation to talk about her father's legacy and her own. I wonder if you could reflect on today's politics. You write this beautiful account of Tip o' Neill visiting your father, his hospital bed and how different our politics feel today.
The inability to reach across the island, frankly, to form those types of bonds where you can debate vigorously in Washington but be there for each other on a very personal level. What do you think your father would say about our current state of politics? I think he would be so, I think he'd be appalled, really. You know, and yeah, they used to have martinis together, too.
You know, old Irish guys, like sharing a drink after, you know, it's like two lawyers battling out in court and then going having a drink together. You know, it was just more civilized. And he didn't understand lack of civility. He didn't understand attacking another person.
I mean, he could be, you know, pretty pointed in his, in what he would say about someone else. But he didn't understand cruelty. And that's what we're dealing with now. And I think he wouldn't understand that.
And I think he would be, I think he would be really scared for our democracy. And I think that I, I don't I don't know who. I think he would address people more than any candidates. You know, I think he would address the American people at what has.
What has divided us. And I mean, in my own opinion, and I think. I don't know, I think it's probably how he would think is our divisions really started because. Because we're also scared.
There's so much fear around whether we're going to get shot in a mass shooting or our children are, or, you know, if you walk into a store, is there going to be or a church or wherever, you know, we're scared. And fear morphs into anger. It just does. It's not sustainable.
We don't want to be afraid. We don't mind so much being angry. And, you know, there are people on the public stage and on the political front who understand very well that synergy between fear and anger and who are masterful at exploiting it. The other big issue that is in the forefront right now is the issue of age.
Your father, when he was elected at the time, was the oldest person elected president, 69. Now, obviously the president is in his 80s. Former President Trump, the front runner, is in his late 70s. Do you think there should be cognitive tests for people running for the highest office in the land?
Probably, yeah. I mean, just what we know about what age can do. It doesn't always do that, but it would probably be a good idea. Yeah, I know.
My father was 77 when he left office. After two turns. It seems so young now, doesn't it? Yes.
Did it seem at the time old to you? We talked about your dad as being at the time the oldest president. I don't think it's because, you know, it was, it was, it was 87, I believe, when he stood in front of the Berlin Wall and said, you know, Mr. Gorbach shot tearing down his wall.
So that was not someone who was fractured in age. I mean, yes, I probably thought he was old. He's my father. You think that about parents, but, you know, not.
Not in the way that we're talking about now. So much of the Republican Party to this day still speaks about, wrestles with debates your father's legacy, tries to emulate. What do you think your father's message would be if he were sitting here today to the country, to our current politicians? I think he would want people to look at one another as human beings.
You know, that's why he and Gorbachev were able to do what they did, which was world changing at the time, because they look at each Other as human beings. And. And that's what's missing now. You know, these were two people who were put on the stage of history at a moment in time to, in my opinion, do what God intended them to do.
They might not have, you know, but they were both two people who I think had the same agenda of looking at each other as a human being. Gorbachev came to my father's Service in Washington, D.C. i got to meet him. He was a very shy, sort of vulnerable person.
I only met him briefly, but, you know, that's the impression that I got from him on my own. You think we've lost that ability to look at each other as human beings? Yeah, I do. I do, for the most part.
Yeah. And just finally, Patty, when people read your book, I read it as a daughter, as a mom, and took so much from it, from both places. What do you hope people take from your book, from sharing, opening up about this deeply personal part of your life and your heart? I hope they look at their own families and go, okay, how can I look at this differently?
How can I take a step back in the same way that you take a step back from a painting to really see the whole picture? How can I step back from my family and my life and look at it differently, you know, and look at it through more mature eyes and through a more complete vision? And then if you can do that with your family, you can do that with other people. Right?
People are more complicated than they appear to be. Lots of reflect on there. You can see my full interview with patti [email protected] that is all for today. Thank you so much for watching.
Enjoy your long weekend. We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press. Hey, everyone, I'm Dylan Dryer, co host of the third hour of Today and mom to three wild boys. I've learned a lot my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have all figured out yet.
And I'm not the only one. This is my new podcast, the Parent Chat. Each week I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world advice about parenting. I am over here just like winging it.
Hey, I'm trying not to screw my own kid. If I'm gonna give you advice on how to screw yourself, there's a parent chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.