This Sunday. Guilty. This was a disgrace. This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge.
Donald Trump becomes the first American president convicted of a felony after a New York jury found him guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records. I did my job. We did our job. The only voice that matters is the voice of the jury, and the jury has spoken.
It's reckless. It's dangerous. It's irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don't like the verdict. How will the historic verdict impact the 2024 race?
The real verdict is going to be November 5th by the people. My guest this morning, former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries. Joining me for insight and analysis are Amy Walter, editor in chief of the Cook Political Reports, Leigh Ann Caldwell of the Washington Post, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, and Lonnie Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution. Welcome to Sunday.
It's Meet the Press from NBC News in Washington, the longest running show in television history. This is Meet the Press with Kristen Welker. Good Sunday morning. I'm Peter Alexander in for Kristen Welker.
For the first time in American history, a former president has been convicted of a crime. This past week, a Manhattan jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump falsified business records in order to influence the 2016 election, finding him guilty on all 34 counts felony crimes. Mr. Trump, who chose not to testify, instead vented his anger outside the courtroom, claiming the trial was rigged against him and vowing to appeal.
This was a rigged trial by a conflicted judge who was corrupt. It's a rigged trial of disgrace. They wouldn't give us a venue change. We were at 5% or 6% in this district, in this area.
This was a rigged, disgraceful trial. But the real verdict is going to be November 5th by the people. In the days since, the former president's allies, including vice presidential hopefuls, have lined up to rail against the trial and its outcome and have attacked Democrats, claiming the fix was in from the start. What happened there was outrageous, and you're right, the American people see it.
This is a purely political exercise, not a legal one. This is the most outrageous travesty I've ever seen. And the problem here is Democrats have crossed this line. They crossed the line in which now system is the political weapon.
This is the weaponization of the justice system against their political opponent. This is a justice system that hunts Republicans while protecting Democrats. This was certainly a hoax, a Sham Next up, Mr. Trump sentencing that set for July 11, just days before he's supposed to officially accept the Republican party's nomination.
With Mr. Trump's other criminal cases in Washington, Florida and Georgia all bogged down with significant delays, the Manhattan case is likely to be the only trial Mr. Trump faces before Election Day. The question now, will the verdict impact the view of voters?
Our first indication, a poll conducted in the days after the verdict shows that a majority of voters across the political spectrum say Mr. Trump's conviction will not affect their vote. And now that Mr. Trump has been convicted, the Biden campaign is looking for ways to shake up a race that has largely remained stagnant.
This morning. NBC News reports the Biden team is now accelerating its timetable to get more aggressive plans that have been holding on to for later this summer that it could sharpen its message. Argue that Mr. Trump is more focused on himself than he is on voters.
President Biden mostly stayed away from commenting during the trial. Finally weighed in. The jury heard five weeks of evidence. Five weeks.
And after careful deliberation, the jury reached a unanimous verdict. They found Donald Trump guilty on all 34 felony counts. Not only be given the opportunity, as he should, to appeal that decision, just like everyone else has that opportunity. That's how the American system of justice works.
And it's reckless, it's dangerous. It's irresponsible for anyone to say this was rigged just because they don't like the verdict. And join me now, Republican senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton. Senator Cotton, welcome back to Meet the Press.
Morning. Peter, did you accept the jury's verdict that Donald Trump is guilty of these 34 felonies? No, Peter, I disagree with the jury's verdict here. A jury can only act within the constraints that a judge puts on it.
And this case was rigged from the very beginning. You had Alvin Bragg, who campaigned on getting Donald Trump. You had the judge who was a literal Biden donor, and at every turn, he ruled in favor of prosecution. But as Donald Trump said, the real verdict is going to come on Election Day.
It's going to come to American people. It's going to be based on things like they can't pay for their rent and put food on the table for their kids. The borders, chaos. You've got war all around the world.
The reason why you have this weaponization of the legal system is because Joe Biden can't defend his weak, failed record and that the American people see through it and they remember that Donald Trump brought peace and crossed. So let me just clarify a couple Things for our audience right now, as you know. Well, this was a state case. Donald Trump was indicted by a grand jury in New York.
He was convicted by a jury of 12 New Yorkers beyond a reasonable doubt. They didn't seek this responsibility. Joe Biden, as you know, had nothing to do with this case center. In fact, the Manhattan DA's investigation, this case began in 2018 when Joe Biden wasn't even the party as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee.
So let me ask it a different way, perhaps, did the jury get it wrong here? Peter, I do believe the jury got it wrong. Again, the jury can only decide based on what the judge puts in front of them. Just look at what happened in this case for people.
Again, you had a judge who is literally a donor to Joe Biden's campaign in 2020 so he could stop Donald Trump. He should have never been presiding over this case. He introduced evidence. It was highly, highly inflammatory, prejudicial.
He didn't allow President Trump to put on certain evidence and witnesses. He never even insisted. The prosecution revealed the alleged underlying crime for which Donald Trump supposed covered up in bookkeeping entries. At every turn, the judge put his finger on the scales, practically forcing the jury to find the reaches.
You're talking about the judge, Juan Marchand. He did give $20 to Democrats, gave $15 to Joe Biden in 2020. But the appeals court senator affirmed his decision to stay on the case. And as it relates to the rules, the instructions, Trump's lawyers passed on the opportunity to argue that the charges should be considered misdemeanors.
In the jury instructions, Republicans were attacking the judge, the jury, the legal system here. Instead of letting the process play out. If Donald Trump wins on appeal, is that ballot. I think there's no question Donald Trump should win on appeal.
So if he loses on appeal, he's an innocent man who did nothing wrong. This judge again violated New York rules by giving money to Joe Biden in 2020 specifically to stop Donald Trump. I hope that the Court of Appeals in New York actually applies a law in an evenhanded way as opposed to do what this judge did, what Joe Biden justice has done, which is bending the rules in every turn. So it has stopped Donald Trump.
The only thing Donald Trump is guilty of is being a threat to Joe Biden's real life. And when we talk about Joe Biden's Department of Justice has done, Joe Biden's Department of Justice is also right now prosecuting cases against Democrats. Robert Menendez, the Democratic New Jersey Henry Cuellar The Democratic representative from Texas and Hunter Biden. The case against Hunter Biden on those gun charges begins tomorrow.
Let me ask you about what we've heard from former President Trump. At the first official event of this reelection campaign, Donald Trump proclaimed, I am your retribution. He talks about seeking revenge against his political enemies and says he will appoint a special prosecutor to, in his words, go after Joe Biden and his family. If it's so objectionable for the justice system to be, as you say, weaponized against Donald Trump, why is it acceptable for Donald Trump to campaign on weaponizing the DOJ against Joe Biden?
Well, first off, Peter, let me go back to the point you made about prosecuting certain Democrats like Bob Menendez and Henry Quayer. I've noticed that Joe Biden's Department of Justice tends to target the Democrats that are critical of Joe Biden. Bob and Indez, criticizing them for his weird. Henry Cuellar criticizes the president's immigration policy.
They're investigating the mayor of New York because he is guilty of so many crimes he can barely keep track of them, unlike Donald Trump, for whom they never even revealed the alleged crime that he supposedly tried to cover up. So just to be clear though, if he was weaponizing the Justice Department, wouldn't he want to keep any case away from his own son? He was forced. His own Justice Department tried to rig a settlement.
They were forced by a judge asking questions of the prosecutor and Hunter Biden's defense attorney. Why would Biden lies against his own son and just get rid of the case altogether by your argument? Well, because he's gonna pardon his son after the election. And that's what you should ask Joe Biden at the White House sometimes.
Do you commit to not pardon Hunter Biden? So let me go back to the election. Let me go back under the ministration, which is, if it's so objectionable to the justice system, as you say, be weaponized by Joe Biden against why is it appropriate for Donald Trump to campaign on weaponizing against Joe Biden? Donald Trump has said that his so called retribution will be success, success at the ballot.
He also said that I in 2016, when so many people insisted that Hillary Clinton should face criminal charges for doing exactly what Donald Trump was wrongly accused of doing, which is mischaractizing legal expenses as something else. Remember she paid for the dirty Russian dossier that characterizes legal expenses. She paid a fine to the fec. Donald Trump specifically said he would not prosecute Hillary Clinton because that's not what we do in America.
What The Democrats have done in New York is like something that would happen in Pakistan or Brazil. It's something that America would sanction another country for so engaging in hanging on, locking up Hillary Clinton. And he said after the election that that's not what we do in America. If New York wouldn't do, I guess the fact if New York was a foreign country, America would sanction them for trying to target the weaponization of the legal system, their political opponents and reading Election Outco.
Are you okay then with Donald Trump saying he will weaponize the DOJ against Joe Biden? He has said repeatedly that this should never happen. It shouldn't happen to him. It should happen to him.
Peter, we've been down this road before. In 2016, people called Hillary Clinton to be prosecuted. She probably deserved it. Donald Trump said that's not what we do in America to someone who loses an election like Hillary Clinton.
So you disagree with Senator Marco Rubio who says he should get even. Donald Trump has said as recently as last month that his retribution will be success, success of the election and restoring the peace and prosperity that he brought to America for four years that Joe Biden has destroyed. Since Thursday's verdict, there's been a spike in violent rhetoric online directed for the jurors in particular, including Paul's, to publish their addresses, physical attacks. Will you condemn those threats?
Well, Peter, I don't know what obscure websites that you've gone to. No, but this is not true social. It's not obscure website. An individual says, I hope every juror is docs and they pay for what they have done.
May God strike them dead. We will on November 5 and they will again. I will always say that violence has no place in politics. Again, I don't know what obscure account you found on social media.
I'll say this. Where, where's the justice when you see Democratic street militias marching outside the homes of Supreme Court justices carrying flex cuts and hooligan pools so they could break in the home of justices to try to assassinate them? Exactly one person has been charged when every single person who are trying to intimidate those justices violated federal law. Why isn't the Department of Justice using the same techniques on those Democratic street militias that they're using for every grandma who wore a red MAGA hat within a country?
Mild cattle. So we could agree that those facts should be condemned on all sides, Correct? Let me ask you about your certification of the 2020 election. You did certify the 2020 election results after Donald Trump lost.
Will you commit to certifying the 2024 election results, no matter who wins. Well, Peter, I don't think Congress has a constitutional authority to reject electors that have been certified by a state. I will accept the results of the election and certify them if it's a fair and free election. Who has to decide if it's fair?
Well, ultimately it is up to both. Ultimately up to the voters. But any candidate of any party has a perfect right to pursue legal remedies. They believe there's been fraud or cheating in an election, just like Al Gore did in dozens of lawsuits in 2000.
That is perfectly appropriate. And then the state certified the electorate. I don't think Congress has authority to reject those electors. I also think every candidate has a right to wait until the elections conducted to ensure it's been conducted in a fair and free fashion.
And that's different than what Donald Trump thought. Let me show some of your words for January 6th of 2021. You said, quote, it is past time for the president to accept the results of the election and quit misleading the American people. That was more than three years ago, Senator.
Donald Trump still has not accepted the results. Does it still bother you that he is, to use your words, misleading Americans? No. That disagree was about what could happen in Congress on that day.
Once the states have certified electors. I don't think Congress has the authority to reject those electors. I wouldn't want Chuck Schumer and Kamala Harris next year to reject Donald Trump's winning electors. This is about Congress's authority.
I agree with Donald Trump that there were many irregularities in the election, including Democratic cities and states changing the rules and practices in the weeks leading up to the election. Or for that matter, networks like yours trying to suppress 100 buying laptop because 51 Democratic intelligence operatives colluding the Biden campaign. To be clear, I'm talking about your words here. So I just want to get to the heart of it.
What did you mean when you said that he was misleading America? We had a disagreement about what would happen that day. I don't think Congress has the constitutional authority to reject electors. And as a practical matter, it was never going to happen to the American people about that.
Any vote we took that day was going to make a difference about certifying those electors. I don't think Congress has the consciousness and I don't think Nancy Pelosi's House was ever going to do that. Listen to the American people. Look, he said that the election had many irregularities and there was fraud and cheating on the way up to.
I was well, we had a disagreement about what could happen on that vote on that day. It's not going to matter inaction in my opinion, because he's going to win in such a huge landslide with more than 300 like croll votes that there won't be any disputed. Another place you had disagreement on that day, January 6th, you called the people who attacked the Capitol insurrectionist and said, quote, they should face the full extent of federal law. What message is Donald Trump sending by promising to pardon these people in the second term?
Well, here I use the same term to describe the BLM riders and the antifa riders in the previous summer. I've long said that Anyone, anyone on January 6th who attacked a law enforcement officer or damaged public property should face legal consequences. But Donald Trump is not making that distinction though. So should he part of those individuals as well?
He absolutely has. There are yes or he has not. There are hundreds, Peter. There are hundreds of people who are at the Capitol or even outside the Capitol that day who did not attack law enforcement officer, who did not damage public property, proper property, who are fake, who are facing more time in jail in the Senate than the crimes for which they are charged, many of whom are about to have their convictions erased by the Supreme Court.
Compare the techniques the Department of Justice used to pursue the bill and riders or these democratic treatment outside the Supreme Court. Let me get back to the question you disagree with the president on this. The president's Time magazine in the last several weeks said that he would consider pardoning all of them. You would disagree with what is the reference saying he would say he would consider?
I think should he pardon all of them by your standard of what's appropriate. He should evaluate each case on the marriage, including the four who are suspicious conspiracy, which is what he did when he was present the first time. And anyone who is charged with silly misdemeanors about parading on public grounds down in permanent who did not attack a law enforcement officer who did not damage public property, their pardon should be considered in any case. I'd say it should be granted because many of them frankly are about to have their conviction or their charges erased by the Supreme Court in just a few weeks.
Is it clear you're making this distinction that Donald Trump has Let me talk about your future. You are reportedly on Donald Trump shortlist of possible running mates. Would you accept if Donald Trump asked you? Well, Peter, Donald Trump's gonna make this choice.
I suspect only he knows who's on his short list. Has he spoken to know about this? I have not talked to the president or his campaign by his vice presidential election or any position in his administration. But you accepted it offered, Peter, Any great patriot, if offered a chance to serve our country by the president, would have to consider it seriously.
But what I'm focused on, like the president, is making sure that we win this election in November. And I want to help him govern successfully to restore the peace and prosperity that he brought to America for four years that Joe Biden's destroyed. Senator Cotton, we appreciate your time and your respect. Thanks for joining us on the press.
Thank you, Peter. And come up right here. We'll come back House Democratically here. Hakeem Jeffries joins me next.
Welcome back. In Philadelphia this past week, President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris made a rare joint appearance to strengthen their support among black voters and to keep former President Trump from making any further inroads with a key Democratic constituency. I've shown you who I am, and Trump has shown who he is. And today, Donald Trump is pandering and peddling lies and stereotypes for your vote so he can win for himself, not for you.
Will Donald Trump have a message for you? Not in our House and not in our watch. And join me now is House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat from New York. Leader Jeffries, welcome back to the press.
Good morning. I want to start by asking you about this historic verdict. President Biden opened his remarks on Friday saying it is irresponsible for anyone to say the verdict was rigged just because they do not like it. This crime was more than 8 years old.
There are questions about the validity of legal theory, untested legal theory that was used to prosecute it. Would this case have been brought against anyone other than former President Trump? Yes, of course. This verdict in the case of People v.
Trump was a validation of the American judicial system. Donald Trump was entitled to the presumption of innocence. He received it. Donald Trump was entitled to a trial by a jury of his peers.
He received it. Donald Trump was entitled to a vigorous defense. He received it. Twelve jurors, 12American citizens, after five weeks of a trial, evaluated the facts, the evidence and the law and came to a unanimous decision as it relates to convicting Donald Trump on 34 felony counts.
That is an affirmation of the American judicial system. This is America. We are not a system that is occupied by a monarch or a king or a dictator. We are a democracy.
And in a democracy, no one is above the law. Congressman Jeffreys, Donald Trump's attorney, as you certainly heard, said that they will appeal the verdict. If it is overturned on appeal, will you accept that result? Yes.
Simple as that. Let me ask you about Thursday's verdict and the time since the Trump campaign claims that it has raised tens of millions of dollars. How concerned should Democrats be that this conviction will help Donald Trump get reelected? Well, this election will present a clear contrast between President Biden and Democrats in the House and the Senate who will always continue to put people over politics.
Extreme ag Republicans are going to continue to lie for Donald Trump. President Biden and Democrats are going to continue to solve problems for hard working American taxpayers. Extreme magic Republicans will continue to lie for Donald Trump. President Biden and Democrats are going to work on delivering real results as has been the case for the last three and a half months.
And we're going to see that extreme magic Republicans will continue to lie for Donald Trump and present no real vision for dealing with the issues of importance to the American people. That's a contrast and I'd rather be on President Biden's side of that contrast than on the extreme magic Republicans. So I want to drill down on that with you and excuse my interruption with the delay and the satellite. Those close to the Biden campaign tell me that Mr.
Trump's conviction is not going to be a central message of this campaign. Is that the right approach, think the right approach, is to make clear that real progress has been made on behalf of the American people because of the leadership of President Biden. We were able to rescue the economy from a once in a century pandemic. Should there be a central issue back in school, I think that the issues of importance to the American people, such as the progress that has been made and the need to continue to build upon that progress and finish the job by working on continuing to build a healthy economy from the middle out and the bottom up, lowering housing costs, addressing the challenges at the border and ending price gouging will be central to the message that President Biden and House Democrats articulate moving forward.
Can the extreme Republicans point to a single issue that actually made progress for the American people, a single issue? They cannot. And so as a result, what we see are conspiracy theories being spewed at the direction of Donald Trump. Sir, let me ask you another question that we'll be watching will make headlines this week.
Hunter Biden, the president's son, goes on trial for gun charges beginning tomorrow. President Biden said last year, quote, my son has done nothing wrong. The Wall Street Journal, as you see here, editorial board said at the time, quote, that's a highly Inappropriate message from the president. He's essentially telling prosecutors that they are wrong to bring an indictment because Hunter is innocent of any criminal behavior.
Why was it appropriate for President Biden to publicly comment on his son's case? President Biden commented, as a loving father, as I would hope any loving father would do, Hunter Biden, of course, is entitled, as was Donald Trump, to the presumption of innocence and to a trial by a jury of his peers. And this Justice Department is going to proceed in that fashion, present the facts in the law, and then we'll all have to wait for a determination that is made by a jury as to Hunter Biden's guilt or innocence. Let me ask you about what's been taking place overseas right now and news that was made just this morning.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel, just accepted invitation from you and your congressional leadership colleagues to address a joint session of Congress. We don't have a date for that yet, but the Senate's top Democrat, Chuck Schumer, recently called Netanyahu, quote, a major obstacle to peace. So do you agree with Schumer's assessment that Netanyahu is a major obstacle to peace? It's my hope that the prime minister, upon his arrival in the United States Congress, will address the Biden peace plan that has been put forth that I think comprehensively provides a way forward to bring the hostages home, to end the conflict in Gaza, to allow for a just and lasting peace to be put into place, which is what every reasonable person is.
He major optimism with peace. That serves my question. It's my hope that Prime Minister Netanyahu, consistent with what has been done by the Israeli war cabinet, which is to unanimously adopt the Biden peace plan, will conduct himself in a manner consistent with that Israeli war cabinet. It's on Hamas, as far as I can tell, as President Biden indicated, to accept the peace plan so we can end this conflict and move towards just the last.
So you're not a criticism of Netanyahu's conducting of this war to this point? I think that there will be ample room to be able to assess what was done right, what may have been done wrong. I certainly criticized the Israeli airstrike from earlier this week. It was a tragedy.
It should not have happened. And we mourn for the loss of people. Leader Jefferson asked you about the president's challenges, specifically with black voters. It has been a focus of the campaign for the last several weeks.
As you know well, President Biden promised legislation on police reform, on voting rights. He failed to deliver on both. Why do you think he is struggling with black voters right now, in particular, black men? Well, as I indicated earlier, President Biden does have a track record of success with respect to increasing home ownership opportunities, lowering the unemployment rate within the black community to its lowest level in recorded history, record investment with respect to historically black colleges and universities, increasing entrepreneurial opportunities.
But of course, there is more that needs to be done and that will be part of the vision that is articulated for a second term that we recognize. We want to continue to promote entrepreneurship with black men and throughout America amongst people of every race. So promote homeownership and promote the creation of wealth so that everyone has a fair shot at the American dream. So your acknowledgy has more to do with the black community.
Before that, you go, I want to ask a question that I asked Republican colleagues as well, which is will you vote to certify the results of the 2024 election, no matter who wins? Certainly that has always been the case because in America, the peaceful transfer of power is sacrosanct. That's one of the reasons why many Americans, Democrats, independents and traditional Republicans have been troubled by the election denialism or the denial that we've seen coming from the other side of the aisle. I'm hopeful that this will be a campaign focused on the issues and Democrats are going to continue to articulate our vision for solving problems for hard working American taxpayers to create a bright future for everyone.
Leader Joaquin Jeffries of New York. Mr. Leader, we appreciate your time. Thank you for joining us.
Welcome back. Will the Trump conviction hold up on appeal before the Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance joins me next. Welcome back. President Trump's weeks long trial for falsifying business records was not his first legal battle with the Manhattan district attorney.
Our next guest spent more than two years investigating the business dealings of the Trump Organization before prosecuting the company and its chief financial officer, but not the former president. And joining me now is the former three term Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance. Cy, welcome back to the press. Good morning.
Thanks for having me back. Donald Trump's campaign, as you have seen, is leaning into the idea of this untested legal theory behind the case that escalated state misdemeanors into state felonies based on, among other things, a violation of federal election law. Prosecutors. This is from Ellie Higgin, the former federal prosecutor.
I'll put it on the screen. He said prosecutors got their man for now at least, but they also contorted the law in an unprecedented manner in their quest to snare their prey. You chose not to bring these charges against Donald Trump. When you were da, how much did this, being an unprecedented legal novel theory, weigh into your decision making?
Well, we did investigate the former president on a range of issues. I ultimately believed that our investigation was best focused on financial crimes. First. We had a lot of time spent lost during COVID where our investigations were interrupted.
We had to go to the Supreme Court twice to ultimately have the highest court in the country rule that the president's tax returns were not privileged and had to be turned over to investigators, and that it reaffirmed the constitutional principle that even a sitting president could be investigated for crimes that occurred before he was president. So we looked at all. We looked at all the legal issues, Peter. We spent years, and I'm confident we made the right choice for us at that time.
And pursuing the financial crimes investigation, as you know, would result in convictions. If I can only ask you, when you were the Manhattan Diaz, you said you charged the Trump Organization. You charged the cfo, Chief Financial Officer Alan Weisselberg, but you did not pursue charges against Donald Trump himself. How much did the fact that he was a sitting president, then former president, weigh into that decision?
Well, I think, of course, it weighs into the decision because of the significance of a decision to charge a sitting president. But ultimately, we did pursue those charges that we felt were appropriate and which were backed up by the evidence and which were significant in the first indictment. It was systemic tax fraud and double bookkeeping in his company. And that's what we felt the charges should be.
And that's where we unfortunately ran out of time at the end of my administration. And then die Bragg took over. He redirected the efforts of the office. Yeah.
To be clear, as you have said, that there was additional evidence that the a Bragg was able to collect. Donald Trump's attorney says they're going to appeal this verdict. Do you think the prosecution's case will withstand an appeal? Well, certainly there will be strong appeals, and there are going to be issues that will be carefully considered by the appellate court.
What's the best grounds for thinking, well, I'm really not going to comment on something that I don't think is my place to comment on. But they've identified this issue about charges that are not necessarily identified. A choice between three charges of Russian nesting doll theory. But I want to address that.
That's not necessarily totally unusual in New York law. You commit burglary in New York burglary of a dwelling where you enter a person's home with intent to commit the crime. Therein the jury's not required to find beyond a reasonable doubt what that crime is. Yeah, but so my point is that in other areas of law, this has been sustained.
And I think that will be informative and perhaps decisive to the appellate courts as they look at the president's appeal. Mr. Trump Sentencing to take place on July 11, next month. These are lowest, the lowest level nonviolent felonies.
They are punishable by a fine, probation are up to four years in prison. Donald Trump turns 78 this month. He's almost 80. He has no prior record.
Here's what he said this morning in an interview with Fox on the topic of possible jail time. The judge could decide to say house arrest, jail. I'm okay with it. I saw one of my lords at the dad television saying, oh, no, you don't want to do that to the brag.
I said, you don't beg for anything. I don't know that the public would stand it. You know, I'm not sure the public would stand for. If you were still today, would you recommend jail time?
Well, I'm not gonna answer that question because that's really just for Mr. Bragg to decide. If you ask me, do I think the court will impose jail in this case? As I said to you, I think yesterday, I think not.
But ultimately, that's Judge Prashant's decision. The president has made this a little more complicated by having been found contempt 10 times during the court. But I think that with the proximity of the Republican convention four days after his sentencing and then if he's the candidate for the Republican Party, the proximity of the election, I would be surprised that he would be sentenced any in prison. What do you think going to jail would do for Donald Trump?
That's that said that said, the court could adjourn sensing until after the general election and then essentially decide then. Let me ask you about one of the key criticisms here. Mr. Trump is allies to keep taking aim at Judge Juan Mershawn.
He did give $15 to the Biden campaign in 2020, gave him additional $20 to Democratic causes. Then, even if he wasn't technically required to recuse himself, should Judge Mershad recused himself just to avoid even the appearance of a conflict. I really don't think a $20 donation and a $30 donation rise to the level of a serious appearance of a conflict. Obviously, Senator Cotton and others who are speaking for the president strongly disagree with that.
I look at that both as de minimis and secondly that it has been reviewed by the courts in New York and determined not to be around for refusal. I know Judge Rashan. Obviously, we were before Judge Rashan. He was a grand jury judge when we proceed to the Trump Organization.
And I think he is honest as the day is long, that he was careful, he was caring. And I think he handled a very difficult trial with a neutral, with a neutral hand and gave the president every benefit of the doubt that he was time to unflow. Then quickly to conclude, Donald Trump is Alice has branded this case of wish hunt. You've heard that.
In particular, they have been critical of DA Alvin Bragg and a key member of his team who was hired directly from the Biden Justice Department. How do you respond to the criticism that this was a political prosecution? Do you remember when Michael Cohen was indicted by US Attorney Bharara in 2015, the President, incoming president, President Trump asked Barara to stay on and that investigation continues. So President Trump fired Bharara and he brought in a Republican U.S.
attorney, Jeff Berman. Excellent man, great lawyer. Jeff Berman continued the investigation of the president. So the president fired him, too.
So this has really not been just it's been the Justice Department under a Democrat. And this president investigated this president's conduct, and the president's response in both instances was to kill the case. Cyrus Vance, we appreciate you joining us. Thanks for coming back to MEET THE press.
When we come back, why drawing a red line in the Middle east is complicated. Our MEET THE PRESS minute is next. Welcome back. As Israel expanded its military operation in Rafah this week, killing dozens of Palestinian civilians after an airstrike, the White House insisted Israel's actions did not cross President Biden's red line.
Critics say Mr. Biden is caving on his promise of withholding certain weapons if Israel launched a major military operation there. Drawing red lines in the Middle east has been a controversial topic for decades. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushed for his own red line in 2012 when he appeared on this program on the topic of Iran.
I think a red line in this case works to reduce the chances of the need for military action, because once the Iranians understand that there's no there's a line that they can't cross, they're not likely to cross it. You know, when President Kennedy set a red line in the Cuban Missile crisis, he was criticized. But it turned out it didn't bring war. It actually pushed war back and probably purchased decades of peace with the Soviet Union.
Conversely, when there was no American red line set before the Gulf War, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. And maybe that war could have avoided very close. They're six months away from being about 90% of having the rich uranium for an atom bomb. I think that you have to place that red line before them now before it's, it's too late.
When we come back, what impact will this sort verdict have on the 2024 race? The panel is next. Welcome back. The panelists here, Amy Walzer, header in chief of the Political report, Leanne Caldwell of the Washington Post, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki and Lonnie Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution.
This is the smart panel. Glad to be here with all of you guys today. Lee, let me get started if we can for a second. If there's one thing that Joe Biden and Donald Trump agree on at the end of this past week, is that this thing ultimately will be decided by the voters on November 5th.
How much, though, does this verdict shake up this race? Well, there's some things we know and there's a lot we don't know. What we know is that this will absolutely motivate the Trump base. What the Biden campaign hopes is that this shores up the Biden base, which has been drawn away from him recently.
What we're also looking for is where there's independent voters, especially those voters who haven't been paying attention miraculously yet to anything, where they go, do they think that this is going to push them toward Trump because he's a victim, or is this going to push them toward Biden because they don't want to vote for a felon? And so that's what we don't know. But what the Biden campaign is saying, though, is that what they think is that this will absolutely not grow Trump's base. This does not bring in Trump voters.
And we'll have to see if that is actually what happens. Amy, is only limited polling so far. This is hypothetical. Now it's a reality.
We really have to wait. Anyone who tells you they know is lying to you right now. But is there any evidence that this would backfire, that this would hurt Donald Trump? Well, I think this race ultimately is going to come down to the 28% or so of Americans who say they dislike both candidates and they are not interested in either one of these candidates.
They see liabilities in both. And so ultimately this race is about where does that spotlight go in October? Today, at this moment, it is on Donald Trump and his liabilities, which I think hurts him. It has for most of his campaign been focused on the president himself, Joe Biden and his liabilities, which we've seen in the polling is not helping him.
So where is that spotlight? Once we get closer to the election, that's where those 20% or so will decide. That's why there's a fear about rfk, about Canada, also the fear about erosion. People decide to sit this one all out together, who that impacts.
Then President Biden blasted Mr. Trump for calling the justice system rigged. And the Biden campaign started to lean into the strategy of calling him a convicted felon. I've been speaking to buying allies.
They say this is not gonna be a central message going forward. What is the sharp strategy here? Should this be a key message going forward? Well, first, I think it's important to say it's better not to run as a convicted felon, and Trump doesn't have that choice.
And so for the Biden team, their challenge is how do you appeal to the people Amy referenced? Right. The double haters. You can call them anything you want, people who are not excited about either choice, while also showing up the base of your party and for President Biden.
A lot of people on the base of the party would love to have him wearing a T shirt with Donald Trump behind bars. But that night may not be appealing to that group of people who he needs to pull to his side. So the biggest moment that I'm watching is the debate, which is 25 days away on you just reminded us of and how President Biden does, how he handles this in that debate. Is he going to scream convicted felon at Donald Trump?
Maybe we're in unprecedented times. That doesn't sound like his style to me. But he's going to have to draw the contrast on this while also reminding people that he's the one who's going to defend abortion rights and all the other issues that people really care about. That's tricky.
And the debate is larger, performative in a lot of ways, too. Right. How do these two men, 178, 178 this month, and 1 81, perform for this debate? Eventually, Mr.
Trump is casting himself. You've seen the campaign effort so far as a political prisoner. Obviously, that's not the case. He has legal representation.
He has the right to an appeal. He's not been detained, hasn't been in prison. But his supporters are now attacking the judge, the jury, the entire legal system. Is there a risk that this backfires on Donald Trump?
Yeah, I'm really not sure that any of this aftermath that we're looking at matters. Let's return to the fundamentals of this race. Okay. You have a president with a historically low approval rating, 39%.
For comparison to Barack Obama at this stage of his presidency was at 48, George H.W. bush at 40, Donald Trump at 42. So historically low approval ratings. You have an economy.
We have inflation numbers on Friday that show us inflation's basically sideways. What does that mean? People are still struggling with the cost of living. The economy remains the top issue for this election.
And the final thing is what are the voters? Who are the voters that we really care about when it comes to deciding this election? You know, there's 99% awareness of this, of this verdict against Donald Trump. You mentioned about a quarter, 25% of voters are the double haters.
I'd say who we really care about in the perspective of the election are about 6/100 of 1% of voters. All right. And that's people in the six wing states. And will it really matter to them?
I'm not sure that it will because fundamentally, the issues they care about, the economy, immigration, those are the ones I believe this election changes. I was gonna say, I do think when you talk to candidates, we're talking about this a little bit earlier, nobody knows what the impact of this will be. And some of it may be hard to measure because there are things like character baggage that's hard for people to measure in polls. But I do think issues like abortion rights, any candidate you talk to, that's what they want to be talking about in this election once we're up for vulnerable reelections or who are candidates challenging Republicans.
So it's not that they don't want to talk about Trump as a conduct, but they want to talk about other issues that they feel there's a bigger contrast. I was just going to add to that. And you can see the difference in the parties. If you look on what's going to happen on Capitol Hill, this, you have Republicans who are going to lean into this verdict to defend Donald Trump, trying to slow down everything that's happening in the Senate, also trying to bring in Alvin Bragg before a committee.
Meanwhile, you have Democrats in the Senate who are focusing on ivf, abortion, contraception, because they think that those are going to be the winning issues. So you have the split screen happening on what this campaign should look like. Amy, President Biden, according to political reports I'm polling right now, is trailing down ballot Democrats and a ton of these key races right now. Why is he struggling so much with Democrats?
Well, because. All right, to what Lonnie's saying about the economy, people are looking at this election through that lens, they're not looking at it as much through the lens of abortion rights or IVF or the issues that are beneficial to Democrats. When it is about, you know, these last few years, Donald Trump has been the center of everything. This is the first time where he's not.
Now at this moment, he is. Because we're talking about this historic trial, but in a few days from now, we're talking about the things that we've been talking about for the last few years, which is what is happening on the economy, what's happening overseas, how are voters reacting to that day to day. But the fact that this race is as close as it is, given, as Lonnie pointed out, how low his job approval ratings are, tells you that what baked in is assumptions about both of these, how we mark this moment in history. This was a huge week in American history, regardless of your opinion of the verdict.
Well, it's an interesting time in American politics because you have the degradation of institutions, right? And this is something that both people on the left and the right, for their own reasons believe. For example, the judicial system has been either validated or corrupted. You have people who believe that going forward, you know, all these institutions that we used to hold in such regard are no longer ones that we hold in high regard, but going forward, I do think this is a much more difficult pirouette for Biden and the Biden team in terms of thinking about how do you take this bundle of issues and how you refocus voters on the things that they might actually care about going into November.
And I think for Trump, it's always been about making lemonade out of lemons. And I think that's something that Trump and the Trump team are pretty good at. Their opponent is a convicted fellow. I don't know that it's harder for them.
They have to just make that mean something to the public, not just about his moral failures, but how him being in the White House would impact them. That's the pivot, as you can see on the decoration of institutions. You've seen this over and over again to the Trump White House with the judicial system, the electoral system, the federal bureaucracy, and gonna further continue. All right, guys, this is a great panel.
I do have some more important news than any of you. I apologize. We are thrilled to share some very happy news with you. The Meet the Press family officially has a new member.
Kristen Welker and her husband John have just welcomed Zachary Welker Hughes to the world. Look at the nugget. This little guy was born on Thursday, May 30. Weighed in at a cool 7 pounds.
Even measured almost 20 inches long. John Zachary's big sister, Margot, as you can imagine, she is extremely proud. Welcoming home her baby brother yesterday, Kristen shares that their surrogate, who she calls her angel on earth, is doing great. From all of us here at MEET the press, a huge congratulations to Kristen and John and Margot and all the grandparents.
And to John Zachary. We know you're watching. Can't wait to meet. We thank you for watching.
And remember, if it is Sunday, it is MEET THE press. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now.
But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage, and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes.
Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcasts.