This Sunday. Trump's promise. Donald Trump vows to free those charged and convicted of crimes in the January 6th attack on the Capitol on his first day in office. Gonna work with the people to treat those unbelievable patriots.
As former Vice President Mike Pence says he won't be backing him in 2024. I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year. I'll talk to Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of the seven Republicans who voted to convict Donald Trump. Plus, growing frustration.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calls for new leadership in Israel, warning Prime Minister Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace. Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7th. This is unprecedented. We should not treat fellow democracies this way at all.
Is Israel's relationship with the US in danger? I'll talk to Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Feeding the World in our Meet the Moment conversation. Chef Jose Andres, founder of World Central Kitchen, on his mission to deliver meals to people in crisis. I think you'll never prepare.
The more I know, the more I know nothing. Joining me for insight and analysis are Jonathan Martin of Politico, Simone Sanders Townsend, former chief spokeswoman for Vice President Kamala Harris, 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 Walker. Good Sunday morning and happy St Patrick's Day. In a week where Donald Trump officially became the presumptive Republican nominee for president, his threats of retribution are mounting, promising one of his first acts as president would be to free those charged and convicted for attacking the Capitol on January 6, nearly 800 of whom have pled guilty to their crimes. On Ukraine, while he publicly says he supports a loan, he reportedly told Hungary's authoritarian leader in private he would cut off 8 if reelected.
And last night at a rally in Ohio, he said some undocumented immigrants aren't people. If I had prisons that were teeming with MS.13 and all sorts of people that they've got to take care of for the next 50 years, right? Young people, they're in jail for years if you call them people. I don't know if you call them people.
In some cases, they're not people, in my opinion. And while addressing the auto industry, the former president made this ominous comment. We're going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you're not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected. Now, if I don't get elected, it's going to be a bloodbath for the whole.
That's going to be the least of it. It's going to be a bloodbath for the country. That'll be the least of it. But they're not going to sell those cars.
The Trump campaign tried to clarify that he was talking about the auto industry, but the Biden campaign seized on the comments, saying Mr. Trump is doubling down on his threats of political violence. At the same time, Donald Trump's delayed tactics with the legal system seem to be working for now. The New York hush money case scheduled to begin next week now delayed for 30 days, giving the defense more time to review documents.
And in Georgia, the election interference case. The lead prosecutor, Nathan Wade, resigned Friday. Wade was scheduled to appear on this broadcast today, but canceled last minute cite a family emergency. There's one place Trump didn't get a break, his own vice president, Mike Pence, who life was threatened on January 6, who said this Friday, Donald Trump is pursuing and articulating an agenda that is at odds with the conservative agenda that we governed on during our four years.
And that's why I cannot in good conscience endorse Donald Trump. Joining me now, Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, one of only seven Republicans who voted to convict Donald Trump in his impeachment for attempting to overturn the 2020 election. Senator Cassidy, welcome back to Meet the Press. Thank you.
Thanks so much for being here. I want to start by getting your reaction to Donald Trump's comments about a bloodbath. Do you think that those comments were appropriate? Two things about that, the general tone of the speech is why is why many Americans continue to wonder, should President Trump be president?
That kind of rhetoric, it's always on the edge. Maybe it doesn't cross, maybe depending upon your perspective. I also think, though, that the mainstream media contributes to it. If you take the one about the bloodbath, which arguably could be about an economic bloodbath, not about kind of street violence related to the election, then it gives his defenders something to focus on, something which was distorted.
So, yes, he always walks up to the edge on that rhetoric and again, that's why people are concerned. But sometimes the mainstream media, whether they want to or not, can't resist and they go just a little bit too far, which distracts from what could be the impact. And just to be very clear, you're saying it walks up to the line. Does that comment, even if in the context that broader backdrop of talking about the auto industry.
Does it cross a line for you? You heard of the Biden administration said they say it's another sign that he's using terms related to political violence. Well, that's their perspective. They've got a candidate who also doesn't seem fit for office.
But you could also look at the definition of bloodbath, and it could be an economic disaster. And so if you speak about the auto industry in particular in Ohio, then you can take it a little more context. That's why I say you walk up to the line, depending upon the perspective, somebody who's going to interpret it, he's running against Biden. So Bin's gonna say it's about political violence.
His defenders won't defend him. And so they're say it's about economic disaster. There's always just that little bit of tension there which allows a dispute about the interpretation as opposed to the kind of general sort of, is this person, we want to have an office? And what about his comments that undocumented immigrants, not all of them are people.
What does it say about the Republican Party that the presumptive GOP nominee is using that kind of language, sending that message? Let me say first he was speaking about the possibility of criminals being among the immigrants and that those are the people he was saying may not be people, if you will. On the other hand, clearly the president's rhetoric has reflected poorly in terms of regarding folks who are coming here illegally. Illegally and they shouldn't be, but in a dehumanizing fashion.
And that's why, again, many people continue to have reservations. And I say the best thing going for Donald Trump running for president is that he's running against Joe Biden about who many people also have reservations. And frankly, that's why people are considering third parties. So it's a sorry state of affairs.
Well, let me ask you about some recent comments he made about January 6. He said on the first day of a second term, he would, quote, free those who've been charged and convicted with with January 6th and committing crimes related to January 6th. Do you think that's appropriate that people who've been convicted in many cases have pled guilty should be pardoned. I do not think it's appropriate.
We're a nation of laws, and those folks who are convicted, many times they pled guilty. If you plead guilty, I. E. Obviously, you are not a patriot.
You're somebody who committed a criminal act. So I think that'll be a wrong signal if you're the chief executive and responsible for enforcing the laws. Senator, you know, it's interesting. When you became one of those who voted to convict former President Trump in his second impeachment, you said our Constitution and our country is more important than any one person.
Do you believe that former President Trump would follow the Constitution in a second term? Now, that is a hypothetical, which is hard for me to kind of go at. And frankly, Kristen, that's the kind of question that people ask, almost begging an answer. All I can say is that we have checks and balances within our system, that if any one person attempts to act in unconstitutional fashion, that they can be, they can be theoretically checked.
I'll also point out that Joe Biden has acted in an unconstitutional fashion when he attempted to forgive student loans and it was stopped in the Supreme Court. He found a workaround. I'm not sure the workaround is constitutional, but nonetheless, we have checks and balances. So I'm not defending the former president, but if you present me that theoretical, I have to answer in context of how our government works.
But Senator, can you really draw an equivalency between a legal battle over student loans and the idea they tried to overturn a free and fair election? I mean, my question relates to what happened on January 6th. And I didn't hear you say yes, that you have confidence that he would defend the constit. So I'm not establishing, I'm not establishing equivalency at all, period in the story.
There's not. But I can't theoretically say in the hypothetical that Trump's going to do one thing or the other. But I'm not establishing equivalency between January 6 and what Biden has done. Let me ask you about former Vice President Mike Pence.
As you know, he made a lot of headlines at the end of this week when he came out said he's not going to endorse his former boss, Donald Trump. It comes as a number of Trump critics, from Mitch McConnell to Chris Sununu, Brian Kempett said they are going to endorse Donald Trump. I know you've gotten this question a lot, but now that he's the presumptive nominee, I have to ask, will you endorse Donald Trump? Senator, I'm smiling because this keeps my streak, my streak unbroken on mute the press where I'm asking questions or similar to that.
In fact, my staff had an over under is the hell long it would take at this point. All I will that I plan to vote for a Republican for the president of the United States. Well, I have to continue the streak and ask you a couple of follow ups to try to get an answer out of you. Senator, just again, will you endorse, are you ruling it out or anything?
You say yes, you're going to endorse him again? No, the answer I'm gonna give and the answer I've been consistently, whenever I ask on this, on the press is that I plan to vote for Republican for the presidency of the United States. You haven't endorsed him yet. Do you have any plans?
I've answered this question so many times before, by the way. I've asked this question so many times before. Every show wants it on their, on their show. But anyway, that's, that's, that's my answer.
I hear you. This week's a little different because he did just become the presumptive nominee. So you don't have any plans right now to endorse him. You plan to endorse and vote for, as you say, a Republican.
Will you vote for Donald Trump? Are you going to write in a name really good, Kristen, but I plan to vote for Republican for the President of the United States. You're not going to tell us, would you rule out voting for Donald Trump? Let me ask you that.
Is it off the table for you? No. I think, yeah, you're kind of beating a dead horse right now. I've been very explicit in what my answer is and I've answered this in greater detail in times past.
And so I'm just going to stay where I just said. I plan to vote for Republican for the presidency of the United States. All right, let me ask you this. You have not closed the door publicly on a third party run.
We've learned that no Labels does in fact plan to run a candidate. Have you been approached by no Labels and is there any chance that you would run on a no labels ticket? I was never seriously considered to be their candidate. It was reported in the press otherwise, but I was never seriously considered.
So that kind of, obviously the answer is not. So on the other hand, the very fact that no Labels did that was floated, I will say has a certain rationale to it. The people in the labels actually want answers to serious problems in our country. And right now, neither candidate is actually offering serious solutions.
You've heard me speak about Social Security before. Neither candidate is offering something which has a snowball's chance of passing Congress and yet Social Security will become insolvent in about eight years. So wait, it's going to solve in eight years and neither candidate is offering a solution which has a Snowball's chance in Hades in order to get him passed. So the very fact that I speak about that means that, wait a second, this might be somebody who we would consider because this person is talking about serious, serious answers to serious problems.
Just to make a point, by the way, that if Social Security goes insolvent, there'll be a 24% cut in benefits for everybody receiving it. That's why it's so serious. We're getting to Social Security right now. But just to be clear, you're not running on no labels ticket.
I just want to be clear about that. I'm not. Okay, let's get to Social Security. You say neither candidate has a plan.
Biden has put forward a plan. Part of that be raising taxes on businesses, large corporations. On Monday, Donald Trump said he would be open to cutting Social Security. He walked those comments back.
But do you think that Trump can be trusted on the issue of Social Security to protect Social Security? Well, define protect Social Security. Neither candidates put up a plan that will Prevent the mandatory 24 cut in benefits when the trust fund goes bankrupt. And by the way, Biden's plan, He's already proposed $4.2 trillion on wealthier Americans, and now he's going, now he's going to tax them again for this.
At some point, you confiscate the wealth of wealthier Americans and you wouldn't achieve everything that he's saying that he's going to do. This is kind of like his go to, I'm going to tax wealthier Americans to fill in the blank. It's just not practical the way he's proposing it. But it gives him a talking point.
People want to move beyond talking points. They want actual answers. We're not getting them center. Part of your plan involves an investment fund.
And the challenge and the criticism is that would that not pose serious risks to investors, essentially leaving Social Security to the chance of the market, the stock market? No. In our proposal, we actually created trust funds separate from an investment fund, separate from the Social Security trust fund. So no risk is borne by the beneficiary.
She is going to be able to. She's going to repeal that law that says she gets a 24% cut and will use the money here to offset whatever borrowing is required to pay her in her benefits until it's fully, fully kind of accounted for. And so we actually know exposure. And if you look at the stock market return since 1929, it's averaged 8.5% return.
And so, yeah, there might be some time in the future where it dips down, but history shows that it increases back up. And by the way, this is what every, every pension fund almost in the world does except for Social Security. We need to follow best practices. Senator, before I let you go, I have to ask you about the House backed bill on TikTok which effectively requires the Chinese owned company ByteDance to sell it or face a total ban of TikTok in this country which has been deemed a national security threat.
Will you vote for this in the Senate? If it comes to the four for a vote, I'd like to see the final language, but I'm certainly predisposed to vote for it. Anyone that doesn't think that the Chinese Communist Party would like to influence how we think in our country just doesn't understand what they do. They have members of the board of directors.
Chinese Communist Party has members on the board of directors of ByteDance, the parent company of this. And, and in previous times the federal government has required the sale of a Chinese social media company over, over these sorts of national security concerns. And so I think this is consistent what we've done in the past. And by, by and large, I support it.
All right, Senator Cassidy, thank you so much for joining me this morning. I really appreciate it. When we come back, Democratic Senator Ben Card of Maryland, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, joins me next. Welcome back.
This week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish elected official in the country and a strong supporter of Israel, took to the Senate floor to call for new elections in Israel as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza worsens by the day. As a lifelong supporter of Israel, it has become clear to me the Netanyahu coalition no longer fits the needs of Israel after October 7th. The world has changed radically since then and the Israeli people are being stifled right now by a governing vision that is stuck in the past. The backlash from Israel was swift.
Israeli Ambassador to the US Michael Herzog calling the speech unhelpful and counterproductive. Republican lawmakers also lined up to criticize the Senate leader. It is grotesque and hypocritical for Americans who hyperventilate about foreign interference in our own democracy to call for the removal of the democratically elected leader of Israel. This is not only highly inappropriate, it's just plain wrong for an American leader to play such a divisive role in Israeli politics while our closest ally in the region is an existential battle for its very survival.
Schumer, however, found support in the White House. With President Biden weighing in Friday, he made a Good speech. And I think he expressed a serious concern shared not only by him, but by many Americans. Joining me now is Democratic Senator and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Ben Carden.
Senator Cardin, welcome back to Meet the press. Kristen, great to be with you. Thank you very much. So great to have you here in person.
I want to ask you about Leader Schumer's comments on the Senate floor. He called Prime Minister Netanyahu an obstacle to peace. President Biden said it was a good speech. Do you think Prime Minister Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace?
I think people should listen to his entire speech. Senator Schumer's speech came from his heart, what he believes is necessary for peace. He was very clear about Hamas needs to be eliminated, that there can be no peace in the Middle east or either Palestinians or the Israelis. With Hamas, the responsibilities for what is happening there is clearly when Hamas, Israel has the total right to defend itself.
And then he's talking about how do we move after the war, how do we get peace in the region? And he was very clear about the fact that you need security. You need an authority for the Palestinians that will provide security for the Palestinians and Israelis, but you also need to have a pathway to two states living together in peace. And I think he was very clear that the Israelis, their system need to get clear direction as to who they want to be their leaders.
Would you go so far though, Senator, and I hear you saying he gave context in his speech, but would you go so far as to call Netanyahu an obstacle to peace given his opposition to a two state solution? I think it's up to the Israelis to determine their own leaders. I recognize that we had challenges with the Netanyahu coalition prior to October 7th. Real concerns it caused major division within Israel before October 7th.
There's unity now because of the war. Let's see what happens here. But you make a really interesting point. And in fact, according to US Intelligence report, Netanyahu's viability as a leader may be in jeopardy.
As you know, there have been protests throughout Israel because of how he's handling the war right now. Do you think Netanyahu is the right leader for this moment? Well, I think the Israelis recognize they got to get past Hamas at this particular moment. Once there is security in Gaza and there's security for the Palestinians and the Israelis, the Israelis need to focus on who they want their leader to be.
We don't want to see a repeat of October 7th. Nobody wants to see that. But it means you have a pathway towards Peace. You need to have security.
You need two states living together side by side in peace. Who is the right leader? Israelis. President Biden said that if Prime Minister Netanyahu goes into Rafah, that that would be a red line for him.
I wonder what you think should happen if Netanyahu goes into Rafah. If there's no clear plan presented to the United States for protecting us, for protecting civilians, I should say, in the region, should the U.S. consider withholding aid and weapons to Israel? With a trusted friend, a long, mature relationship, you don't look for a transactional leverage in order to deal with your conversations.
You have frank and honest discussions and you try to find a common path forward. There's clear that going into Rafah at this particular moment, where so many people or so many Palestinians that you just, you have to make arrangements to make sure that the people that are there are not going to be undue risk. So there's. And the Israelis have acknowledged that.
So we're going to deal with our foreign policy based upon our values. At times we may disagree with Israel, but it'll be a relationship of friends. You're saying we don't use leverage, but isn't this the right time to use leverage? We have this growing humanitarian crisis and Schumer and President Biden saying Israel's not doing enough to protect civilian lives in Gaza.
Why not use all the leverage at the United States disposal? The US has tremendous leverage in our conversations with Israel, and we use that leverage. We don't have to do it through conditionality. Do you why I should say, do you think that you have not gone as far as leader Schumer and President Biden in being critical of how Israel is conducting this war?
And again, the growing humanitarian crisis that we're witnessing in Gaza. I would say I'm deeply concerned about what is happening in Gaza today, about the humanitarian crisis. We all have responsibility, including Israel, to do more to help in regards to humanitarian assistance. We need to do more to get the hostages released.
So, no, I'm not satisfied by what's happening on the ground. We need to be much more aggressive in dealing with this crisis. Innocent people are dying, and we can't let that happen. Let's turn to Ukraine now.
There's obviously been a big debate over whether more aid will be sent to Ukraine and what the form of that will be. Former President Donald Trump has said he would support it only if it's in the form of a loan. Is that something that you would support, Senator? No, I think Ukraine needs to have.
We Got to get help to Ukraine. If it starts as a loan. If we can't do anything other than that, we consider that. But this is in our national security interest.
All they're asking for us is resources, not our troops. Ukraine is not the end of Russia's aggression. If they win in Ukraine, they'll go further. I met with the president of Poland this past week.
The prime Minister of Estonia had a chance to talk to her last night. There are NATO allies that are at risk, and that means US Soldiers. So we should be. We should have done it well before now.
We shouldn't be hesitating in providing this aid. Do you think that's the only realistic path, though, this loan? That's being discussed? And again, it sounds like you're open to it.
If you reach that conclusion, I want to see the supplemental pass as is. That's the way we get aid in as quickly as possible. Passed by an overwhelming majority in the United States Senate. It provides the aid that Ukraine desperately needs.
It provides humanitarian assistance that we need. It helps Israel. It helps our allies in Indo Pacific. We need to get that done.
It also helps our military resupply what they need. And it's all done through aid here in the United States to provide the resources we need to get that done. That's the way you get things done quickly. If we try a different path, it's gonna take a long time.
Ukraine needs the help today. They don't have the ammunition they need. They're fighting Russia that recognizes there's a weakness here because of the lack of equipment. No, we shouldn't be looking at alternatives.
We should be piercing the supplemental. I have to ask you. What I was just talking to Senator Cassidy about TikTok. This bill, which just passed the House.
Again, the House bill would effectively require ByteDance, the parent company, to sell TikTok or face a total ban in the U.S. is that something you would support if it did come up for voting in the Senate? We are concerned about what TikTok does with this information, whether they could use it against Americans and use their privacy and compromise our national security. Our concern is on the ownership of TikTok.
It's not on those that are using it. It's not on freedom of speech or content. It's solely on ownership. And by the way, we have concerns on all the social media platforms as to safety, particular for our children.
So there's some broader issues, but TikTok's concern is whether the Chinese will be using it against our national security interest. But if this bill in Its current form came before you. Would you vote yes on it? I'm certainly sympathetic to it.
Let's see how it goes through the Senate process. But yes, I think we need to put guardrails in regards to the ownership of TikTok. So you're open to it, it sounds like, but haven't made a final decision? No, because I think we'll see how the Senate wants to take this up and consider it.
As I said, there are issues concerning safety for our children. So there's some other issues that may get combined with this. So I'll be working with my colleagues. But I'd like to see us get to the finish line and provide the guardrails that are necessary.
Let me switch gears. You became the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee when New Jersey Senator Bob Men was indicted on bribery charges. He stepped down from his post. We now have reporting that he's considering potentially running for reelection as an independent.
We asked him about that, our reporters did. He didn't rule it out. What is your reaction? What do you make of him running for re election as an independent if that happens?
So these are very serious charges. His trials coming up shortly. My responsibility in taking over the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is make sure that committee can function and deal with the challenges that we have globally. So I'm going to focus on my responsibilities as chair the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and we'll see how these matters will come in.
I have to ask you one more before I let you go. You are retiring at the age of 80. Obviously age has been in the spotlight against the backdrop of this election cycle. Do you think there should be an age limit for elected office?
No, I don't think there's an age limit for elected office. If I could just correct you a little bit, I'm not retiring. I'm just not running for election. Yes.
Thank you. Not running for re election, an important distinction. So. But I think each person has to make their own decision.
I had to make an eight year decision when I made my two years before the elections a six year term. And I think it's the right decision. Okay. All right.
Senator Cardin, thank you so much for being here. Great to have you in person. Thank you. We really appreciate it.
And when we come back, Democrats are playing it cool in the face of polls showing President Biden trailing Trump. Are they right? Not to worry. The panel is next.
Welcome back. The panel is here. Jonathan Martin of Politico, Lonnie Chen, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, and Simone Sanders Townsend, former chief spokesman for Vice President Kamala Harris. Thanks to all of you for being here.
I want to start on Trump's legal battles and specifically the drama that is playing out in Georgia this week. A judge effectively ruled that the top prosecutor or the district attorney, one of the two, had to come off of the case after allegations there was a conflict of interest because they had a romantic relations. Nathan Wade decided to step down. He was supposed to be here this morning.
He decided not to be, citing a family emergency. But Jonathan, what do you make of this politically? How do the politics of this all play out? The whole Trump strategy is to muddy the waters on these cases, blur them as sort of one great persecution against him, and bet that the American voter can't keep pace with all the details.
And by the way, oh, if there's some hiccups along the way here in some of these individual cases, all the better for me. And I'll try to buy time by delaying appealing and pushing these things back the best I can to after the election and bet that I can win the election and then try to pardon myself. At least in the federal cases. That is obviously what he's up to.
And we're here on St. Patrick's Day. So far, he appears to have had a pretty good strip of luck in that strategy. Simone, what do you make of that?
And do you expect any of these cases to go to trial? Because as Jonathan's pointing out, I mean, look, all of these cases have been delayed. Now, that hash money case was supposed to start at the end of the month, and now that's not even going to happen. Literally delay, delay, delay in Georgia.
I think the delay, this delay came about because we were distracted. This was an entire distraction of salacious gossip that because there was a formal inquiry, the judge had to hear it. And then we have these evidentiary hearings and instead we're talking about Nathan Wade and Gfani Willis's relationship and not the fact that Donald Trump is allies in Georgia and across the country, tried to steal an election. And that is why there's a case in Georgia in the first place.
I think perhaps in New York we're going to see that case go. I don't know about any of you. That's not. What do you make of all the.
I think there are two things that come through in all of this in Georgia for most voters. Number one is the hot mess, ok? This whole thing has become a hot mess. And that leads to number two, which is, I think if you look at recent survey research out of Georgia.
What you find is voters say this is a politically motivated prosecution. And that by the way, is the message that the Trump campaign, the Trump team, has been emphasizing all along. And so I really think fundamentally, to John's point, this strategy is working for the former president. What he's doing is working in terms of saying look, there's a lot of stuff out there, but fundamentally what this is about is a witch hunt against me.
But I think that's a five line. Democrats can't count on the legal system. Take care of Trump. He's got to be beaten in the political court.
Right? Biden's have to be in that. False. Yeah, absolutely.
But this, I mean there all of these cases Donald Trump brought upon himself. He's the one who kept the documents in Florida after the archives begged him to give them back. You know, he is the person they got on the vote asking for 11,780 votes and attempted to sell election. He's the person that tried to cover up the relationship with Stormy Daniels because he thought it was going to affect the election.
I mean he did say it was going to be wild and encourage people to march on the Capitol. The insurrectionist like a block Wavemali. It plays differently in a general that it doesn't primary, doesn't it? It does.
But I think for independent voters, what we really care about. Right. Or potentially soft Republican voters, I do think some of it's become background noise. Unless and until there's a disposition again, until there's a disposition, that will be the difference.
And you look at all the polling that's fairly consistent. If there's a disposition in one of these cases, then it does change the dynamic. And that is why you see the legal strategy now becoming a political strategy. And that's why this is the question of timing is so important.
It's a really great point. The other thing we all saw this week, Special counsel Robert testified about his report on the classified document handling by President Biden. Of course he decided not to charge him. Basically infuriating Democrats and Republicans with the testimony.
By the way, bipartisan moment if you will. It comes as we are getting this new reporting about the Biden campaign, about President Biden himself and how he is taking especially all these polls which show him in some cases losing former President Trump. Basically our reporting says that Biden has grown angry and anxious about his re election efforts. Is that what you're hearing in your conversations with Democrats?
Well, yeah. I mean look, if I were running for election against a person like Donald Trump who has as many issues as he has and has committed as many alleged acts of criminality as he has. And I would be, and you saw polls that said I was losing to him. Even I would be like, what is going on here in America?
And so I've heard the frustration from Democrats, but also that they do believe there's time and opportunity to get their message out now that it is a one on one. Trump and Biden make that contrast so that folks understand the choice. He's got to drive the message, though. I mean Biden's got to make the case every day against Trump almost as though he's more of a challenger than the incumbent.
Right. He's got to sort of do that, prosecute the against Trump. How do you do that for the Oval Office? That's a challenge.
I think you have an army of surrogates out there helping you every day. And I think you also have to try to get out there and do it yourself more aggressively. There's so many examples to take. The Tik Tok case where Trump changes his mind on being Tik Tok clearly informs the influence of a billionaire with a stake in TikTok.
If you're a Democrat, how do you not scream that from the root? This is brazen corruption. But where is that aggressiveness? I think it still makes me seen that Biden can't prosecute.
I think that there's two angles that they can take here. One is this democracy angle. I would submit to you. I don't think it's working.
I don't think it's working. They would argue it has in the past the biggest intervening factor between 2020 and 2024 and that has come into effect and people really feel the impact of that. So unless the Biden team goes directly on the economy and talks about how a second term of President Biden would potentially be better economically than a second term of President Trump. I think that's the argument that they've got.
Tough argument to make. So dependent upon his opponent to win re election. This is not a normal time. Yes, exactly.
Talking about the j racist criminals as hostages, prompting a blood bath, demonizing immigrants, saying they're not human. So I just think this is a normal election. The democracy plus what you're going to do for the voters is what is going to speak to them, I believe. All right, great conversation.
You guys didn't need me here at all. Thank you. We're happy to be here when we come back. Agency was a potential liability in the 2024 campaign, but it was also an issue in the last presidential rematch in 1950.
Army. The President is next. Welcome back. Concerns over President Biden, former President Trump's age are not the first time a president's health has come under intense scrutiny.
The 34th President Dwight Eisenhower, suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized in his first term, raising questions about whether he was physically fit for office as he sought re election in 1956. As former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt argued on this broadcast, the issue of the President's health brought an intense focus on his vice President, Richard Nixon. Even before the campaign started, the Democrats indicated that they were going to lay great stress on the slogan they vote for Eisenhower is the vote for Nixon. Do you think that that's either a real issue or a good issue?
I think it's an issue you have to face because at no time do any of us know what may happen to us. Therefore, when we elect a president and a vice president, we must be prepared to face the fact that the vice president may become president. That may happen to anybody at any time. And I think all of us should face that issue and know whether we are prepared to elect on that basis.
When we come back, celebrity chef Jose Andres, the founder of World Central Kitchen, joins me for our Meet the moment conversation. Welcome back. Chef Jose Andres says he doesn't know if he even describes himself as a chef anymore. To the world, he's one of the most significant humanitarians of the 21st century.
World Central Kitchen, the aid organization he founded, is the first group on the front lines of crises around the world, from the earthquake in Haiti to the war in Ukraine. Its mission, feeding the people impacted by disaster and hardship. Recently, Andres has been on the ground in Gaza working to bring more food and aid into the territory, with officials warning famine is imminent. This week, I sat down with Jose Andres as the first shipment of humanitarian aid into Gaza by sea departed Cyprus.
Thanks to a new maritime corridor that World Central Kitchen organized. What we cannot do issues failed the people of Gaza. That would be the true failure, is not trying. So we're trying and I hope that in few days we can say we've had little success.
And from that success, everybody being comfortable that this is possible, we can build a bigger system to bring huge quantities of food daily into the shores of Gaza. Now that aid has been offloaded in Gaza and a second ship with more food and supplies is being prepared. Now in our need the Moment conversation, I asked Chef Andres about the crisis in Gaza and whether Israel should be doing more to help. Should Israel be doing more totally ceasefire?
Should be happening immediately. The hostages should be released totally. What is a little bit difficult to understand is how you are doing a mission to try to liberate your fellow citizens, but you are bombing at times, building after building that you may have those hostages right in those buildings. So if the true intention of that is releasing the hostages, I would not say this is the most clever way to try to take them out alive.
At the very least, if they're going to stop the military advance to make sure that nobody's hungry and that nobody's with a foot of water. This is something that should be happening overnight, but for political reasons, I guess it's not happening yet. Let's talk about the history of World Central Kitchen. The first major conflict zone war that you went into was in Ukraine.
What was that like and how did it prepare you for the work that you're doing now in Gaza? Well, I think you're never prepared. The more I know, the more I know. Nothing with boots on the ground is when life shows you experience.
Many of the things wasn't a vision we've ever done. It's not like we have a manual. You learn as you go. We were on the first day of delegation of Butch on Irpin.
We saw the atrocities that the Russian military did to those men and women with people on the ground with a shot in their head, with a piece of bread next to their hand just before going out and trying to bring their bread to feed their children. People were being shot and we lost six people in three different bombings in the places they were sleeping that even they were in a bunker. When the missile just gets on top, sometimes there's not much you can do. So this gave me an understanding and a feeling I never had before.
Are you worried that the world is starting to forget about what's happening in Ukraine? What is still happening in Ukraine? As there's so much focus, rightfully so, on the war in the Middle east now, obviously Ukraine has been forgotten and this conflict has made even that even worse. Ukraine is a country that is defending themselves.
I'm not a man of war, I'm a man of peace. But they are defending the land. If they don't defend the land, they have no land left. So it's very different when you attack them, when you're defending yourself.
So I believe the United States should be far way more. Europe should be doing far way more. We are letting these people that they show they know how to defend themselves, almost like alone and forgotten. I do believe that if we don't stand to Leaders that want to bring mayhem and chaos to the world.
The world is not a better place. Are you more afraid? I don't think you're always afraid, but you are next to people that support each other, and even we're all afraid. What are you going to do by being conscious?
Amos is like it disappears. Your new cookbook, named after this restaurant, Zaytinya, focuses on Mediterranean food. Talk about the significance of that and what you hope people will take from this new cookbook that you have. Well, listen, you know, especially with connected to what's happening in the Middle east now.
Everybody has a huge love for food, especially now in Ramadan. The family is coming together to break fast and in a very important moment. But the time I spend in Israel and the time I've been spending in Gaza, seems everybody loves falafel and everybody loves homes with equal intensity. I wonder how people that love the same food, they can be at odds with each other.
Right here in this restaurant, I have longer tables. When you bring people together around a table with the foods they love, that's a beautiful, powerful moment. I wish my words were not used, romantic words that everybody would agree with. And that food could be an amazing, powerful medium used to bring people together.
But it is true. Satania celebrates hundreds, if not thousands of years of traditions and dishes with different cultures that everybody has added their touch that makes the Mediterranean cooking in the east fascinating and just finally, given that you are immersed in all of this difficult work and all of these places that are experiencing so much pain and violence right now, what gives you hope and optimism? Listen, the hope and optimism I have is that when the early days, on the first day of the brutal attack against different Israeli communities, I was in the region, began feeling right there, with the help of locals, not only Israeli, but other nationalities and other Jewish, but other people from other religions, they all come together to help us bring food and relief to those people that were decimated on that brutal attack at the same time. So there I saw people helping people, the best humanity in the worst moments of humanity.
Nobody should be wishing back to others. Breaking bread with people in Gaza and breaking bread with people in Israel, that's the feeling you get, that they don't wish the others anything wrong, that everybody wants peace and prosperity because they believe is what the vast majority of people want. We need to give those people the place at the table and their voices must be heard, because it's more people of good than people of mayhem. Let's give the table to the people of goodness.
Powerful message there. And you can watch my full interview with Jose Andres at meetthepress.com, his new cookbook, Seytinia, is out March 19. And Andres will be on the Today show on Tuesday, so be sure to tune in. Before we go, we'd like to give a final mention to Betty Cole Duker, former executive producer of Meet the Press, who passed away Saturday at the age of 96.
She was a producer with the show for 41 years, starting as an assistant to Lawrence Vivac in 1956. She was a cherished member of the Meet the Press family and she will be sorely missed. That is all for today. Thank you so much for watching.
We'll be back next week because if it's Sunday, it's Meet THE Press. Hey, it's Kate Snow, NBC News anchor and host of the Drink. This month, Demi Lovato is my guest. The global superstar tells me that she is the happiest she's ever been right now.
But getting there, it wasn't simple. Demi opens up about starting in Hollywood young and why she now thinks she may have started too soon. She talks about recovery, her new marriage and the deeply personal reason behind her new cookbook. The Drink is always about the journey to the top, and this was an honest conversation about what that takes.
Hope you'll listen and follow the Drink wherever you get your podcast.