Meet the Press NOW — April 11

If it's Thursday, all eyes are on Arizona as abortion rights, immigration and election integrity are all converging in a critical battleground state that could decide the future of the White House and control of Congress. Plus a coming together to counter China. President Biden is set to hold a first of its kind trilateral summit just moments from now as the U.S. japan and the Philippines look to bolster relations in response to Chinese aggression.

And from the hall of fame to the trial of the century, a look back at the rise and fall and the life and death of O.J. simpson. Welcome to BE the PRESS now. I'm Kristen Welker.

We begin today in the battleground state of Arizona, which is now poised to be the center of the 2024 political universe. The biggest fights over the biggest issues, including immigration, abortion and election procedures, are all converging in a state that could decide control of the White House and Congress this November. Right now, the issue of abortion is of course looming very large amid local and national backlash over the state Supreme Court decision to uphold a Civil War era territorial ban on the procedure. On the heels of that decision, the Biden campaign today launched a seven figure TV ad digital campaign focused right on that issue.

Because of Donald Trump, millions of women lost the fundamental freedom to control their own bodies. And now women's lives are in danger because of that. The question is, if Donald Trump gets back in power, what freedom will you lose next? Your body and your decisions belong to you, not the government, not Donald Trump.

I will fight like hell to get your freedom back. Now this is all a part of Democrats ever to capitalize on this moment. Vice President Harris, in fact, is heading to the state tomorrow. Meanwhile, many Republicans are trying to distance themselves from the ruling, including Arizona Republican Senate candidate Carrie Lake, who today reiterated her opposition to that 1864 ban, despite her past comments in which she supported it.

This total ban on abortion that the Arizona Supreme Court just ruled on is out of line with where the people of the state are. The issue is less about banning abortion and more about saving babies. I agree with President Trump. This is such a personal and private issue now.

That comes after the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. Donald Trump also distanced himself from the law and did a post on social media last night signaled he is eager to try to move past this issue. We did something that nobody thought. We brought it back to the states where it belongs and where everyone wanted it.

The states will be making the decision. Republicans are now free to run for office based on the horrible border inflation, bad economy, the death and destruction of our country. And of course, Trump's Supreme Court justices are responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade, kicking this issue back to the states.

Now, in Arizona, an effort in the state legislature to repeal the law was thwarted yesterday, leading to a huge outburst on the floor from Arizona Democrats. Shame on you. Shame on you. Shame on you.

Shame on you. Joining me now to kick this all off is Jerry Duna, Arizona politics reporter for Axios. Jeremy, thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it.

Thanks for having me. Well, we saw that drama on the state House floor yesterday. So bring us up to speed on this effort to repeal the 1864 ban. Of course, Democrats and some Republicans supported this, but do you think that this is likely to happen?

It's now been blocked by GOP lawmakers. I would imagine so. I mean, I think the votes are probably there. We know they are there.

In the state Senate, the Republicans have, they only have a one vote majority in each chamber. So the Democrats only need a couple of them to vote to further appeal for that to happen. It's just a matter of whether they'll actually be able to bring that up for a vote. We saw yesterday some procedural maneuvers by the Republicans to both chambers will be back on the floor next Wednesday.

I'm sure we'll see that again next week and probably every day until it happens. Ben Thomas, who's the speaker of the Arizona House, that he expects that to come back, but he doesn't want, doesn't think we should rush through something like this. But it seems like every day they go, every day that passes without that repeal being passed another day, the Democrats just continue to hammer the Republicans on this. Yeah.

So ultimately, though, just to be clear, you do think eventually it will be repealed, Mike, if I had to guess, I would say probably yes. I think the votes are there and I think eventually there's Republicans probably who are not necessarily siding with efforts to roll leadership on this. But eventually, if it doesn't come to pass, I think they'll probably switch sides at some point just because I think this is such critical importance for the election. The Democrats sees us immediately.

They're telling that people vote Democrat up and down the ballot if you want abortion rights. Eventually, I think enough Republicans decided they don't want to play games over the legislature and deal with these procedural maneuvers. Eventually, I think that will probably happen. There's been a lot of discussion, of course, about an amendment that would need enough signatures to be voted on in November that would effectively protect reproductive rights.

Do you think those Signatures will be there. Will they be able to get that passed? That seems pretty likely. I mean they've already, they announced a few weeks they have about half a million signatures, which is a bit more than they need now.

Of course you need a really big cushion when you talk about citizen initiatives to kind of make up for signatures that get invalidated and stuff like that. But from the get go we can see that there's just tons of money out there for this. A lot of organizations going on between Arizona and, you know, national political figures and Democrats and abortion rights groups. They were talking about, I think, a $50 million campaign from the get go.

So it's pretty hard to imagine a scenario where they don't get the signature. So they want to make sure that they'll be able, they'll get enough that I think to make sure that they can withstand whatever kind of inevitable court challenge comes. Yeah, it seems like it's an all hands on deck effort right now. Let me ask you, the Republican who I'm actually about to speak to, Matt Gress, brought of course that effort to repeal the 1864 ban to the floor.

Democrats have accused him of previously sponsoring a fetal personhood bill. There's a little bit of gray area there though. Clear it up. What's the truth in terms of what he supported in the past?

I haven't looked at that legislation. I couldn't tell you specifically what is in it. I don't if I recall correctly, I don't believe there's that actual field personhood language in there. I think it for if I recall for last year it was more of a slippery slope argument from Democrats and abortion words advocates.

But again, I'm not 100% sure on exactly what was in the text of the bill. And Representative Breast says that they were not fearful personhood bills. Let me ask you about something else that's gotten a lot of attention in your state. The attorney general has pledged that she will not prosecute anyone under that 1864 bill.

But given the fact that Roe v. Wade has now been overturned, I mean, what's the reality there? Is it possible? Can she really say that Realistically I guess is the question.

Maybe that remains to be seen. The Attorney General Mays is claiming authority under a state statute that she says cannot be for the authority to. I think it was from his supervised county attorneys. Governor Hobbs issued an executive order last year that proposed to take away authority to prosecute abortion related crimes from the 15 county attorneys and give to the attorney general.

But I think there's some conflicting legal opinions as to whether she actually has the authority to do that. This law has only been used once. That was almost 50 years ago. It wasn't fully litigated.

But I think the bigger and more important point here is even if Attorney General mays and to assure abortion providers that there will be no prosecutions for violating this law, I think what we're hearing is that they're going to actually provide abortions if it is illegal. If it is illegal, if it's on the books, it's against the law. No one's willing to roll the dice and potentially commit a felony to do that, I think. So regardless of what prosecute, where prosecutorial authority is and who is going to prosecute what.

I'm pretty sure once we see this kind of pause in the enforcement expire in about 60 days or so, abortion service is pretty much going to halt completely in the state. All right, Jeremy Judah, well, you are in the center of the political universe right now, so I anticipate we will be talking to you again soon. Thank you so much for your expertise, your great reporting. We really appreciate it.

Joining now is Arizona Republican State Representative Mattress, as I just Representative was saying, you brought that motion to force a vote on a bill to repeal the 1864 abortion ban. Your effort was effectively blocked by some of your own. Republican colle how confident are you that ultimately this will pass when lawmakers return next week? Kristen?

I feel very confident that when we convene next Wednesday, we will vote on the measure and it will prevail in the House and it will be sent to the Senate and the Senate will take up the measure and we'll prevail in the Senate. And most likely that bill will be on Governor Hobbs by the end of the day. You think by the end of Wednesday Governor Hobbs will be able to sign a bill to effectively repeal that 1864 abortion ban bill? That's my that's my expectation based on the conversations I'm having with members.

We're going out the votes. You know, it's interesting. Yesterday the House speaker said lawmakers need to carefully consider action and not rush legislation, saying, quote, these are difficult conversations we all need to have and we absolutely cannot have them. And Democrats, Democrat legislatures act as uncivilly and engage in appallingly childish behavior, as we saw on the House floor.

Obviously, that is a response to the outburst that we played at the top of your show. What is your reaction to that, given that you did bring this motion to the floor, that you support repealing this man, you know, Arizona has had a long tradition of leaders choosing what's right over party affiliation. And on this particular topic, repealing the territorial ban, which goes way too far and effectively outlaws all abortions in the state of Arizona except, say, life of the mother, is not reflective of the will of the electorate. So I think constituents want us.

I represent a district that I think is a microcosm of Arizona and of the United States. It's a third Republican, a third Democrat and a third Independent. They expect us to come together and talk through this issue, resolve it so that we can provide a certainty to Arizona women and doctors that are not going to be locked up for abortion. I feel very confident that we can have that dialogue and have that vote next Wednesday and that it will prevail.

Representative Gress, just give us the bottom line here of what your goal is. Do you want to see a return to the 15 week ban that had been in place prior to this state Supreme Court decision? I'm proudly pro life and have supported policies that respect women and protect midlife. And I also believe in a reasonable time frame with exceptions and should we repeal the territorial law, the 15 week time frame would go back into effect.

I think that is where most Arizonans are on this issue with reasonable policies. So that would be would be my preference. And then you also have on the ballot that you mentioned earlier in the segment the abortion access initiative, which would effectively prevent abortions up to nine months in certain circumstances. I think that's too extreme.

So you have a territorial ban on one hand and a nine month abortion initiative on the other hand. Most Arizonans are in the middle on this issue and we need to find common ground. Just to be clear, you're talking about the constitutional amendment that would make the threshold viability at 24 weeks. Is that what you're talking about?

Yes. Well, that's one provision, but they also include an exception beyond the 24 weeks. If a Title 32, a health care professional fails for the life of the mother, if the life of the mother is at risk, if there is a health concern, there's a mental health provision in there. So that If a Title 32 professional identifies a mental health concern as well beyond just the life of the mother, that's all that's always there throughout the entire pregnancy and it's there under the territorial law.

But the mental health issue I think has some serious concerns around how easy and legal it would be to get late term or partial birth abortions. It goes too far. Well, Representative Grass, it's important to note that late term abortions are incredibly rare. If you look at the polls, when you talk about a 15 week ban, 54% of Americans actually say they're opposed to it.

I hear you saying that most people support it. That goes against what the polling shows, representative press. I've seen polling that says the opposite, where the 15 week time frame is a common sense solution that a lot of voters are in favor of. But what is really clear is that most voters and most Arizonans want abortion to be permissible in the state of Arizona.

They do not want it outright banned and they don't want the territorial ban. And so that's really important Here we come back next Wednesday. We have an emergent situation that we should address with urgency. And I call on my Republican and Democratic colleagues to come together for Arizona to do the right thing.

Let me just ask you, do you think that the Republican presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, do you think that he has shown a lack of clarity around this issue? He is responsible for overturning Roe v. Wade. He has, in response to this, said that it's appropriate for these things to get decided at the state level, although he also has said this goes too far.

He's been accused of hypocrisy by some, some conservatives say that he hasn't shown enough clarity. Do you think his lack of clarity will create vulnerabilities for Republicans up and down the ballot? I think President Trump has been pretty clear that this decision should rest with people and with the states. And he also believes in reasonable timeframes with exceptions that respect women and protect your life.

I think he's been very clear on that point. But as you know, a number of conservative groups have said that effectively in coming out and saying that this is a state's issue, from their perspective, doesn't go far enough that they want a candidate who's going to support a national ban. Do you support a national ban on a portion of 15 weeks? I do not support a national ban and I don't support any national action and I don't support a state ban.

This is for the people of Arizona to decide and they will decide it this November. And when the votes are cast and the results are given, you're going to see a place that has policies that protect women. And my hope is will also protect new life. And I believe that the current policy that we have in place with the territorial ban does neither.

All right. State Representative Gress, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it. Thanks, Kristen.

And joining me now is the Mayor of Phoenix, Kate Gallego. Mayor Gallego, thank you so much for joining me. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

What we just talked, of course, as you just heard, to a state Republican who has said he opposes 1864 abortion ban, but some Democrats have criticized Republicans for backpedaling on this issue. My question, though, if the goal is to repeal this ban, do you want Democrats to reach across the aisle to work with Republicans to get this repeal done? We absolutely have to repeal this ban. It is so scary to think about what's happening to women's health right now in Phoenix and in Arizona.

We had a doctor shortage to begin with. And I'm talking to doctors who just don't feel comfortable practicing even basic OBGYN medicine because of the fear that they could be questioned over decisions. I see a nurse practitioner right now because my ob GYN left. It was hard to find one.

And to think that more doctors might be changing how they practice. It's unthinkable to think that doctors have to consider if a woman is going to die before giving her care so that they can't think about things like chronic lifetime pain that could be easily prevented and not have a chance to do that. I have had a good friend who was pregnant and married, wanted the baby miscarried and then came home from a procedure and received an insurance bill for abortion. Didn't even realize that that's what she had had.

And just the huge amount of confusion around very safe medical procedures that won't be able to happen in Arizona. We have to do something about this crazy ban. Let's talk about before I ask you this question. Do you expect that this repeal will get passed?

You just heard the representative, the state representative, say he thinks it could happen as early as Wednesday. They could be on the governor's desk as soon as next Wednesday. Is that what you're hearing? Do you think that that's likely?

I'm deeply concerned that that won't happen. Some of the Republicans, the very few Republicans who said they would vote for repeal, have lost endorsements and gained momentum for their primary challengers. So I think that may hinder their ability to do the right thing. The speaker who you quoted earlier is in a very hotly contested Republican primary for an open congressional seat.

I don't see him allowing this to move forward. I sincerely hope that it does. It is a scary time for our families and women losing agency over their bodies. So they need to get something done.

But the politics have been very difficult. You saw yesterday, a vote was on the floor and didn't move forward. Let me ask you about this constitutional amendment that would effectively guarantee access up to 24 weeks. You heard Representative Grest say that he thinks that it goes too far.

So first of all, what's your reaction to that to Republicans who say 24 weeks goes too far? There are too many exceptions included in this constitutional amendment. I think it's a responsible constitutional amendment that allows doctors to practice medicine and women to have access to care. I appreciate it when you push back on Representative Grass when he's called it a nine month.

No one who has a baby at eight months is wanting. That's not the issue for so many women. There's a challenge right now where you don't even know that you're pregnant and these bands are kicking in. For myself, I've only been pregnant once, and the first time I went to the doctor with a pregnancy, I was diagnosed with having the flu.

So I wanted the baby, but I didn't realize that was what was happening. I can't imagine people who have more difficult circumstances, including women whose doctors have told them it's not safe for them to carry a baby. Mayor, do you think that ultimately there will be enough votes to put enough signatures to put this amendment up for a vote? I do believe that we will have enough signatures, but the Republican legislature has made felon initiatives very difficult in Arizona to get to the finish line.

There's a huge amount of loopholes. There's a huge amount of just challenges to get something on. And you can lose signature validity for simple things like being too far outside of the box. So there will be unquestionably legal challenges.

It would feel better for me if we had legislative leadership. The governor will sign what they sent to her in addition to the ballot initiative. They're just these decisions are essential for women to have agency over their own bodies. They protect families.

And we cannot leave it to chance over things like whether the signatures are inside the box. All right. Mayor Kate Gayego, we really appreciate your perspective. Thank you so much for joining me this afternoon.

Thank you. Coming up, security officials around the globe are on edge amid rising fears that Iran consumers tally for that Israeli strike in Syria. They killed multiple Iranian officials. We'll have the very latest from the Pentagon.

Do stay with us. You're WATCHING THE PRESS now. Welcome back. Right now, President Biden is hosting a trilateral summit with the leaders of Japan and the Philippines with an eye on countering China's expanding military presence in the Indo Pacific region and especially in the South China Sea.

In that meeting, the president announced a series of economic and security initiatives that further underscore America's commitment to that region. Joining me now is NBC's Monica Alba, who is at the White House for us. So, Monica, talk about the key deliverables from this trilateral meeting. What is President Biden hoping for?

It's exactly what you said there at the top, Kristen. This commitment on the South China Sea, that kind of cooperation is really critical when you talk about the potential threat from China. And that's something that really over the course of the last couple of years, the Biden administration has talked about with the highest of stakes. Remember, there were all of those military close calls between the two.

And remember, there have been incidents in South China Sea. And so having the ability for the Philippines, for example, to commit, to allow US Service members to be located on certain bases there and to have Japan also commit to that kind of reciprocity, those are the kinds of agreements that they're going to be talking about in addition to those economic ties. But really this is on the heels of a state dinner that was held for Japan. But then they wanted to build on that kind of cooperation again, shoring up this alliance in the Indo Pacific, which is a key priority for this president and for the administration.

Kristen, it absolutely is, particularly with China becoming increasingly aggressive, as you say. Monica, let me ask you about the Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen, who was in Beijing earlier this week. What can you tell us about that and the goals of her trip? Well, remember, there was a long time about a year ago where we weren't even sure when high level US Officials could travel to China because of the Chinese five balloon incident.

And at the time, Secretary Blinken had a high profile visit that was scrapped and then he went later. And then there was of course, this major summit between President Biden and President Xi Jinping to try to restore the military to military communications and really just to kind of lower the temperature on the relationship between the US And China. And they feel like they have been relatively successful at doing that because you have seen trips like the one that Secretary Yellen just took and because we know that President Biden and President Xi did just speak recently by phone in the last couple of weeks or so, and they have committed to being in more frequent and regular touch. So things have simmered down, but they're still, of course, monitoring for any potential threats that emerge from there.

All right. And we know you will continue to monitor this developing story. Thank you for joining us, really appreciate it. Well, as President Biden hosts that trilateral summit, the administration remains focused on the potential for escalating violence in the Middle East.

Biden administration officials have grown increasingly concerned about the potential for a retaliatory strike on Israel following last week's strike on Iranian consulate in Syria that killed two senior commanders. Now just in the last 24 hours, both President Biden, Secretary of State Antony Blinken reiterated their support for Israel's defense against any threats posed by Iran in its proxies. And just moments ago, we learned from Israeli officials that their defense minister spoke to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin about its, quote, readiness for an Iranian attack. Tracking all of this is NBC News Pentagon correspondent Courtney Cubicle.

Thanks for joining me this afternoon. So what are you hearing from officials about what this Iranian retaliation could look like could be imminent? Yeah, so look, the reality, Kristen, is we've been hearing for several days now that something could be close. But I don't want to scare people into saying that it's imminent like it could happen at any moment when the reality is the US Officials don't seem to exactly know what they do.

What they are tracking here is an assessment that if in fact Iran does follow through with these multiple threats now for retaliating against Israel or this attack in Damascus, two of the most likely ways they would carry that out would be either with land attack cruise missiles, so ballistic missiles, or with drone swarms, or frankly with a combination of both. But the reality is the US Is not really sure where those targets exactly could be. Among the options they're looking at, according to a number of officials we spoke with, could be inside Israel. Now, if in fact the Iranians were to target inside Israel, the officials believe that they would go after something that would almost be reciprocal to the strike in Damascus, meaning something that is a military or even intelligence facility as opposed to targeting civilians.

Officials are also telling us that they could be looking at some sort of a consular, diplomatic, military intelligence sort of facility elsewhere in the region, not necessarily in Israel. But what I really want to stress here, Kristen, is that U.S. officials simply are not sure what exactly Iran could do here, but they're preparing for the reality that there may be some sort of retaliation coming in the coming hours or days. Well, I'm going we know that the commander of the U.S.

central Command is actually in the region today. What do you know about that visit and what is he hoping to achieve? Yeah, and we can actually report now that he did travel to Israel today for a number of meetings with Israeli officials. So this was a trip that was planned some time ago pre planned, but they accelerated.

They moved up the dates of it. Given the tensions in the region, we don't exactly know who we met with or what they discussed, but officials are conceding that they did talk about this threat. And that's not surprising, Kristen, given the fact that President Biden has spoken with Benjamin Netanyahu about it and a number of other mentions that Kerry Austin spoke with his counterpart, Minister Gallant and the chairman of the Joint Chief, General C. Kiron, also spoke with his counterpart.

So there's a number of discussions have been going back and forth on this. And I will say that we've been told by US Officials, our colleague Carol Lee and I that as part of these discussions the US has looked at potential response options should the US get drawn into this conflict and should it escalate into a larger regional conflict. But officials here are really hoping on hoping for the fact that this will not be some sort of a larger scale attack that will bring this into a larger regional. Regional conflict.

Yeah. Courtney and I have been talking about the concerns surrounding potentially becoming a larger, larger regional conflict, as you say, for many months now. Courtney qb, thank you so much. Really appreciate it.

As we have mentioned, Biden administration has been acutely focused on a number of foreign policy challenges this week from the ongoing Israel Hamas war to countering China and Indo Pacific and the funding fight on Capitol Hill over USA to Ukraine. For more on all of this, I'm joined now by Democratic Congressman from York, Reverend Meeks. He's the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Congressman, thank you so much for joining.

I really appreciate it. Good to be with you. I want to start with where we started this segment which is that trilateral meeting taking place at the White House right now. What message do you think that trilateral meeting sends to China and what are the deliverables that you would like to see come from?

Well, it says that the democratic countries are in the Indo Pacific are going to stick together and going to work together. You know, it is historic in nature in that regard. So when you look at what President Biden has done bringing together for the first time at Cap, David, historically Japan and South Korea, now also adding in Australia working together the Philippines, it is showing that the Indo Pacific will continue to be an open area and that the democratic countries are not going to let an authoritarian government come in and try to use coercion or other matters. And we got to work very closely together in that regards.

Let's turn now to the Middle east and Israel specifically. You have said you will not approve the sale of F15 fighter jets to Israel without what you have called assurances about what they will be used for. Can you help us, Congressman? Be specific.

What kind of assurances do you need to see before you approve such a sale? Look, we've got a lot of things going on right now. And what I want to do is to make sure that I get all the facts. And then, for example, you know, we have a situation, one dealer with Hamas who now says they don't have the 40 hostages enough to continue the, the ceasefire conversation.

Number two, you have a situation where you have various we almost may have a famine going on salvation with how many humanitarian trucks to get aid into to feed the Palestinians. You know, how do you know what's happening on the ground there? You have a situation, just what I heard you talked about in the last interview, where Iran may be trying to attack Israel. And so Israel has to have what it needs also to make sure they can solve off anything that may happen there.

So there's a lot of things and it's time for me to make sure that I get all of the information before I have to make a decision on that. In fact, we're Talking about the F15s and what we're talking about really would not be deliverable to Israel until at least five years from now. So I think that the window is to make sure and the responsibility that I have is to make sure that I get the assurance of all the facts that are taking place on the ground from all the parties that are concerned. Well, you take me to my next question because as you say, the F15 fighter jets wouldn't get there for quite some time.

So I guess the question is, Congressman, is the US Using enough leverage? Do they need to apply more pressure than these verbal warnings to Israel? Do they need, does the US need to condition aid to Israel in order to see the types of results mitigating civilian deaths, which is what the President is calling for? Well, you see that the President is working very hard and there are certain things that, you know that one of them, they're trying to find out how many gateways that now that will be addition there to get the aid in or the ability to have where we may have 400 trucks going in going up to 700, 800.

Let's talk to the World Food Organization and other NGOs that may be on the ground so that we know that we're feeding people our focus on wanting to stop starvation from taking place also. So all of those things are very important. Just to know and make factions and decisions. The responsibility that I have as a ranking Democrat on affairs committee is let's get that and let's see where we go from, go from there.

Those are all important things. As you noted, there are growing concerns that there could be a retaliatory strike by Iran on Israel. If that were to happen, if those concerns were to grow, would that change your assessment? Would you then be willing to provide those F15 and aid without permissions attached?

So in my opinion, part of what the deal is, you know, I don't want 1000 pound, 1000 pound or 2000 pound bombs going into Gaza. That seems to me to be the wrong thing to do. It causes, you know, indiscriminate death of children and women and innocents. That should not happen now.

At the same time, if Israel is attacked by Iran or Hezbollah or any of them, then those weapons may be appropriate to be utilized there. So because you're talking about what's coming from there. So I want to make sure that Israel is, because we know what Hama with Hezbollah and Iran, they don't want Israel to exist. We're not going to allow Israel to disappear and we're going to support Israel in that regard to make sure that they have the right, as we've talked about all the time, to defend themselves.

And so if in fact they're attacked, we in the United States are not going to turn our back on Israel. We're going to help them, you know, give them what they need to defend themselves. I think that's what this is all about. This is about what's happening in Gaza and what's happening in Hezbollah and Iran.

And we've got to take all of those things into consideration. Congressman, let me ask you about another critical region. Of course, Ukraine. Overnight there was another massive Russian airstrike on Ukraine.

Congress has yet to approve more aid to Ukraine. Where do you stand on some of these new proposals, like providing aid to Ukraine in the form of a loan, for example, something that former President Trump has said that he supported and therefore seems to be gaining support among some Republicans. I think what we need to do is to pass the Supplemental Security supplemental bill that was passed in the Senate in a bipartisan way. That is the quickest way for us to get to Ukraine.

What they need to defend themselves and push back Russia. You know, as long as people supplying them the arms that they needed, they were not only winning, they were knocking Russia back. You look at over 300 some thousand soldiers they've killed. You look at the destruction of Russian airplanes, etc.

What they need is air cover. What they need is some attackers and other weapons to push back. They show their confidence. They show their ability over the last couple of years of this war is going on.

Just give them what they need. And guess what, it helps Ukrainians, but not only is it for our own national security interest. You heard what the prime minister, Japan talked about. They know that China's watching what's going on.

Also, if you want to beat back against China, this is the way to do it in Ukraine, giving Ukraine what it needs and it needs it urgently right now. So I would say to the speaker, just put the Senate bill on the floor so that we can then pass that bill here. The next day it will be on the president's desk. Well, that night he will sign it and we can then start giving Ukraine the ammunition it needs for the continuous.

Right. All right. Congressman Gregory Meeks, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it.

And after the break, thank you for having me. Thank you. We're going to look back at the life of O.J. simpson and what was dubbed the trial of the century.

You're watching MEET THE PRESS now. Welcome back. Well, we learned today that one of the most notorious and controversial figures in recent memory has died. O.J.

simpson passed away yesterday after a battle with cancer. According to his family. He was 76. Simpson, known as the Juice to his fans, was a college football star and a Pro Football hall of Famer.

But for millions of Americans, it was the courtroom, not the football field, that defined who Simpson was. He was tried and acquitted of murder for the 1994 killing of his ex wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman in a televised trial that ripped the entire nation. NBC's J. Gray has more since his life and career.

A Heisman Trophy winner and NFL hall of Fame running back, O.J. simpson will be remembered most for something he could never run from. Born Orenvale James Simpson in 1947, he was raised by a single mom on the rough side of San Francisco. His way out football.

A college star at usc, he was drafted by the Buffalo Bills where he had a record setting NFL career, including a league mvp. He retired as one of the best to ever play the game. And for O.J. the spotlight never dimmed.

Transitioning into a successful career in TV and movies, he was inducted into the Pro Football hall of fame in 1985, the same year he married his second wife, Nicole Brown. The couple had two children, but apparently a rocky marriage that included allegations of domestic abuse Nicole Brown Simpson filed for divorce in February of 1992. And just over two years later, she and her friend Ron Goldman were found murdered in her Brent. Five days after the deadly attack, driven by a former teammate, Simpson led officers on a low speed chase across Los Angeles, threatening to take his own life before eventually surrendering to police.

He was charged with murder. The court proceedings, dubbed the trial of the century. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit. Lasted nine months.

Every minute we the jury of the belt and title action find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of online tv. Justice was not served. Searching for that justice, the Goldman family won a civil suit. Simpson ordered to pay more than $33 million.

He returned to court multiple times over the next several years for traffic violations, even pirating cable TV. But it was a Las Vegas robbery in 2008, Simpson saying he was taking back stolen personal property that ultimately sent him to prison. Count one, conspiracy to commit a crime. Guilty.

Sentenced to 33 years, he served just over nine thank before being paroled in 2017. J. Gray, NBC News Just extraordinary to remember everything that happened there. Investigative legal correspondent Cynthia McFadden covered O.J.

simpson's murder trial for ABC News. She joins me now. Cynthia, thank you so much for being here. Just incredible you were actually there.

Tell us what it was like to have a front row seat to that extraordinary history as it unfolded. Well, it was, it was extraordinary. I mean there were only, I would guess maybe about 40 seats in the courtroom. And yes, indeed, I held a pass for ABC during those nine months of the trial.

I don't think I missed a day. It was like being in the white hot center of the nation in some ways because it was the intersection of celebrity, criminal justice, race and money. All of those things came to bear. And I think we learned a lot about ourselves in the nation through what happened.

Now, remember that Bronco chase that we just thought 95 million Americans watched it live on television. So it was a sort of, it was a, it was a gathering point. And then because the trial was televised as, you know, people watched and at night people would have discussions. I mean, that was the top of the conversation.

Not just for those of us who were lucky enough to have a seat in the courtroom, but America talked about this trial in a way that never had access to a trial before. So it was an extraordinary experience to be there. And it's so fascinating to listen to your recounted, CYNTHIA and of course I think every person remembers where they were during that low speed chase and when the verdict was read explain for folks who might be too young to remember where they were, why there was so much interest in this case, the fact that he was this storied football legend and then all of a sudden accused of murder. Well, and much of black and white America started differently, Kristen.

I mean, you know, when the verdict came in, there were a lot of people who were outraged, protested, furious, feeling that the prosecution had indeed had a mountain evidence and the defense had somehow gotten a guilty man off. And in many parts of black America, people felt that, no, finally black men had got a fair trial, finally it had enough money to hire the dream team, and finally justice had been served. So the nation responded quite differently to this. And I think that, you know, race still is a hard topic to talk about in America.

It was then, but it played out in a very public way. I mean, people, that conversation has to keep going. But it came in the context, remember back Rodney King had been beaten by the LAPD on camera. And it was in the wake of that in Los Angeles that this, this trial took place.

And so that informed a lot of people's attitudes. I'm so glad you bring that up because that was such an important aspect of that case in that moment and how America viewed everything that they witnessed in that courtroom. Cynthia and fan, we are so fortunate to have you help us remember this history. We really appreciate it.

Thank you for joining me. Great to be with you. And tonight at 11pm Eastern, right here on NBC News, now you can catch a two hour Dateline special, the People versus O.J. simpson.

You don't want to miss that. It is a fascinating love that. We'll be right back with more of the president. Welcome back.

With his job as speaker potentially on the line and an unruly right flank ready to revolt, House Speaker Mike Johnson is headed to Mar a Lago to meet with Donald Trump. He'll appear alongside the former president at an event tomorrow to speak about an issue that Trump has been fixated on since he lost the 2020 RA, what he calls election integrity. The trip comes at a perilous moment for the speaker, though, as he seeks to reauthorize the surveillance tool known as fisa and as he seeks to pass a foreign aid bill that includes funding for Ukraine without losing his job. For more, I'm joined by my panel, ABC News correspondent Dasha Burns, president and executive director of the center for American Progress Action Fund, Navy Nyack, and Republican strategist Brad Todd.

Thanks to all of you for being here. Dasha set the stage for us for Tomorrow, this joint press conference between Trump and Johnson, and they're going to talk about what they say is election integrity. What do you think the significance of this moment is? I mean, it's the former president once again setting up the messaging that he is going to be drilling over the next however many months we have until the election, which is he believes that 2020 was rigged.

He wants to make sure that this next election is not rigged. But he's been shouting election interference with all of these cases, and that is the main argument. You're gonna hear him say, biden trial, Biden trial, Biden trial over and over again. And seeing Mike Johnson standing next to him right after, he just sort of put a roadblock right in front of him and has this wing of the of Congress that is really out of the head.

You know, Kristen has been here in D.C. talking to sources, those that are talking to on the Republican side. There's a lot of concern about what is the Republican Party and what is it after. After Donald Trump.

Right. Because at this point, the fundamental principles, the platforms of the Republican Party are what Trump says they are and what he wants them to be day in and day out. And so he is using this moment to. To talk to the voters and to show, hey, this is my party.

It's my party in Congress and my party in the Supreme Court, and it's my party with the voters. Yeah, Brad, it's such an important point. And I do want to talk about fisa, which Josh was just mentioning, but it comes and he's saying, this is my party. He's also, to some extent, trying to protect Speaker Johnson, who's got this threat, whether real or not, from Marjorie Taylor Greene saying, if you pass Ukraine aid, we are going to move to have you ejected as Speaker.

And Trump and his team are basically saying, we can't afford to have more chaos in the House. How much do you think it could mitigate that threat from the right flank? I think it's for President Trump telling Republicans in the House that he's in Mike Johnson. I think that's the point of the entire exercise.

There's a constant tension between campaigning on the future and on the past for both these two candidates. And I think, you know, part of that part that comes by having been president for both of them and being up there in years of long careers. The winner of this campaign is probably when we talk more about the future and the losers probably will talk about the past. But I think that's probably what's most at stake here, is Donald Trump is trying to single House conservatives that he's the Mike Johnson.

Naveen, how do you see this moment? And one of the things that's so interesting, you do have Democrats saying, if there were a real threat to Mike Johnson, they're saying, yes, we would protect him. I don't know if that helps or hurts him ultimately, but when you talk to sources on Capitol Hill, they say, look, one of the things that Mike Johnson has been fairly effective at doing is reaching across the aisle and establishing these relationships. Governing.

No, I mean, I think a few things on the Trump meeting, I think what's telling us what they're not talking about, right? They're not talking about Fisar doing something to protect the country. They're not talking about Ukraine and the fact that we have an ally who is really trying to survive a massive war in aggression. No conversation about that.

What they're talking about the past, about Trump's concerns, about 2020 issues that are actually concerned about voters. That's the first thing. It's funny to me to think that Trump wouldn't want chaos. I mean, that is sort of what he is striving for at all times.

It is indicative that, you know, the caucus probably doesn't want this, but also keeps embarrassing Mike Johnson. And we saw it again yesterday. Yes, it was an ousing of it, but it was essentially saying, we don't really support you as speaker and what you want to do. And that is another way of really underscoring how chaotic and dysfunctional this party is.

Right? Yeah. Let's talk about fisa, which we've all been talking about, basically, the surveillance program. Donald Trump literally posted kill FISA on social media.

19 Republicans. Dasha did exactly that. It's important to note this surveillance program that they were going to reauthorize is not the one that he's actually upset. Upset about.

One that allowed the campaign staff back in 2016 to be surveilled amid concerns that there may have been some collusion with Russia. But what do you think the implications are and what does it say that Donald Trump can still come in and say, kill this bill, and 19 Republicans follow suit? I mean, to your point, right? He keeps saying that with these, with these very practical messages, right?

Voters are literally saying, he says one thing. Republicans immediately follow suit. And there are a lot of voters on the Democratic side and Republican side. We're watching this strange realignment happening.

Republicans saying, wait a minute, since when are Democrats more in favor of national security than Republicans? Wait a minute, since when are Republicans more Pro Putin and more Russia than what is going on here. And I think you're seeing a lot, a lot of voters watching this and saying, I don't really know where I fit anymore. I don't know where these parties are heading.

What I see is what Trump says they will do it on the one hand, could be selling point. Cause some voters saying, like, look, he actually really governs with an iron fist with his party. They will do what he tells them to do. On the other hand, that means, you know, you really gotta watch Trump closely rather than any of the other leaders to see what's gonna happen to the country.

Yeah, right. The Republican Party had traditionally been the party of strength when it comes to things like foreign policy. That was the talking point. For example, when you think about some of the GOP nominees in the past, McCain, Romney, for example, George W.

Bush and so on and so forth, this is a real departure from that. I don't know if they agree with that. I think Republicans still believe in protecting American power abroad. And they believe in defending military and defending armed services and, and not using as a social engineering lab like a lot of Democrats want to do.

Biden's problem is still his first baseball, which he can't fix. The core of when his downfall being polls is pointing too weak in Afghanistan. And so I think that that still remains the Achilles heel for this administration. I think national security voters will still pick to vote against Joe Biden's time.

What do you make of that? Is that still his real Achilles heel? And today we saw the President come out with these new actions to expand background checks. This executive action, it will likely get challenged in the courts, but clearly another issue that he is trying to capitalize on.

I mean, I think on Ukraine, I think the President has actually handled it very well. I think America, people are very supportive of the way he has united the world. In Europe in opposition to Putin's aggression, we've seen an expansion and strengthening of NATO. There's a really powerful story about how he showed up on the world stage.

And you see him today aligning partners in unique ways to sort of stand up to China as well. I do think on background checks, there's no question that's a huge success. That is a story that is going to save lives. It's a big one.

That was a bipartisan one. All right, great discussion, guys. Thank you so much. Josh, Naveen and Brad, I am back tomorrow with more Meet the Press.

Now the news continues with Hallie Jackson. Right now, I'm Craig Melf. Cheers. Cheers.

Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy, and now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way, too. It's really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny and quite candid. So I hope you'll join me each week.

Who knows, you might just come away with your own glass half full. Search Glass Half Full with Craig Melbourne From Today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcast.