Welcome to NEPA Press Now. I'm Yamiche Al-Sandor. Today we're following two major stories. Right now the White House and the world are waiting for Israel's next move as leaders vow to retaliate against Iran for this weekend's unprecedented aerial strikes.
U.S. officials are increasingly concerned that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could respond to Iran's attack without thinking through the potential fallout. We'll have much more on that story ahead, but we begin in New York where history is being made. Donald Trump is now the first former U.S.
president to stand trial on criminal charges. Jury selection is underway in the trial over an alleged Tashmoney payment Trump made to an adult film star during the 2016 campaign. As a criminal defendant, Trump must be present in court for those proceedings that could take him off the campaign trail for weeks. This morning, Trump entered the courtroom defiant, continuing to spread falsehoods about the case and the charges.
This is an assault in our country, and it's a country that's failing. It's a country that's run by an incompetent man who's very much involved in this case. This is really an attack on a political opponent. That's all it is.
So I'm very honored to be here. Thank you very much. The former president is facing 34 counts of falsifying business records. Prosecutors say in the aftermath of the release of the Access Hollywood tape, Trump wanted to bury a story about an alleged affair with adult film actress Stormy Daniels, though his former lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen paid her off.
Trump then allegedly doctored his company's records to cover up reimbursing Cohen. Trump denied the affair and has been not guilty on all counts. Meanwhile, Cohen is expected to testify during the trial. And the former president himself has also said he wants to testify.
But neither will happen quickly. Jury selection alone could take days or even weeks. Attorneys are paring down a pool of thousands of prospective jurors to just 12 plus six alternates. NBC News correspondent, Dr.
Burns, joins me now from outside the Manhattan courthouse. With more also here, also with now, I'm here with NBC News's Garrett Haake, who was, of course, covering all things Trump campaign. So, Garrett, I'm going to start with you. You've been here.
We know that this is, of course, a history-making day. The president, the former president, is now the first to stand in the criminal trial. I can't wrap my head around how big of a deal this is. But Trump is really trying to, in some ways, make this politically advantage to him and make, really, in some ways, make this about the campaign trail.
Tell me about that. Yeah, look, I mean, he's really trying to flip the historic nature of this moment on his head and argue that this is being done only because he's in such a strong position against the incumbent president, an argument that he started making more than a year ago when this indictment first came down. And he's really refined over time. He went on, even this morning, kind of arguing that this is a Biden prosecution against him.
I put that in air quotes, given the lack of any actual evidence to that court. But this is something that has become a article of faith among his core supporters. He's used it to fundraise quite effectively. And I think we're about to find out, I wouldn't presume, to know the answer to this question, about how effective of a kind of campaign line it will be over the next couple of weeks when the images we are going to see him will be predominantly going back and forth down that hallway and in and out of his car from Trump Tower.
To the degree to which he's able to take advantage of, the spotlight that is on him, I think, remains to be seen. But the campaign is pretty comfortable with the idea that this is what this portion of this campaign between now and the convention functionally is going to be about. Yeah, and we're still trying to get dodged. I want to stick with you because, of course, there's also this idea that there are some voters who said to me, to other reporters, that if Trump were to be convicted, that might change their view of him.
How worried, concerned is President Trump about this issue in the campaign, of course, about this issue of whether or not an issue that hasn't really hurt him being charged with all these different counts and that could change if he's convicted. Yeah, I'm fascinated by this question too because you and I both found this when we talked to voters. You see it in polls. Not a huge percentage of voters, but a significant.
Even if it's 5 to 10 percent, some polls suggest it's double that. Folks who might be soft Trump supporters who say a conviction in this case or the others might change their view of him in some way. It's always tough to pull a hypothetical. I think those voters tend to be, at least in my experience, I suspect probably in yours, the folks who are more skeptical to begin with, you know, they want to vote for a Republican.
They may not love Joe Biden. They're kind of talking themselves into Donald Trump again, but a conviction is the kind of thing that might push him back out of the MAGA camp. The general Trump strategy relies less on those kind of voters and more on activating his base and keeping Biden voters unsatisfied and less likely to turn out for him. But again, an election we expect to be incredibly close across the half dozen states that will decide it.
It doesn't take a lot of those people who might have been leaning towards Trump to say, you know what, this whole thing is just too gross. I'm too exhausted by it. I don't want it to swing an election. Yeah, well, we're also going to be joined now by Jeremy Salant.
He's a former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan DA's trial division. Also with me is Chuck Rosenberg, former U.S. attorney, former senior FBI official, and now NBC News legal analyst. Chuck, I want to start with you, give me an overview of what's been going on in the court today, especially when you look at both sides, but also, of course, the former president sitting there in court.
Right. Well, in the morning, primarily, Yamiche, housekeeping matters and rulings by the judge on certain evidentiary issues. The government wanted to introduce what we call prior bad acts to show patterns of conduct or motive. And the judge, for instance, permitted the transcript of the Access Hollywood tape on that sort of rationale.
Later in the day, after the lunch break, actually much later in the day, around 2 or 2.30, potential jurors started filing into the courtroom. They were going to complete questionnaires. Then they would be questioned on their answers. Those who felt they couldn't be impartial or fair would be excused.
And from that initial pool of 100 or so potential jurors who were in the return, eventually, the court would narrow it down to 12 jurors and six alternates who would sit at trial as jurors in the case of people versus Donald Trump. Still a few days, maybe a couple weeks off, but that process, the pick, the jury has begun. And I'm told, Joshua, you're now with us. I want to bring you into the fold here.
Of course, she's been outside the Manhattan courthouse here. Talk about, of course, the history of this day, but really what has stuck out to you as you've been monitoring these procedures and all that we saw today. Well, look, we saw just in the last couple of hours, after a lot of conversation between the lawyers for both sides and the judge, finally jurors brought into the courtroom. 96 were brought in.
About more than half were dismissed after Judge Rajan asked if they were unable to be a partial in this case to dismiss themselves or if they were unable to serve for some other reasons and more than half dismissed. Then they went on with the actual process of one year of asking the jurors questions from that 42 question survey questions that include things like, have you ever read a Trump book? Have you been to a Trump rally? Are you a member of Antifa or the Proud Boys?
Where do you get your news? So that is a process they're going through now. But it was a heated discussion between the lawyers and the judge today. We talked about how this case may not be seen quite as seriously as some of the other cases that he is involved with right now, but this is one that has some of the more salacious details, the details that he's alleged to try to suppress back in the 2016 election.
So we saw almost immediately the Access Hollywood tape, that infamous tape, come into the picture with the prosecutors wanting to submit that into evidence. The judge said they cannot play the tape, but they are able to read from that transcript. Also, allegations that the Trump campaign and the National Enquirer were in coordination to try to boost Trump's image and to damage the image of his rivals in 2016. Because remember, while the prosecution is going to try to prove to the jury that he falsified business records in his punch money scheme, the other piece that they're going to try to convince the jury of is that he did so to try to influence the 2016 election.
So they're trying to establish a pattern of behavior. And of course, Yamiche, a lot of focus on the star witness for the prosecution, Michael Cohen, how to handle his guilty plea and how to really deal with his credibility, which is something that the defense will be trying to undermine and something the prosecution is going to be trying to boost the image. And Jeremy, thank you so much for that reporting. I want to also bring in, or we should bring back Jeremy.
Jeremy, when you think about Voivier, the judge here has said that this is really one of the most extensive list of questions that he's seen as a judge. What do you think about what's going on in the questions that jurors are facing in this moment? You know, I think you have to bet him to disagree that he is, because the concern for both parties is that you're going to have a potential juror, and only it is one for this trial or home jury, is that you're going to bring in one of these jurors, and that juror or more is going to be biased. And if it's biased and predetermined against Donald Trump, you also, as a prosecutor, don't want this biased juror that can ultimately upend on a key in your case if there's a conviction.
So you'll have to ask these questions from, we heard about the Proud Boys, from podcasts, from Trump rallies, what new sources do they follow and read? All this is relevant, and you may find in real time, unlike a case that's run in the mail, if you will, that the defense and the prosecution is going to try to see, let me look at these individual social media. Let me see what they've been saying. Are they individuals that have some really strong, passionate feelings one way or the other?
Or are they just regular folks who don't really get involved in politics? So all this is a time to vet those people and really engage them and try to figure out who's going to be a fair juror and listen to the evidence and not be someone who will call that sleeper a juror. Sean, if I could go to you, there's also this issue that Dasha was talking about, which is this Access Hollywood tape. They're not going to be able to play the tape, but they can read the transcript of it, which means that prosecutors can read out loud Trump talking about grabbing people by the you-know-what.
Tell me the significance of this tape to the prosecutor's case and what it means that they won't be able to play the tape, but they can still read essentially what Trump said. Yeah, I think the judge, Amish, was trying to split the baby a little bit on this one. So there's a rule of evidence that permits prosecutors to put in what we call prior bad act evidence. I thought the Access Hollywood tape was loathsome, right?
Mr. Trump talks in disgusting terms about assaulting women for his own sexual gratification. Of course, the prosecutors want to play it, but they can't play it simply to dirty him up, to make the jury mad at Mr. Trump, so they're more likely to convict on the charges in the case.
But they can try and use that transcript, or they were asking for the tape, but they can try and use it, Amish, in order to show a pattern of conduct or motive. The motive here, of course, is that the Trump campaign, when this Access Hollywood tape broke, was in some disarray. They had to react to the disclosure of the tape. They were sort of fighting a rearguard battle.
It heightened the import of both Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels, who had their own salacious tales to tell about Mr. Trump's conduct. So permitting the government to introduce, in this case, at least the transcript of that Access Hollywood tape allows the government to set the context, to explain the backdrop of the story. Under Rule 404B, it's therefore admissible for that limited purpose.
The judge, again, trying to split the baby somewhat, is allowing them to use the transcript, which is fine and sufficient, but not allowing them to play the audio. And, Josh, I want to ask you about another issue, which is the gag order. There are prosecutors who were pushing for Trump to be stationed. They're not going to be at hearing.
From my understanding, I speak. What's the significance of that, and what are prosecutors trying to really accomplish there? Well, prosecutors are saying that he violated the gag order by sharing some two social posts over the weekend. They pointed three posts in particular and say that he should be fined $1,000 for each of those posts.
The judge seemed to not want to deal with that issue today, but to get the jury into the courtroom. About 500 girls have been waiting throughout the proceedings here today. But he says he will tackle that in a hearing next Tuesday, so expect that to be handled. And, of course, we'll be watching for that, yes.
And, Garrett, I want to go to you. There's this idea, again, of a gag order. How worried, how concerned is former President Trump about this? I mean, he's on social media all day today, talking specifically about this case all the time, but definitely doesn't seem shy about violating this.
Is the campaign or the former president worried about this at all? Absolutely not yet, they're not. I mean, he showed no indication of curtailing his behavior in particular here. I mean, he wants to go after the judge.
He wants to go after the prosecutor, both of whom are still technically in bounds. There's a tax against Michael Cohen, the kind of thing that might get him into trouble. But at $1,000 of true social posts, I don't think that's the kind of fine that's going to keep Donald Trump up at night. Now, obviously, that could change during the course of this trial.
But as of right now, neither he nor his attorneys appear particularly concerned about falling from a gag order. And, Chuck, Garrett brings up the point. Why not just keep violating this gag order, Chuck, and paying the fine as it comes? Yeah, I mean, it's such a good question and such an odd case, right?
You hope, on one hand, that the judge wouldn't issue a gag order unless he was serious about it. You hope, on the other hand, that if he was serious about it, he would enforce it. The judge is in a very tough position. And, Jeremy, I'm sure, knows this court far better than I ever will.
But if there's a gag order out there, it's there for a reason. It's to protect witnesses and others affiliated with the case. And I think it's time for the judge to show that he's serious. He didn't issue the order for fun.
He issued it. So, Mr. Trump, the defendant in this case, would buy it. And, Jeremy, we've been talking about this gag order that deals with, of course, before President Trump is staying outside the courtroom.
But he's also said he wants to speak inside the courtroom. Trump has said he wants to testify. How likely, Jeremy, do you think it could be that we actually see Donald Trump take a stand here? I think it would be incredibly foolish.
You know, he would be a prosecutor's dream, if you will. The magnitude of things that he would say, going off script, if he didn't have a script, alienating the jury, insulting, and just misbehaving, and not to sound like a child, but he would be his worst enemy. And it would be really, I'm fairly confident that his attorneys are saying, no, do not do that. There may be some value outside the courtroom, because there's policies inside that courtroom.
You don't want to alienate that jury. You don't want to look at your disrespect in the court. That will never work in your favor. And I would just add one other comment.
When you're talking about that gag order, what I think is important, too, it's not the thousand dollars. Prosecutors are trying to get out in front of it now and say, out of the gate, let's get that first ruling in our favor. He's not following the law. So that if it escalates, we can say, he had that opportunity.
He was told. He was only given a fine. Now there's more real consequences. So there's a strategy here as to why the challenges, even if it's just nominal dollars to Donald Trump.
Jeremy, I also want to ask you about just how long this is all going to take, especially when you think that the judge said something like 2,000 extra New Yorkers have been called to possibly serve on the jury because they want to have a really wide swath of people. How long of a trial can we be talking about here, especially as you're thinking about what both sides are trying to get out of this jury? Yeah, well, for the worst, fortunately, we've got a lot of New Yorkers, so we'll fill that jury in the jury room. But this is absolutely going to take a long time, because you're running the middle case if there's such a term, or something that's even a misdemeanor, or a felony that can take days.
It's not usually done in hours. Here, you have something that's far more salacious, if you will, and far more serious than Harvey Weinstein's case that took a long time. You have a lot of celebrity cases in the city of New York that take time. So I expect that this is going to be very methodical and slow.
And if you may know, recall, Donald Trump didn't waive what's called his antimarky right. So he's saying, I want to be present in any sort of bench approach or anything that's not done before the jury. I want to be part of that process, whereas many jurors say, or pardon me, many defendants waive that right to expedite things. But this is going to be slow and methodical.
I will say, though, that Rashawn is thinking this through and trying to say, if you don't want to pee on this jury and you're concerned, for example, your well-being, I'm not going to make you answer questions. I'll just release you. So he's trying to move this along. Well, slow and methodical.
I'm sure former President Trump does not want that to be the case, of course, given that he's now off the campaign trail. So thank you so much to Garrett, to Dasha, to Jeremy, to Chuck, all of you for getting this started. And coming up, we'll dive more into the potential political fallout of this historic trial, what it means to have Trump off the campaign trail and in the criminal courtroom. But at first, a dangerous escalation in the tensions in the Middle East.
President Biden urges Israel not to respond to aerial strikes by Iran over the weekend. We're live in Israel and at the White House next. Welcome back. Today, after a meeting of Israel's war cabinet, an official said Israel's response to Iran's unprecedented attack this weekend may be, quote, eminent.
That same official said that any Israeli action would be coordinated with the U.S. That comes as NBC News reports that some top U.S. officials are worried that Israel may respond too quickly to Iran and provoke a wider conflict. On Saturday, more than 300 missiles and drones were fired at Israel.
Iran called the attack retaliation for an Israeli attack on Iran's consulate in Damascus. The assault marks the first time Iran has launched a direct attack on Israel from Iranian soil. Israeli military says 99% of the projectiles were intercepted with the help of allies. Today, while meeting with leaders from Iraq and Washington, both President Biden and Secretary of State Lincoln emphasized the U.S.'s commitment to Israel's defense.
Iran launched an unprecedented military attack against Israel, and we mounted an unprecedented military effort to defend Israel. Together with our partners, we defeated that attack. What this weekend demonstrated is that Israel did not have to and does not have to defend itself alone when it is the victim of aggression, the victim of an attack. I've been in close communication with counterparts in the region, and we will continue to do so in the hours and days ahead.
We don't seek escalation, but we'll continue to support the defense of Israel and to protect our personnel in the region. Privately, President Biden has expressed concern that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to drive Washington into a broader conflict, according to people... familiar with his comments. The president is also warning Netanyahu that the U.S.
will not participate in any offensive operations against Iran, according to a senior administration official. Joining me now on the ground from Tel Aviv is NBC News international correspondent Ross Sanchez, and NBC News' Ali Rafa is at the White House. So, Rafa, I want to start with you. As we wait to see what, if any, response Israel might take, what do we know about Israel's war cabinet meeting today?
The Indonesian Israeli official tells me that the consensus inside of the war cabinet is that Israel needs to respond, and it needs to respond swiftly, that it cannot afford to wait for weeks after this unprecedented Iranian attack that the world needs to see an Israeli response and see it soon. That official says that response is imminent at this point. They say a range of military and diplomatic options were discussed by the war cabinet, and that any response will ultimately be coordinated with the United States. But as you said, this is not the answer that President Biden was hoping for.
The U.S. was hoping that Saturday's attack would be the end of this escalation. Instead, it seems to be just one rung on this ladder. Remember, this began on April 1st in the Syrian capital, Damascus, where Iran says Israel carried out an airstrike on its embassy compounds, killing seven senior members of the Revolutionary Guard.
Iran says Saturday's attack with 350 missiles and drones was a response to that bombing in Syria, and now it appears that Israel is gearing up for a response to that response. And, Rafa, it appears at least that there are a few injuries in Israel and no deaths after that attack this weekend. What more do we know about this attack by Iran on Israel and how it really unfolded here? And in particular, what kind of intelligence do we think Israel had ahead of time before these strikes started and even during the strikes?
So, Iran very clearly telegraphed that this attack was coming following that April 1st strike in Syria, but the Israelis are saying they had their own intelligence, and they had a lot of intelligence from the U.S. and from other coalition partners who took part in that defense. As you said, Yamiche, there have been no deaths in Israel yet. There is a seven-year-old girl down in the southern desert from a Bedouin community who's in a hospital right now fighting for her life.
She suffered head injuries after there was an interception above her home, shrapnel falling on the house. Her family deeply, deeply concerned for her. This was kind of a slow-moving, slowly unfolding, almost surreal attack, Yamiche, that around 11 o'clock at night here in Israel, the military spokesman went up on television and informed people in this country that a wave of Iranian drones were on their way. It was going to take several hours for them to get here, and nobody knew what would happen when they arrived along with those missiles.
Ultimately, there appears to have been minimal damage to one Israeli airbase down in the south of this country. But while the attack was unprecedented, the response also unprecedented that you have, Israeli and American fighter jets entering the airspace of Jordan and fighting alongside Jordanian military units. This is an Arab nation using its military to help defend Israel from incoming fire. That is a coalition the Israelis say they're deeply grateful for, and they say that they hope they can build upon, Yamiche.
Well, definitely a situation we're going to continue to watch. Thank you, Ross Conchis, for your reporting from Tel Aviv. And Ali, of course, at the White House, there's clearly concern there about escalation and this becoming a possible regional war. Does President Biden feel like his warnings to Israel are really being heard in this moment?
Yeah, you mentioned a great question, especially when you remember the public and private tensions that President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu have had over the past six months. And you mentioned what Biden and A's say are these private concerns the President has that Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to drag the U.S. deeper into this conflict, potentially for political reasons. So as we await what Israel could do next to retaliate against Iran for those drugs over the weekend, it's really shining a light on how delicate of a position the President is in right now.
As he told Netanyahu in a call over the weekend that the U.S. would not be involved in that response. He also is urging his restraint and de-escalation to Netanyahu. But he's also pledging ironclad U.S.
support for Israel while also trying to not get U.S. troops and U.S. assets in this region put under an even larger threat. So the best way that the White House sees an ability to be able to do this is to urge that restraint, is to make public this messaging that the U.S.
is not seeking a wider war, it's not seeking a conflict with Iran. And so that just leads to these big outstanding questions, of course, what Israel is going to do next, but also what sort of involvement the U.S. has in that decision. As we know U.S.
officials have asked their Israeli counterparts not only for a heads up on what is going to happen, but also a say in the decision of how Israel is going to respond. So really a big question of how the U.S., how the president is going to not be involved in that response, but also continue to support Israel through it. Thank you so much, Ali Rafa from the White House. We are reporting.
Up next, Israel's response to Iran's attack may potentially come at any time. So what would a broader war mean for the region and for the world? You're watching me the press now. Welcome back.
As we mentioned, this weekend's attack by Iran has renewed fears of a wider conflict in the Middle East, and world leaders are warned against escalation in the region. Today, the U.N. Secretary General said it is, quote, time to step back from the brink. Joining me now for more on what could all of this could mean for the region is Bilal Saab.
He's an associate fellow for the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House and retired Admiral James Hebrides. He is the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO and NBC News Chief International Analyst. And I want to start with you. There are some analysts who said that Iran wanted to telegraph their strike to potentially give Israel time to prepare.
So what do you make of how this attack unfolded, and especially Iran's statements before the strike? I think it's accurate to say Iran wanted to conduct a strike in a way that was not going to create a massive escalation. So that means launching the drone wave first. That gave Israel hours of advance notice.
There have been some reports that some back-channel communication was also used. And then ultimately, I think the idea here was for Iran to be able to turn internally, say to their people, hey, we responded to this strike by Israel of 10 days ago against their consulate in Damascus. But as the Iranians themselves said, we consider the matter closed. Unfortunately for Tehran, I don't think Jerusalem considers the matter closed.
So here we sit, awaiting what the Israeli response is going to be over the next few days. And Bilal, as we wait, as Emil just said, for that response, I wonder, Bilal, if you could talk a little bit about the fact that Iran took this unprecedented step. But I wonder, what does it mean for how the country, that country, Iran, could be viewing the potential for escalated conflict? And in particular, can they even really afford to be drawn into a direct war, given their military capabilities here?
No, they can't. It's not just a military issue as well. It's also economically speaking. They cannot afford to enter into a large-scale confrontation, not just with Israel, but potentially also with the United States.
So those are two foes that are far more capable than Iran on its own. I agree with Jim 100%, and this is something I'm probably going to say multiple times throughout this conversation. The intent was not necessarily to significantly hurt. The intent was to send a cease and desist message to the Israelis, probably establish or restore some element of deterrence, even though that's always a debatable proposition.
It's incredibly difficult to achieve that. And as Jim said, now we wait with a bit of breath. How do you feel? Is it going to respond?
And my hope is that it would be according to the United States, in preference that would also avoid escalation. As you said, Iran maybe doesn't have military capabilities for this direct war, but I wonder, when you look at the strike a while, what did you learn? What has the world learned about their capabilities from this attack? Yeah, great question.
So everything that they've done was deliberate. I mean, when you look at how they violated the core principle of military operations, which is the element of the price, right? So they telegraphed their intentions. They probably passed on information to Washington through Arab and European intermediaries that our strike is going to be limited.
So when you telegraph your intentions like that, that tells you that they have no interest in, you know, seeking escalation with the Israelis. But in terms of capabilities, Dinesh, it is easy to rush to the conclusion that the Iranians mounted a highly unsuccessful military attack. But I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. It takes some level of skill to lob this many missiles and fly this many drones with the intent of actually not killing and not hurting.
So they've demonstrated two things. One, precision. Two, range. And three, sufficient awareness of the strategic environment.
And I think that all of these variables put in a completely different context where the intent of actually hurting could be quite detrimental for the Israelis next time around. They're not going to have enough time to prepare. They're not going to have enough time to respond should they mount an attack that actually would be intended to hurt as opposed to just send a message. So I would be wary of Iranian capabilities.
I would not be rushing to the wrong conclusions here. Such an important point to make that they didn't want hurting it, it seems, this time, but they could possibly with precision and range do so in the future. So, Admiral, you know, we are looking, waiting to see what Israel is going to do here. What strikes you as the most obvious response for Israel here?
And if the Biden administration is not going to participate, they're saying no offensive strike is going to be part of the U.S. strategy here. Does that limit Israel's options? No, it doesn't particularly limit Israel's options.
They have enormous military capability, much better than the Iranians do. They could use, for example, their F-35 fighters and go after the industrial facility where the drones were being built that were used against them. That would be in one sense proportional. They could go after Iranian maritime assets at sea.
They could go after the Iranian economy using cyber. They could use special forces against a variety of topics. So I think they have a pretty rich basket of options they can pursue without Washington's assistance. The challenge for Israel is going to be that there's so much international pressure being put on Israel, first about its activities in Gaza.
And if Israel does respond in a highly aggressive and offensive way at this point, they'll receive even more pressure coming from the G7, the Arab world, the global south and others. So it's a tough position for Israel. If you ask me, what do I think they'll do? I think they'll kind of pick a middle path, not a big, massive assault, but they're not going to just sit back and do nothing.
So I'd look for a combination of cyber strikes against maritime targets that are not on the mainland of Iran, but not a big strike against industrial targets in Tehran. Look, we're going to know in a couple of days. Yeah. Well, Admiral, if we don't expect any Washington assistance, is it possible that other allies of Israel, that they could be potentially involved in whatever their response is to Iran?
No. The only candidate to be part of a strike against Iran that I can see would be the United States. All the other partners to Israel are further distant from Israel than the United States. And certainly if the United States declines to be involved, I think it's highly unlikely you'd see any other nation participate.
And the one nation that we did see participate on Saturday was Jordan. And Rasantin was talking about how significant it was that you had an Arab nation protecting Israel in this way. Talk to me a bit about the significance of that, given the history of these two countries, and at times Jordan's harsh criticism of Israel's actions specifically as it relates to Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there. Well, Jordan also was looking to safeguard its own security interests.
It's not just about protecting Israel. I mean, those projectiles were flying over Jordanian skies. And so first and foremost, it was about Jordanian security. Second, frankly, in my opinion, I'm not wrong on this, more important than the protection of Israel was the effort to signal, to communicate to the United States that you can depend on us.
We are a reliable partner. We understand that you are our number one security partner, and therefore we have some kind of loyalty towards you. So at the end of the day, I don't think it was that controversial that the Jordanians participated and contributed military assets to down threats over their own skies. But anything beyond that, frankly, that is more comprehensive, comes from a joint effort to go after Iranian targets.
I fully agree with Jim. I find that rather inconceivable. Well, an issue and a really good situation we're going to watch closely. So thank you, Admiral Sefri, this time for us.
We're now following, of course, breaking news out of New York. The court right now has just adjourned for the day. Let's go back to NBC News correspondent Dasha Bernstein outside the courthouse there in Manhattan. So, Dasha, what do we know now that the court has adjourned?
What are we waiting on now? Well, the court has adjourned. And we're waiting to see whether or not the former president will address the press or not. We are being told about 10 potential jurors, according to our colleagues inside the courtroom, were able to get through those survey questions.
Just 10 jurors, 500 were waiting today, Yamiche, and 96 were let into the courtroom. Oh, here, Dasha, I'm going to stop you because the former president is walking up the camera, so we're going to pause here while he speaks. Amazing things happen today. As you know, my son is graduating from high school, and it looks like the judge will not let me go through the graduation of my son who's worked very, very hard.
He's basically done so well. I was looking forward to years to have his graduation with his mother and father there. It looks like the judge isn't going to allow me to take the scam. It's a scam trial.
If you read all of the legal funders, all of the legal scholars today, there's not one that I see that said this is a case that should be brought or tried. It's a scam. It's a political witch hunt. It continues.
It continues forever. And we're not going to be given a fair trial. It's a very very sad thing. In addition, as you know, next Thursday, we're before the United States Supreme Court.
We're here in the community. And this is something that we've been waiting for a long time. And the judge, of course, is not going to allow us. He's a very conflicted judge.
And he's not going to allow us to go to that. He won't allow me to leave here for a half a day, go to D.C. and go forward to the United States Supreme Court because he thinks he's superior. We've got a real problem with this judge.
We've got a real problem with a lot of things having to do with this trial, including the DA, because you go right outside and people are being mugged and killed all day long. And he's sitting here all day with 10 or 12 prosecutors over nothing, over nothing, over what people say, over what people say shouldn't be a trial. So I just want to thank you very much. But I can't go to my son's graduation or that I can't go to the United States Supreme Court, that I'm not in Georgia or Florida or North Carolina campaigning like I should be.
It's perfect for the radical left Democrats. That's exactly what they want. This is about election interference. That's all it's about.
Thank you very much. Well, first of all, he was talking about and complaining about potentially not being able to go to his son, Baron Trump's graduation, which is on May 17th. That was one of the topics of debate today. I don't believe that there has been a ruling on that.
The judge basically reserved the right to play with the schedule as needed. For example, there might be a different schedule next week because of Passover. So we don't know for sure whether or not the former president is going to be able to attend that graduation, but clearly a point of conflict for him there. And once again, took aim at the judge, took aim at this trial, saying it's unfounded, calling it election interference.
You know, one thing that we consistently hear from the former president, he and his team have been calling this and other cases, the Biden trials, trying to point towards the former, pointing towards the current president, which, of course, is not responsible for these cases or for this trial. This was brought by the Manhattan district attorney and is being argued by the prosecutors that are not in coordination with the White House in any way. Just before we went to his remarks there, Yamiche, I was talking about the drawn out process that this is really expected to be. That's one thing that Judge Rashawn emphasized today.
Much of the day was spent on pretrial motions. And then just in the last couple of hours of the day, did the actual process that is supposed to be the focus of the next couple of weeks, the jury selection process that really just began. And today we only got to about 10 jurors, 10 jurors answering those survey questions. And there are thousands waiting in the wings as they try to find that small group of people, 12 jurors and six alternators.
that we'll be able to judge this case impartially without bias. That is the challenge. That is the goal and the focus of the next couple of weeks that will set the stage for the rest of this trial. But certainly a slow, methodical, and thoughtful start.
This is how the system goes. But for those who are a little bit impatient, perhaps a little too slow for the former president in particular. Thank you so much, Pastor Burns, outside the Manhattan Courthouse. I want to bring in our panel now, Julia Manchester.
She's a national political reporter for The Hill, Cornell Belcher, Democratic pollster, an NBC News political analyst, and Stephen Hayes, editor and CEO of The Dispatch. He's also an NBC News political analyst. So, Stephen, I want to start with you. We just heard the former president say a bunch of things, some of them really not true.
We're going after the judge who has said multiple times he's not going to recuse himself that he can get a fair trial. We're obviously in the middle of jury selection because they're trying to find 12 people, six ultimates, to sparely judge the former president. What do you make of what he's saying here and the fact that we're in this unprecedented moment where, of course, he's the first former president to face formal charges in a trial? Yeah, I mean, look, I think one of the big things he said that was true was that legal experts from sort of across the political spectrum think this is the weakest of the cases that was brought against Donald Trump.
He may well be guilty of the things that are about to come up in this trial, the things that the prosecutors say that he did, but it's sort of a triple bank shot in terms of the legal process. I think the most troubling aspect of what he said was what he said at the end. This is part of election interference. It's the Biden administration trying to keep him off the campaign trail, implied that this was keeping him from being able to run a fair race, from being able to compete against Joe Biden.
Those are the kinds of things that, as we look forward into November, October, November, and maybe the post-election period, are the kinds of things that will have Donald Trump's most ardent supporters the most upset. I don't think that's what's happening. I think Dasha walked through the reasons that that's not happening, but it will certainly resonate with Donald Trump's most hardcore supporters. Cory, I'll jump in here on what you think this all means, especially as we've seen some voters say that if Trump is convicted, that might change their minds.
A lot of Trump supporters were seeing this in all the other cases and saying, well, this is really a big sort of conspiracy against the former president. Well, look, I know there's a lot spin here about how this doesn't hurt him. The truth of the matter is, being under criminal charges is not an ideal place for any candidate to be. And why is it not an ideal place for any candidate to be?
Because, look, his base is going to be with him. But you win elections in this country in the middle, right? You can energize your base, but each candidate has to compete for moderate voters. You know, Joe Biden won moderate voters by 34 points in the last presidential election.
It's hard for me to see how, and let's be real, it's levels out here. Donald Trump needs more votes, right? He needs to get more votes than he's gotten, that he got last time around. So how is this going to make him more competitive among moderate voters in the middle of the electorate?
It's hard to see how that's going to help him. And Julia, I mean, as Cornell, of course, there's so much polling, as he's laying out sort of the political stakes here, I want to put up a poll for you. It says that something like 58% of people in this special money trial poll that we're looking at see this as very or somewhat serious, and 46% believe that Trump is guilty. What are you watching for as you think about those numbers and what this means for the former president?
Yeah, look, in terms of what I'm watching for, and we're watching for this in all these cases, how much are the voters prioritizing these cases when they go to make their decisions? We talk about how these kitchen table issues oftentimes top their list of priorities. However, Donald Trump being convicted ultimately in one of these trials or multiple of these trials could ultimately hurt him in the long run. But I want to jump off of something Cornell was talking about with Donald Trump maybe galvanizing his base, but he's losing the independent vote.
It's really interesting to see Donald Trump this week. He's at this hush money trial, whereas Joe Biden, he's going to be campaigning in Pennsylvania, a major battleground state that Donald Trump needs to win back. Yeah, well, see, I want to go there. What about the fundraising aspect of this?
I'm struck by the fact that Donald Trump can still raise millions and millions of dollars off of this. What does that tell you about the Republican Party and sort of what this might mean for the election here? I mean, they're enthralled to Donald Trump. I mean, there's no question that this will juice his particularly small-dollar fundraising efforts.
How much that matters, I mean, I think as we sit here today some seven months out from the election, it's hard for me to imagine that this is an election that's going to be decided by who raises more money or who raises less money. Joe Biden certainly has an advantage in that right now, and raising money to help Donald Trump offset his legal costs is money that isn't going to other Republican candidates' down ballots. You don't hear a lot of Republicans crying about that in public, but they're certainly grumbling about it in private. And kind of lean on that, I mean, look, it is not ideal, because in the end, what you do have is Joe Biden's campaign is hiring people on the ground right now, and they're talking about it all across the battleground states.
And does it matter for television advertising? No, but it doesn't matter for what you're doing on the ground. It does matter for mobilizing. It doesn't matter for canvassing and touching voters.
And I think Democrats have an advantage there, the likes of which we had not had, certainly not going to Bush years. We now have an advantage in this, and it's going to hurt his down base. If I'm a down-ballot Republican, and the RNC is completely focused on Donald Trump paying his money, you can't like that if you're a down-ballot Republican. And I can stick with you.
What does that mean, though, for the current president, President Biden? If you put yourself in the Biden campaign, should they be talking about this as this trial gets underway? Is it really instead something that they step back and just let the media coverage do what it's going to do? Well, you know, there's two political minds of this.
And one is, the time-level saying, is when your opponent is destroying himself, gets out of his way. But there's also a piece of this that I think is for the White House, the bigger deal is that he is still the commander-in-chief. He's still the chief executive of our country, so he shouldn't talk about it too much. But strictly from a political standpoint, I think Donald Trump wants them to talk about it, because then he can say it's political.
And if I were the president, I would say as far away, shouldn't that possibly be good. And Julia, how much do media silos matter here? When you think about how people view this, if you're doing it on one network versus another, how much does that impact it? I think it absolutely impacts it.
Look, I think Trump's base, they're going to watch, obviously, more conservative-leaning media, whereas more liberal voters will watch liberal-leaning media. The question I have is, what are moderate and independent voters watching? Because when talking to them out on the campaign trail, they just want, they don't want to hear the noise. So I'm curious to see what they're actually observing.
If I could, I was going to ask you about the idea that there are some who see Donald Trump's time in office as better than former President Biden. We saw a whole now-week put up for folks about this idea that it was mostly good for America. If you look at President Biden, that number's 25%, what do you make of that? I'm curious to see how much of that is impacted by the economy.
Look, I think much of President Biden's administration has sort of been, in recent two years, has been sort of labeled, I guess, marred by inflation in many ways. Donald Trump, up until the COVID pandemic, his supporters would argue it was a very strong economy. Yeah. I want to just, also, I'm sorry, I was being toughinged my ears a little bit of a wildy day.
So we're just going to go on until I hear that again. So tell me, Cornell, what do you think? I think President Biden, like every president, has a story to tell. You know, Bush has a story to tell.
He started off behind, certainly when I worked on the Obama campaign, we started off five points behind. But Ronnie, the question is, do you have a story to tell? And I think the president does have a good story to tell. I'll also point out, Misha, that the guy I worked for, his numbers actually went up after he was out of the office.
So it's always a little bit of a style job as you look back at a presidency. A little bit of Obama swag. That's fine, that's fine. Julia, if I could turn now, of course, to the situation on the Middle East.
There's so much going on there with Biden under fire from all sides. What do you make of sort of where he is and where he finds himself? Look, it's an incredibly difficult position for President Biden because his own party is really divided on this issue in terms of Israel and Gaza. And he obviously doesn't want a major foreign escalation right now.
It's not only the problems he's facing within his own party, but it's also the fact that a lot of Americans don't want to see another entrance into a foreign war. We already have a debate over Israel funding and Ukraine funding. So he's trying to appease both sides of his party while also trying to work with Republicans here. Yeah, I could talk to you about so much other stuff for this.
One of those days we're very happy to leave it there. Thank you so much, Julia, to Cornell, to Stephen. And after the break, House Speaker Mike Johnson is now under increasing pressure to move forward with aid to both Israel and Ukraine. What he's going to do and how that could cost him his job.
You're watching Meet the Press now. Welcome back. A wrong attack on Israel has ramped up pressure on House Speaker Mike Johnson to pass a foreign aid bill despite threats by his fellow Republicans that he might lose his job today. A bipartisan group of 91 House members sent a letter to Speaker Johnson to bring the aid bill for Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan passed by the Senate to a House vote.
Meet the Press, the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Mike Turner, said he thinks there is support for the bill and he expects a vote could come this week. Take a listen. I think it will have overwhelming support both in Ukraine, Israel, and Asia packages not just because of what's happened with Iran escalating in the conflict in the Middle East but because these are allies that need and deserve respect. As you know, Donald Trump has been on the sidelines saying he doesn't want to see that aid bill Ukraine unless it's in the form of a loan but just very quickly, do you expect it to get a vote this week, Congressman?
I do and I expect it to pass. Yesterday, Speaker Johnson said he would try to advance an aid bill for Israel this week but he did not specify if it would also include Ukraine aid which would anger some of the far-right members of the Republican caucus. NBC News' Ryan Nobles has the latest on Capitol Hill so Speaker Johnson and House Republicans are reportedly meeting tonight to talk about the Iran attack. What is House Speaker Johnson's options right now as you think about the way forward?
Well, I think it's pretty clear that Speaker Johnson is not going to get everything here and so he's going to have to try and pick the path of least resistance in order to get through this impasse and that means he's going to have to sacrifice something on the other side of it and what I mean by that is it may be very difficult for him to put Ukraine aid on the floor aid to Israel, aid to Taiwan in a form and fashion that can pass quickly and also make it through the Senate without sacrificing the threat of a motion to vacate in his job as Speaker of the House. It seems as though he's trying to work through some middle ground here where he can put the aid bill on the floor and not face the wrath of those conservative Republicans who are very much opposed to any form of Ukraine funding. That's one of the reasons we haven't heard from Speaker Johnson. It seems clear that he's going through a long list of possible options to try and get through But it would then risk Speaker Johnson's job which is one of the reasons he's been reluctant to do that so far.
And what are the other options there and how quickly could they have him? Well, the option is that he could split it apart, right? He could put the Israel funding on the floor all by itself. He could put the Ukraine package on the floor all by itself and then add in some of these conditions that Republicans including the former president have asked for in terms of turning it into a loan or something along those lines.
But every single one of those scenarios means that the bill would have to come back to the Senate and it's become a more complicated process in the Senate. A number of Senate Democrats in particular have been raising their voices and saying that they believe any additional funding to Israel would have to include conditions and we'll definitely keep watching. So thank you, Ryan. And we'll be back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now.
NBC News Now covers continues with Hallie Jackson right now. Hey everyone, I'm Dylan Dreyer, co-host of the third hour of today and mom to three wild boys. I've learned a lot in my years as a parent, mostly that I don't have it all figured out yet. And I'm not the only one.
This is my new podcast, The Parent Chat. Each week I sit down with someone new for honest conversation and real world advice about parenting. I'm over here just like winging it. Hey, I'm just trying not to screw my own tape up.
I'm not giving you advice when I'm not screw yours up. Search Parent Chat on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.