Meet the Press NOW — April 17

Welcome to Meet the Press Now. I'm Garrett Hake in Washington on a very busy day in both chambers of Congress. In the House, Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to threaten a legislative needle to get emergency aid to Ukraine without igniting a full-on rebellion from his hard-right flank, which could cost him his job. It's forced him to make a major strategic gamble today.

We'll have much more on that in a moment, but we begin in the Senate, where this hour Democrats are trying to dispense with the House's Articles of Impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Mayorkas is just the second cabinet member in U.S. history to be impeached, and the first in nearly 150 years. Right now, the Senate appears poised to declare both Articles of Impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas unconstitutional.

They are moving towards a vote to declare the second article of impeachment unconstitutional after all Democrats voted to declare the first one unconstitutional in the last hour. That passed with Alaska Senator, Republican Lisa Murkowski, voting present. Senate Republicans have tried and failed through multiple votes now to short-circuit Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's strategy to quickly end these impeachment proceedings. Here are some of those floor objections from the Senate.

To dismiss or table Articles of Impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas without a trial, here today or in committee, is an unprecedented move by Senator Schumer. The Majority Leader has argued that Secretary Mayorkas is defiance of federal immigration law, an active aiding and abetting of the worst criminal invasion in our nation's history does not constitute a high-crime or misdemeanor. This process must not be abused. It must not be short-circuited.

History will not judge this moment well. The move was clearly telegraphed by Senate Democrats after Senator Schumer took to the floor of this morning calling the Articles quote illegitimate and profane abuse of the Constitution. The charges brought against Secretary Mayorkas failed to meet the high standard of high crimes and misdemeanors. To validate this gross abuse by the House would be a grave mistake and could set a dangerous precedent for the future.

The framers were clear. Impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements. To be clear, even if there was going to be a trial, Secretary Mayorkas would not be convicted by the Democratic-controlled Senate. Even some Senate Republicans agree it's a flimsy case.

We should also note that House Republican leadership knew this too. When Mayorkas was impeached by the House back in February, the move was widely seen as an effort by House Speaker Johnson to placate immigration hardliners in his conference so that they wouldn't come up in the works, the other vital legislation that he was working on or threaten his speakership. And as we can see now, to put it mildly, that strategy didn't work. M.C.

Ryan Nobles is on Capitol Hill with the latest on all this for us. So Ryan, you've been watching this all day. We know the outcome is not in question. What more can you tell us about what we've seen today in the Senate and I guess what we expect to see over the next half hour or so?

You know, Garrett, I think one of the most interesting things that has come out of this debate so far on the Senate floor today is that Republicans basically turned down the opportunity to spend up to two and a half hours complaining about this process. They said majority leader Chuck Schumer offered up a scenario by which they could debate the issues around these articles of impeachment for a two and a half hour timeframe, offer up a series of resolutions that could be voted on as it relates to these impeachment proceedings. It's likely that all of them would fail, but it would at least give Republicans a forum to whine about this process. They turned that down, seemingly because they didn't want to seem as though they were complicit at all with what Chuck Schumer was planning to dispose of these articles quickly.

But the sum total of that is that they're getting no opportunity to really voice with any degree of specificity their issues with the fact that this is not going to go through a fulsome trial and that the evidence is not going to go through a full-sum trial. And that the evidence against my orchids is going to be heard. Instead, they're basically just getting 30 seconds snippets to stand up and hand out these kind of useless motions that end up going nowhere. So that was a tactical decision by Republicans.

They're certainly going to say time and time again that they believe that this broke with Senate precedent, 200 years of Senate precedent as it relates to dealing with articles of impeachment. But the sum total of all of it is that these articles of impeachment are going to be disposed of relatively quickly, and this is no longer going to be a problem for all of my orchids. So, Ron, how much do you think the way that we're seeing the Senate handle this today has to do with the manner which the House put these impeachment articles together and how much has to do with the fact that we're dealing with the Cabinet secretary, not a president here. And we've got pretty used to seeing impeachment trials in the Senate.

This doesn't look anything like what we saw over the last couple of years. Yeah, I think the answer to your question, Garrett, is it's all of the above? You know, I think there are a lot of Republicans who were very skeptical that this was an avenue of success for Republicans to make their point about what they feel is a real problem at the Southern border. I think they're going to be in on a hundred my orchids as a target because they thought that he was an unpopular figure among their ranks.

There's no doubt that from the House Republican perspective, this was a fruitful endeavor. Many of them got to raise millions and millions of dollars in small dollar donations to make that point. But I really did put their Senate colleagues in an awkward position here because it's once again using impeachment as a tool for political purposes. There are very few legal scholars that believe that this rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors like Republicans have claimed.

And now right now on the Senate floor, there just really isn't enough momentum to even have a discussion about this much less a full on trial that would result in a conviction with two thirds majority in the Senate. It's funny, from the last two of these trials, I can kind of hear the disembodied voice of Mitch McConnell in my head saying impeachment is a political tool and is a political endeavor. You know, you touched on this a little bit on the fundraising side, but beyond, you know, some small dollar donors to the House, what do Republicans get out of this? Well, I'll tell you the number one thing that Senate Republicans are hoping to get out of this, and that's that they're going to beat up these marginal Democrats that are in red states that are up for reelection in 2024 over the head with this.

You already saw Senator Ted Cruz come out yesterday and accused Senator John Tester of hiding from this vote saying that he didn't want any part of it. You can bet that Sherrod Brown in Ohio is going to be reminded over and over again. He essentially let America's walk free while the border continues to be in chaos. That would be their framing, not mine.

There is a political benefit to Senate Republicans here to force these Democrats that are in marginal states to take a tough vote that essentially defends the Biden border policy. That's how they're going to frame it. And that's why they're trying to draw this process out as long as possible. Make them take vote after vote after vote saying that they just want to see this go away instead of having a full trial take place.

I'm hoping somebody will pay attention to it. Ryan Noble, thank you for that reporting. We're going to go back to Capitol Hill throughout this hour because we have so much going on. But joining me now on set is NPR White House correspondent, Deepa Shiver on former Michigan Democratic Congressman Andy Levin.

He's now a distinguished senior fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Daniel Plakka, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and NBC News contributor. And then we see news chief political analyst Chuck Todd. Steve Paul started with you.

You heard Ryan's theory of the case here that has said Republicans at least until they can hand this around the neck of, you know, some of these Senate Democrats and tough for election races. But that suddenly feels a long way off to be talking about that impeachment you didn't do on Secretary of America. Right. I mean, from now until November, we're really going to keep pointing back to this.

And it's, you know, one of those things where this is, you know, a lot of commotion, a lot of chaos happening on the Hill. But at the end of the day, like is anyone really putting forward their border policies? This is still an issue that voters, particularly, it's states like Arizona are very focused on. When I talk to folks, they're not really looking to whether John Tuster is voting one way or another on this.

And at the same time, it kind of leaves this gap open for Democrats for Biden to kind of say, well, yeah, we wanted you to pass this bipartisan border bill. And instead, this is what we're doing. Daniel, if Republicans had a larger majority here in on Earth 2 where the red wave happened, we'd be doing this exercise. It did seem like we touched on in the intro.

The idea that this impeachment was meant to play, folks on the far right, who wanted much more than they were ever going to be able to accomplish with a majority this small. Look, I have not very often felt sorry for the Speaker of the House, whether that was a man or a woman, a Democrat or a Republican. But I feel for Speaker Johnson, he has an extremely obstreperous caucus. He has a very difficult group of people to deal with.

And, you know, the problem for all of us, Americans, not journalists, is that impeachment has become a political tool and a political game. It was during the Trump administration at the beginning as well. We've seen this back and forth and back and forth and we've come to expect it. And so this is kind of a throwaway.

Let's throw them this impeachment bone and then maybe we can get Ukraine done. Maybe we can get border reform done. Maybe we can get Israel done. Maybe we can get Taiwan done.

That's what Speaker's doing this week. We are voting on that second article now, so we may get news that this is all going to be for the history books by the time this is second that even concludes. But Chuck, will this be the last impeachment of the Cabinet Secretary we see now? Or has the bar been lowered as such that, you know, in the House changes hands, perhaps will be another?

You know, some future Trump administration, Cabinet Secretary now gets the easy knock here. We went 130 years between our first two impeachments. And then we've had two more within 20 years. So what do you think?

You know, I think it's most likely that yes, we will see some sort of, because look, divided government is looks like it's going to be the short term North. Right. I mean, we're in this unusual situation where presidency feels like a coin flip. And in fact, the most likely outcome is the Senate's, which is in the House flip.

So you're going to have perhaps and look, whenever the House and the White House are not on the same team, that's when you're likely to have these these sort of impeachment friends. What I would say here is the White House has been a more nimble White House would be announcing a whole bunch of border executive authority today. I am shocked. This has been the most telegraph.

I think you could also argue they are perhaps correctly reading that this is not a lot of oxygen to it anyway. Why is it going to disappear anyway? The issue has oxygen. Mayorkas does not.

So while they're playing games, you're trying to solve the problem and go be the president. Especially having told us that they want to do that. So I find, you know, it's interesting. The mood music and the campaign trail is immigration.

Right now, if you do pay television advertising, eventually maybe abortion. Right now, it's immigration. You watch any congressional ad in the country. I'm the dork that does this a lot.

It is all immigration. So it was an opportunity for the White House to do some mitigation. And they have you guys have brought up all the reasons they have some issues on their side Republicans refused to fund it. Right?

All of those. They want to play games over here instead of actually seeing if we can solve a problem over there. I find they're in action this week to be a little bit of a head scratcher. Congressman, was there any serious discussion of doing something like this and preaching a cabinet secretary under the Trump administration when you were in the house?

I mean, this does seem like a lower hanging fruit. If you want to send a message at least about, you know, policies, you don't agree with. Look how easy it was for Republicans to get whatever it is they got out of this. I don't remember any discussion whatsoever, Garrett.

I mean, this is just a joke. It's really sad. Donald Trump was impeached twice because he was holding hostage, congressionally appropriated aid for an ally and because of the January 6 insurrection. Those at least arguably are high crimes and misdemeanors.

This is nothing like that. It's a policy disagreement. Republican senators have said so as well as Democratic senators. As you say, it's going nowhere.

Look, and I agree with Deepa. If I could say this, nobody, no Americans don't know the name of my orcas. They're not big enough. Yeah, this is not a thing.

I want an idea in a Republican primary that he doesn't have a right. But here's the thing. The American people want action. And James Langford, a very conservative Republican senator, you know, worked with Chris Murphy and others to craft the, by far, the most conservative and tough border security bill ever proposed on a bipartisan basis in America.

And Donald Trump said, I want to have this as a political issue, so don't do the business of governing. And they all fell in line. I mean, that's the news of the hour about immigration policy. Deepa, I reserve the right to cut you off here because we're approaching the end of this role call.

But to me, the other part of this story is that it underscores House Republicans' moralist complete failure on their Biden impeachment inquiry. Right? Like, we're watching this one die in real time. It was last time there was even a serious discussion about the Biden impeachment effort.

Right. I mean, it speaks I think to the chaos of the moment a little bit. And what you see is, you know, these efforts kind of ongoing, ongoing, ongoing. And what does it result in?

It's not something very tangible. And to your earlier point, not something that a lot of folks really make remember all the way down until November when they are casting a ballot. So, can you follow this on the moment? I'm going to go back to the TV, to the mood music that Republicans are hoping to create here.

You know what's interesting, this sort of, this focus on Biden for the first two years did hand the Republicans talking point they're looking for, which is they talk about the corruption of Washington and they showed Joe Biden and Biden. It's been interesting to me to see so many ads. And it is again, all over, where essentially what this manufactured thing that the House did is then showing up is if you see that it is, you can almost see that it was created in order to be used for the campaign and for politics here. And I saw, I guess, Colmar today said he was going to do, he keeps talking about criminal referrals now and something like that.

They have to deliver something to hand the candidates to say something to the base. The base, they've promised something here because they're like, if you impeach Trump, you got him impeached by. This is just a revenge to work. But this all plays in a Republican primary, Danielle.

Is this something you want to take to swing voters in a few districts that will be competitive, some of these Senate races that we've talked about that you have to speak the code here to even get the Biden crime family did this and my orchestra that and they're all going to always leave the limiter is going to vote you out, right? Like it feels like a triple bank shot for not much payoff. You know, I have to say, as much as I love my position here at NBC and my colleagues who I talk to, the kind of dismissive contempt with which we're talking about people's concern with immigration and with rule law. And with rule law is not a trick.

You and I, indeed, I agree. I think the Mallorcas, I think the Mallorcas in P. This is not making no comment on the validity of what you're saying, but they've just gabbled this out. So let's listen to the conclusion here of this.

I move to adjourn the impeachment trial of Alejandro and Mallorcas, C.N.A. guy, and I ask for the A's and A's. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second.

Clerk will call the roll. Ms. Baldwin. Mr.

Barasso. Mr. Bennett. We're seeing that was the highly anti-climactic conclusion to this entire episode here.

The second article has been found unconstitutional by a majority of the Senate here. We'll get the vote totals here in a second, but I suspect it'll be on the same party line vote as the first. And Senator Schumer, Majority Leader Schumer has called for the adjournment of this impeachment trial. So in about an hour's time, this entire episode will have been concluded, which brings back to the point that Daniel, I'd like you to try to continue making if you'd be so kind here about the relative value of this specific discussion about the impeachment of Alejandro and Mallorcas versus the broader concerns about immigration that do exist in this country.

The second step of the problem is that we're talking about this from the perspective of Washington, D.C., watching this going on, the vast mass of Americans aren't watching this. This is a big issue to them. They're not going to parse out Mallorcas versus something else. They know they're concerned, and they're seeing something.

Now again, I don't agree with this. I haven't agreed with us, but in this instance, they're seeing something is being done. And that does not deserve to be dismissed as merely maneuvering. It is an attempt, a bad attempt, but it is an attempt to answer the voters' mail.

And it's not going to be an irrelevant question when it comes to when people go to vote, either in primaries or in the general. On the second question, on the minor voters, another part of our mailbag is the other huge story that's happening on Capitol Hill. So everybody hold your spots for a second, and we'll turn to the other breaking news on Capitol Hill today. Speaker Johnson, remember him trying to pass some sort of foreign aid package without losing his job as speaker.

Here's the latest on that story. The plan unveiled today by the speaker contains not one, not two, but five separate bills, one for a Ukraine, arguably the most time sensitive piece of legislation, considering their military is running dangerously low on weapons and ammunition in their fight against Russia. There's another bill for Israel that includes humanitarian aid for Palestinians in Gaza. There's another bill for Taiwan, another that contains a host of Republican national security priorities, and one focused solely on border security, which is the issue that is currently riling up Johnson's Republican critics the most and the one we have already been discussing.

Already at least six of the House Republicans have panned the speaker's five-part plan, which for those of you following along at home means he's going to need help from Democrats to get it done, which is likely going to infuriate the speaker's hard right flank even more. Remember, the speaker faces the risk that Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene will move the trigger vote on his ouster over the issue of Ukraine. She's got that motion of AK and of hanging like a sort of damocles. What happens now is unclear, but the outlook for Speaker Johnson and for Ukraine aid are murky at best.

Comes with President Biden escalating his warnings about the dire situation facing Ukraine if they don't get this emergency assistance. In not that out this morning, the president writes, Mr. Putin has tried relentlessly to break the will of the Ukrainian people. He has failed.

Now he's trying to break the will of the West. We cannot let him succeed. There are moments in history that call for leadership and courage, and this is one of them. This is also a moment that calls for NBC's Ali Vitaly on Capitol Hill, who joins us now.

So Ali yesterday, it was four bills today. It's five. Now we've got text. This seems to be my Johnson's kind of one play when it comes to big things, break them up into smaller bites.

Is this plan getting the reception you'd hoped it would? Yeah, and remember the last time we saw the two-step ladder approach to averting a government shutdown, it kind of made it more complicated in the long term than it did if they had just taken on the issue of government funding altogether. And I do think that in some ways these four bills are all still linked because they're all under the same rule, and that is something that should make most viewers' eyes glaze over, but it's going to be an important barrier for the speaker here, because you've got to think about the rule. As I hold all my phones out here, you've got to think about the rule as the umbrella that governs the entire set of all of these bills.

You can't get under the umbrella unless you first vote on the rule, and then you can start voting piece by piece on Israel and Ukraine on Taiwan, and then of course on that fourth bill, which is sort of a nebulous set of Republican priorities, it's not clear that Johnson has the votes, especially among his own conference, to actually pass the rule. It does seem like it could still pass, though, because Democrats could be on board for this. That'll get them the ability to get on to these other four rules, which is, of course, the point. But anything done in bipartisan fashion, you're right to point out, is the thing that could put my Johnson back in a position where Marjorie Taylor Greene could earn some more friends, and then ultimately out from his job.

Is the inclusion of a border bill here kind of the tell that he needs something to pull this legislation through at least the rules committee to get it to the floor? Well, we saw a little bit of mutiny earlier this week when he first told the conference behind closed doors that they wouldn't be able to put HR2, which is their border bill package, into this wholesale because it was not your main, effectively and just not relevant to the foreign aid package that they're trying to deal with right now. That caused some mutiny among Republicans that I talked to after that meeting, who were infuriated by that very idea of the fact that Johnson then spent the next 24 or 36 hours talking with people who had problems with the way he was structuring this bill, now that we see border stuff in it. Yes, it could be enough to appease some folks, but probably not the people who were always going to vote against this anyway.

I think that's probably the part that is lost on folks who aren't around this building. The people who are really raising the most hay about the way that Johnson is going about both the appropriation bills and now the foreign funding bills. These are not people who are ever going to vote for this in the first place. They're just now exercising their leverage on it because they have a speaker who's beholden to really one or two people in the conference who can motion to vacate him at any time.

What's your sense of how likely they are to fully exercise that leverage and actually try to pull the trigger on another motion of vacate? I can't decide how much of this I think is noise and how much of I think is real and the likelihood that Democrats would step in here rather than go through another round of this, particularly if it happens before these aid bills pass. Yeah, first of all, if you and I knew how far this was going to go, we would be paid so much money we wouldn't have to work here anymore. We don't.

And so here we stand. Here we stand in Capitol Hill trying to figure out how real the threat is because it doesn't get real until someone makes this motion privileged. If that's Marjorie Taylor Greene in this instance, fine. Privilegion it means it has to be acted on within a few within 72 hours and then the clock really starts.

We are not in that place right now, but it is hard to see, especially given the fact that these aid bills are likely to pass in bipartisan fashion. It's hard to see who that upsets on the House conservative Republican side. If it upsets more people than just Marjorie Taylor Greene and Tom Massey who joined her ranks this week on a motion to vacate. Yeah, the speaker could have bigger problems.

Or as I asked him this week and he ignored the question, I asked at what point do you just call these people's bluff? And it doesn't seem like he's there yet. But members who I talked to who were in the closed door meeting where Congress and Massey basically said to the speaker, Hey, resign and do us all a favor. Johnson was defiant.

He said I'm absolutely not resigning. He later called the notion that he would resign absurd to reporters. Some Republican members told me that they viewed that as calling their bluff. I don't know.

I think he might have to go a step further, but we're not there yet. We're not there yet, but we probably will be soon. I'll leave it tally. Thank you.

I'll turn back to the panel now. Congressman, let me pick up on the point that I was making. You know what some of these people, the folks who are calling for Johnson's house over this and making a lot of noise are never the people we're going to vote for these bills anyway. How seriously do you take these threats?

How seriously do you think Republican leadership should? Well, they put themselves in this position by having the rule of the house be that one person can bring down, you know, can get this motion live and voted on. And this crazy caucus has been running the show essentially since day one of this Congress. It's unprecedented.

It's been the least productive session of Congress in modern times. And I think they really have to worry about it. What I think is interesting is if it comes up, do Democrats who normally are going to say that you've seen it over and over? No, we're not voting for someone to remain speaker or Republican.

Whether they say, you know what, it's a better play for us now at this juncture to say you got these, especially if he gets these bills passed. We were basically running a parliamentary government anyway at this point. Danielle, this question perplexes me and I suspected perplexes here as well. But how did we get to the point where you craned aid wasn't such a hot issue on the right that this is the untouchable thing?

Standing up to the Russians is supposed to be like, you know, American democracy 101. It's a great question because in the first, I would say 18 months of the conflict, what we saw was the White House moving too slowly. And Congress, congressional Republicans actually tacking more money on than the White House was asking for and berating the White House for moving too slowly. And now we have a total reversal.

It is the linkage of the border issue with the question of Ukraine. And, you know, I don't know why they're too great to taste the taste great together because to me it doesn't make a lot of sense. But the way that this has been formulated is, you know, why are you caring about the safety and security of those foreigners before you care about the safety and security of re-Americans? It's not the right way to formulate it.

But it's a very powerful, simple statement. I was there, since I was there, I can actually say that it was a bipartisan thing to push the administration faster on 18th-day. And, you know, they passed my partisan legislation too. Danny, no, they passed it.

They passed it. They agreed on bipartisan legislation and Donald Trump killed it. So don't be used in the border. It's a loser issue.

And people actually took action on it and they were prevented from moving forward by this extremist tiny minority in the House. I'm coming to the second check, but I want to tag Ali back into this conversation because Ali, I understand the great impeachment trial of 2024 is now over, correct? Yeah, at least this version of it. But look, we watched Senator Chuck Schumer procedurally pick apart the two articles for impeachment that this entire thing was based upon.

It came after Republicans said no deal when he offered them a few hours of debate before then ultimately moving to motion to table these indict these two articles of impeachment that the Senate was being asked to vote on. When Republicans said no to that, we really watched this devolve into procedural chaos and confusion on their part. Chuck Schumer first offered a point of order on the first article of impeachment that then went through after several rounds of procedural dragging this out. And then he did the same on the second article of impeachment.

Once both of those were off the table, having been agreed to as unconstitutional by the majority of the Senate, he was then able in the last few minutes to say, all right, let's dismiss this thing. And this ends pretty much where we expected it to, although it took a few different twists and turns, including Senator Kennedy saying he wanted to postpone this into 2004, yes, several years ago. And it really was a moment where you saw senators even in this very final few votes, seemingly not impressed or even not engaged in what was happening on the floor because they knew that it was all procedural tactics to just drag out the inevitable end of these impeachment hearings. Now, I'm sure we'll hear about this from some of the House Republicans who were impeachment managers, including among them, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, and then we'll hear what they have to say.

But as far as the impeachment of Alejandro Mayorkas goes, Garrett, this is something that was a pet project of Republicans from the moment they took the House majority and now it's over. That's a wrap. All right, now that's how I thank you. Check out one of these ones on this one because the other thought that I have about all this is less than a week ago.

The Mike Johnson was at Mar-a-Lago with Donald Trump, having all these conversations, you know, standing side-by-side on these issues. What did he get out of it? And where does the House Republican conference go now? I don't know, but I look at Mike Johnson.

I'm not saying something that I think Danny's going to look. I think he's giving you a lesson in why a Peasement is bad. The Peasement never works. It doesn't work when you try to do it in international affairs, and it doesn't work when you're trying to deal with your own conference here.

And the impeachment strategy here is you just give, Marjorie Taylor Greene is incentivized to make it privileged to do this. There's no penalty. They have created a situation where there's no penalty for bad behavior in governing their own conference. And it doesn't matter if Mike Johnson's speaker, if he's a speaker, if he's a speaker, if you're going to create rules that don't allow the speaker to be the leader.

And if the speaker chooses not to be a leader and instead wants to be a leader, this is what you get. Well, it's going to take some of you to test the other side of that theory at some point to find out if it's the best. By the way, I would have called it. I think the Democrats, if Marjorie Taylor Greene is going to be a House impeachment manager, give her, you want to put her out there?

Give her opportunity. This is one of those dog catching the car moments. I get it. The White House is panic.

They don't want to deal with an issue that they know. They're part of, is unpopular and how they've handled it. But there's a small part of me that I don't think this would have played so well for them. Marjorie Taylor Greene being the face of the Republican Party.

Yeah, I think that's probably right. We got a leader for there. Deepa, Chuck Daniel, Congressman, thank you all for that robust conversation. And coming up, I'll speak to one of the members of Congress trying to get that desperately needed aid for Ukraine past, just days after he spoke face to face with President Zelensky.

Plus, breaking news out of Arizona where lawmakers are battling over whether to repeal that civil war air ban on abortion, as demonstrators gather outside the State House. You're watching the press now. Get the best of NBC News with a subscription. Fewer ads, deeper access and exclusive content.

And now, during the XFINITY member celebration, members can get an exclusive 50% off an annual subscription. Head to XFINITY.com slash memberships to learn more. XFINITY. Imagine that.

Subscription automatically renews each year at $65.99 plus taxes and fees until canceled. Avar ends May 20th, 2026. Crisis subject to change. Visit NBCNews.com slash XFINITY for full offer terms and details.

Hey guys, Willie Geist here reminding you to check out the Sunday Sit Down podcast. On this week's episode, I get together with Red Hot Stand Up Comedian Nikki Glaser to talk about the long career grind that has brought her to this starring moment, hosting the Golden Globes, killing at the time Brady rose in now with another hit special on Hulu. You can get our conversation now for every download your podcasts. As the day wraps up, get this scoop on what's been happening with Here's the Scoop, a new podcast from NBC News with me, your host, Gazza Dazukyo.

We'll take a deep dive into the day's top stories with NBC News's trusted journalist. It's a fresh take that's sharp, thoughtful, and informative, bringing you closer to the headlines and conversations that are shaping our world. On the front page, the Zeitgeist. Here's the scoop from NBC News.

Listen daily on Spotify. Welcome back. We're following breaking news out of Battleground, Arizona today, where for the second time in two weeks, Republican lawmakers blocked an attempt to repeal an 1864 near total ban on abortion. That ban was revived by a state Supreme Court ruling last week and is set to supersede the state's current 15-week abortion ban.

Just one Republican, state representative Matt Gress, joined Arizona Democrats in favor of advancing the repeal effort. Last week Gress said on this show that he was confident the repeal would be on the governor's desk by the end of the day today. Not so. Instead, the Republican House Speaker today admonished Democrats for trying to move too quickly on the 160-year-old law.

The last thing we should be in today is rushing a bill through the legislative process to repeal a law that has been enacted and reaffirmed by the legislature several times. It is still being litigated in court. The courts have not even had an opportunity to determine if the pre-roll law is constitutional. Last week, many Republicans, including former President Trump and GOP Senate candidate Kerry Lake distanced themselves from the state Supreme Court ruling, reinstating that Civil War-era ban.

Kerry Lake has yet to react to today's failed effort, but her Democratic opponent, Ruben Gallego, along with Governor Katie Hobbs and state Attorney General Chris Mays, can condemn Republicans for failing to advance the bill. And speaking with NBC News after the vote, state Representative Analise Ortiz said Republicans need to back up their words with action. We are seeing Republicans on Twitter agreeing that they want to repeal the abortion ban, but when it comes time to put their words into action, they continue to block our attempts to repeal this ban. So their talk is cheap, and frankly, in November, voters are going to see right through it.

Joining me now is Bram Resnick, a political reporter for KPNX. That's our NBC station, Phoenix. He's been tracking today's developments from inside the State House today, and NBC campaign amid Alex Tadd has been tracking reaction from outside the State House. So Bram, I'll start with you.

Just walk us through what happened on the House floor today. Was this really about this bill or about the rules or some combination of both? Well, a combination of both, and to be clear, this was a procedural vote, a vote on the details of the bill itself, and for the second time in two weeks as you pointed out, this bill failed on a procedural vote. However, this time there was an actual headcount while Democrats needed just two Republicans to come over to their side.

All they could get was Matt Gress, just one. The bill failed on a 30-30 vote-type vote. There was a second try, failed again. Democrats are vowing there and keep bringing it up today and maybe in future weeks.

They're likely to get the same result. In the end, there weren't enough Republicans willing to come over all before a gallery filled with right-to-life supporters. It was a very charged, a very charged, a host session. Do you expect Democrats to keep trying to bring this bill up for a vote?

How likely are the numbers to change? And I guess, do you think there's political value here in just continuing to have this fight and arguing that Republicans deeds don't match their words on this particular bill? I'm not sure that there's much value in having this fight earlier this week. We reported that Republicans will keep strategies to counter the really big deal here, which is a statewide vote expected in November, on whether to protect abortion rights.

Republicans, a document they put together shows their strategies for countering that. They're going to likely vote on putting their own initiatives on the ballot in coming days or weeks to counter the initiative, abortion protection initiative. They want to put initiatives on the ballot. They'll protect the legislatures right to regulate abortion.

I think that's where the next battleground is in the short term. And don't forget, this ban does become law. Nothing changes. It does become law at the end of June, and will likely remain the law through the election day.

So the governor said the prosecutors through an executive order cannot prosecute the law. And Theresa, can you clarify a little bit on that strategy, Graham? Protect my legislators right to regulate my reproductive rights. It doesn't exactly fit on a bumper sticker.

What's the strategy here? There are actually four strategies they're looking at, four different kinds of ballot initiatives, questions they can put to voters, either with varying degree of say, regulation of abortion. The common thread is the legislature would retain the right to regulate. The one that's favored is kind of a softer as a softer feel to it, if that's the right word.

And also would mirror the ballot of the initiative that's going to be on the ballots that would allow protective abortion rights, kind of a bait and switch. And the document does this quote, does talk about confusing voters, trying to get them to vote for the wrong thing. There are a lot of theories about why and what Republicans are going to do, but clearly that is the next battle. I gotcha.

All right. So Alex, you've been watching the protesters coming and going outside the statehouse all day. What are you seeing and hearing from folks out there? Well, Jared, there's been a profound sense of frustration from many of the demonstrators that I've actually just left the Capitol who are in favor of abortion rights.

And one woman told me that the sense of frustration stems from her belief that this is not as partisan of an issue as what it's being made out to be in the building behind me. She told me just friends who are planning to inform President Donald Trump were very conservative, who believe that this ban goes too far. And of course, this is anecdotal, but over the weekend, I was at a Kerry Laker Alley in Northern Arizona. I asked five Kerry Lake and Donald Trump supporters.

What do you think of this 1864 ban? Four of the five told me that they believe that there needs to be exceptions for rape and incest, something there is not in this 1864 near total abortion ban, Garrett. That's interesting. So talk to me a little bit more about the amendment here to codify abortion rights.

Where does that effort stand from your point of view and how does this failure to repeal the 1864 law affect the efforts to move forward on the amendment issue, rather? Yeah, you're absolutely right, Garrett. There is an effort here to entrain abortion rights into the Arizona State Constitution. It's being run by an organization called Arizona for Abortion Access.

And ever since the last Tuesday's Arizona Supreme Court ruling, their ballot initiative has really been gaining steam. In Arizona, a surge of signatures. It's been lying to sign. Like we can hardly switch the petitions out fast enough.

The effort to entrain abortion rights into the state's constitution supercharged after the state Supreme Court ruled that a near total abortion ban from 1864 is enforceable. One of the volunteers at one of our locations, she was filling out, they were filling a page per hour for our petition. Chris Love is a spokesperson for Arizona for abortion access. A coalition of reproductive rights organizations that's working to get a referendum on the November ballot that would allow abortion until fetal viability or about 24 weeks of pregnancy.

This is the only way or the most durable way to protect abortion rights in the state. In the week since the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling, Love's organization says interest has skyrocketed. In the last week alone, they say they received more than 5,300 small dollar donations, almost 2,000 more volunteers and thousands of new signatures. Including 2,200 signatures notarized in just an hour earlier this week.

The case that we haven't seen in quite a while. Earlier this month, Arizona for abortion access announced it already gathered more than half a million signatures. That's 120,000 more than they need to make it on the ballot in November, but they're not leaving anything to chance. We are going to collect signatures until the wheels fall off quite frankly.

Meanwhile, Republicans in the state legislature are now considering pushing their own competing ballot measures. A leaked GOP strategy document obtained by NBC News outlines a plan to give voters options for other constitutional amendments. And it's a plan that's already been floated by Republicans Senate candidate Carrie Lick. So I think our lawmakers need to do something quickly.

I don't know if that's putting another initiative on the ballot to give people options. And Arizona for abortion access actually just held a press conference outside the Arizona State Capitol. I ask Chris, Love their spokesperson. What is your plan in the event that the Republicans in the state legislature are able to put additional abortion referendums on the ballot to make sure that your supporters know which one to vote for and how to vote on those additional amendments as well?

She told me they're focused on gathering signatures until July 3rd. That's when they hand in the signatures. And after July 3rd, they're going to pivot to education mode to make sure their supporters know how to vote on every ballot or every referendum presented to them come November. Garrett.

All right, Remresnick and Alex Tabbat, thank you both for that reporting. And coming up, watching and waiting for Israel's response to Iran's aerial assault, the options on the table and potential wide-ranging consequences. You're watching at the press now. Welcome back.

As we mentioned earlier, the House is set to vote this weekend on a series of supplemental spending bills, including one to provide additional aid for Ukraine. The vote comes at a tenuous moment for House Speaker Mike Johnson, who could lose his job over the bill. It also comes at a tenuous moment in Ukraine's war with Russia, with reports of Ukrainian troops morale dwindling along with their ammo, and President Zelensky warning that it cannot win the war without continued support from the U.S. Congress.

Democratic Congressman Wiley Nickele traveled to Ukraine earlier this month and met face-to-face with President Zelensky. The congressman joins me now, so Congressman, having had an opportunity to look over these bills now, are you more confident now than you were a week ago that House can actually get this done? Yeah, very, very confident. This is good news that we're seeing today for America's national security, for standing with our allies around the globe.

So we're basically seeing that the Senate bill that passed in a bipartisan way, 70 votes, brought to the House in different pieces. But there's certainly enough votes to move the bipartisan pieces through the House. What are the criticisms of this effort? Is that this will not be the last time we have to kind of provide more aid for Ukraine, and that this could potentially go on forever?

Are you satisfied that what's in this bill can sort of fundamentally change the direction of this war, or is this a never-ending ask, as the critics say? No, I was impressed with the ground that Ukraine has made up on my visit, and this is the point I think that we need to make here is this is a choice about handing over Ukraine and Eastern Europe to Putin. If we do nothing, that's what's going to happen this year. So by providing this military assistance, Ukraine will be able to defend their country, and that's where we are right now on the ground.

It is, they are teetering on a knife's edge, but with this support, they're going to be able to defend their country, but most importantly, this is about sending a message to the rest of the world that the U.S. is going to honor our commitments, and we're going to stand with our friends. The Democratic Whip today reportedly told members to use their personal relationships to try to come up with the 218 votes that you would need for a discharge position. This plan fails to get the full supplemental across the train send, if you will.

What do you think is more likely that these five bills now pass through the House as the Speaker wants, so that you guys have to go to that kind of emergency break glass option and try to force a discharge petition? I think that was a world 24 hours ago, and right now with the way. It's changing that quickly. I think what we're seeing is a set of bills that are going to get brought by partisan support, and they will allow us to stand with Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan.

I feel like since we started this debate over this particular supplemental bill last fall, the temperature has been very high, the rhetoric has always been that Ukraine is in danger right now. They could lose right now. That was the case in November. It's now April.

What is the relative level of concern about the timing here? And why should people out there believe that the need is so dire now when it's been so dire since November? What I saw was an armed force is this running out of ammunition, and the supply chain to get that aid to them. It doesn't happen like that.

It takes time to move that aid to them. So what we're seeing is Russia out done in Ukraine right now, and if they have our support, they're going to be able to stay in the fight and gain ground in their own country. If passing this bill really does force a motion to vacate it for hard-right Republicans coming after Mike Johnson for doing this bill, would you vote to save his job? I think the way you got to look at this whole Congress is there is the responsible adults are in the room.

There's a governing coalition of 200 Democrats and 100 Republicans. That's what we've seen time and time again on funding bills, must pass bills, and you're going to see it again, play out over the weekend. So if that's not going to be a part of that responsibility? Absolutely.

And if getting, I want to know Republican districts. My constituents want me here in Washington to get things done. And if preserving that group of 100 Republicans and 200 Democrats working together on bipartisan legislation is something that we can keep, I want to explore that path. That sounds like I want to put words on your back here.

Would you help Mike Johnson keep his speakership if he pushes this bill over the line? I would feel a lot better about making sure we continue to have a responsible governing coalition. If we can pass these must pass bills for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel. This is the league.

This is politics after all. I mean, if Democrats are going to be part of this coalition here, if this is the responsible group, should there be a bigger ask from the speaker to say, like, all right, if we're going to be the coalition government, let's do this for real. And we are. And I think for folks like me, we are taking our cues from the real leader in Congress.

And that's a King Jeffries. And I think we're going to see him, you know, lead our caucus on this issue. And I feel very good that we're going to be united in standing up to the minority of far right extremists in Congress who have no interest in getting anything done or governing. They're here to blow things up and they're here for themselves.

So I would like to be able to push back against the Moscow Marches and the Matt Gaetzes of the US Congress. You mentioned you wanted a Republican district. You're not ready for reelection. How has that decision changed how you approach what's up with your time up here?

You know, the commitment is the same. I promise, you know, my constituents, I do everything I can to try to bring this country together, bring our Congress together. But you know, they say I'm retiring. I'm not running because I don't have a district because of Jerry Mann, but I'm certainly not giving up or going out quietly enough for fair maps.

And we're looking at a Senate race in two years. So, you know, we're doing everything we can to continue what we need. Anything you want to share on that decision-making process? For Senate race?

Well, it's a little early right now. I'm trying to figure out what the Congress is. But I can tell you there are going to be just a few states that really matter in the next cycle. And it's North Carolina, it's Alaska, and it's Maine.

Those are the states that are going to make a difference if we're ever going to end the filibuster. That's, you know, you talk about the other chamber. That's the thing that we really need to fix if we're going to be able to move legislation, protect a woman's right to choose to end gun violence. We're never going to do those things unless we get rid of the filibuster.

Alright, Congressman, you want to talk more about that anyway? So, come on back, alright? That's why I think I'll, Democrat from North Carolina. Thank you.

We're going to be back with more of me the press now after a short break. Stick around. Welcome back. Israel's war cabinet met again today as the US and the rest of the world await Israel's response to Iran's weekend attack.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said today that Israel will make its own decisions on how to defend itself. Despite pleas from Western countries for restraint. All of this comes as the US and its partners prepare to impose new sanctions on Iran in the wake of last weekend strikes. Meanwhile, ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas are quote, almost frozen according to a senior Arab diplomat familiar with the negotiations.

Complicating matters still further. Questions about how many of the hostages being held by Hamas are even still alive. Let me see who's international correspondent, Ross Sanchez, has the latest from Tel Aviv. Garrett Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met today with the foreign ministers of both Britain and Germany, and those European officials arrived here in Israel with a consistent message.

They stand by Israel. They support its right to self-defense, but they do not want to see the Israelis escalate the situation with Iran further, potentially tipping the region into all-out war. Now, we don't know exactly what was said in those meetings, but whatever it was, it left British Foreign Secretary David Cameron with the very clear impression that Israel does plan to retaliate. Take a listen.

The situation is very concerning. It's right to show solidarity with Israel. It's right to have made our views clear about what should happen next, but it's clear that the Israelis are making a decision to act. We hope they do so in a way that does as little to escalate this as possible.

And in a way that, as I said yesterday, is smart as well as tough. Now, Israel has a range of options for that retaliation. Iran sent 350 or so missiles and drones. Israel could retaliate in kind with missiles of its own.

Another possibility, cyber attack, something else covert. I asked the chief spokesman of the Israeli military whether they were considering those more covert options. He would only say that Israel will respond at a time and in a manner of its choosing. Over the last 24 hours or so, we've had dangerous reminders about the potential for full-scale war.

Israel assassinating two senior commanders with Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militant group in southern Lebanon. Today, that group responding with missiles of its own wounding 14 Israeli soldiers. So, major concerns in Iran, major concerns in Lebanon. Also, a lot of focus on those really stalled ceasefire negotiations in Gaza.

A senior Arab official saying those talks are basically frozen. There has been very, very little progress in recent weeks to the massive detriment, not just of 130 or so hostages being held, but also to Palestinian civilians who are waiting desperately for ceasefire. For a respite from the violence to get more humanitarian aid in. Perhaps most alarming here is that Hamas is indicating that it may not have many hostages who are still alive.

Remember, the original proposal here for this six-week ceasefire was that Hamas would release around 40 hostages. So, this would be women, it would be elderly people, it would be people with serious medical conditions. Hamas is now indicating that it does not have 40 hostages who fall into that category. Now, we have not been able to confirm that.

The Israeli government has not been able to confirm that Israel has warned the population here that Hamas may be trying to play psychological games about the number of hostages alive, but it is very, very distressing, as you can imagine, for the families of those hostages hearing those words from Hamas. Garret. Ref Sanchez reporting. And before we go, we want to take a moment to remember Bob Graham, the two-term flooring governor and three-term U.S.

Senator, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on 9-11. He voted against the invasion of Iraq and led the congressional investigation into the terror tax. Graham, who began his political career as a state legislator in the 70s, was known for what he called Work Days, where he spent an entire day doing ordinary jobs alongside his constituents. Graham made an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2004, emphasizing his opposition to the Iraq War.

In 2003, Graham joined Meet the Press to discuss his presidential campaign with Tim Resser and emphatically declined to answer whether he would seek reelection in the Senate. Listen. You will not run for reelection to the U.S. Senate?

I am running to be elected President of the United States of America for no other office. But you will categorically not seek reelection. I am running to be President of the United States of America. That's not an answer.

I think it's a pretty good answer, Tim. But you may run for the Senate if this doesn't work out. I am running to be President of the United States of America. Many people think that you could convince the people of the country that you're much more serious about being President than Vice President if you said, I will not seek reelection to the Senate.

I am saying what I have said now four times. I am running to be President of the United States of America. And you might run for the Senate. I am saying.

I am running to be President of the United States of America. Wouldn't that be a great thing for this country? Graham withdrew from the presidential race several months later and retired from the Senate in 2005. Bob Graham was 87 years old.

NBC News now coverage continues with Halle Jackson, right now. Right now. I'm Craig Malph, cheers. Cheers.

I've always been a glass half-hole kind of guy. And now I'm talking to some people who look at the world that way too. Some really fascinating folks who shared their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are funny. And if I can't, so I hope you'll join me each week.

And who knows? You might just come away with your own glass half-hole. Search glass half-hole with Craig Malph, from today on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts.