Meet the Press NOW — April 18

If it's Tuesday, after being selected and sworn in, two jurors are dismissed from serving on Trump's criminal hush money trial over anonymity and credibility concerns, as the former president attacks prospective witnesses and jurors and prosecutors accuse him of violating his gag order at least seven times in three days. Plus, the Kennedy family formally endorses President Biden over one of their own, as the Biden campaign tries to seize an advantage on the trail with the presumptive Republican nominee stuck in a criminal courtroom. And House Speaker Johnson defies his right-wing critics and vows to plow forward with a foreign funding package that includes a for Ukraine, even if getting a deal across the finish line costs him his job. Hello, and welcome to Meet the Press Now.

I'm Ryan Nobles in Washington, but we begin today in New York, where efforts to see a jury and Donald Trump's criminal hush money trial appear to be moving backwards, and the former president's conduct during the trial is again coming under scrutiny. Today, two jurors who had been seated were dismissed, with one telling the judge that she was concerned that her identity might have been revealed. That same juror was a subject of a series of attacks by conservative media last night. The other juror, who was excused after prosecutors' voice, concerns about his credibility.

Right now, five jurors have been seated, 12 jurors, and six alternates need to be selected before we can proceed to opening arguments. The seat of jurors include three men and two women. Two are attorneys. One is a teacher.

One an engineer and one works in sales. Today's developments show just how tenuous and tedious every stage of this trial will be. Here's what one excused prospective juror told my colleague, Von Hilliard, about the process. And then he said, again, if there's a reason that you don't think you could be impartial or that you could be perceived as biased, that you should raise your hand.

So I raise my hand because I was certain that even if and intellectually I would be capable of being unbiased, that because I have satirized Mr. Trump often in my artwork, this would come to light. And as jury selection continues, prosecutors appear to have grown increasingly concerned about the former president's conduct during this opening phase of the trial, accusing him this morning of violating a gag order that forbids him from making certain statements about potential witnesses or jurors seven times this week alone. Judge Juan Rochon plans to address potential violations of the gag order next Tuesday.

The former president's lawyers argue he is just responding to political attacks, and he has not violated that gag order. NBC's national correspondent Yasmin Vasugian joins me now. She is outside the Manhattan courthouse, also with me, Barbara McQuaid, former U.S. attorney and a current NBC news legal analyst.

So Yasmin, let's start with you. So where do things stand right now on jury selection? Are we making any progress? Making some progress and that folks are being struck.

More jurors are being dropped. You talked about how we started out the day at seven, and Judge Juan Rochon started this next phase of this jury selection by stating that then dropped down to five after jury number two were excluded, one of them, as you mentioned, because fear of their identity being known to folks outside of that courtroom. Now they're kind of going through the process in which both attorneys on both sides are talking through who they think should actually be struck, and some of them are having to bring into the courtroom in front of Judge Juan Rochon to ask them further questions about where they stand on certain things. There was one individual who talked about having read Mark Palmer Ants' book.

Now Mark Palmer Ants was part of Manhattan D.A. Saivanta's office investigating former president Donald Trump, and then also part of Alvin Bragg's office, but then resigned a month into Alvin Bragg's term. This juror talked about how she had read Mark Palmer Ants' entire book and talked a lot about it with her friends. However, she could still be fair and impartial.

That juror was subsequently struck. They are having a Q&A with another juror as well who mentioned that she actually knew Susan Nicholas and her husband was a former U.S. attorney who also knew Susan Nicholas and knew the understanding or understood, I should say, the legal issue with the former president was facing. She is currently being questioned by both sides, by both prosecution and defense as to whether or not she should remain as part of this jury.

For this portion, right, when it is a strike by cause, it really ends up being on the shoulders of Judge Juan Rochand to make that final Ryan decision to either keep them or let them go. Just to remind you, each side has four perentary strikes left, meaning they say, I don't want Yasmin to be a juror on this jury, and they strike them. But beyond that, Judge Juan Rochand is the final say when it comes to striking by cause. And it's been interesting hearing from these dismissed jurors about the process as they leave for the day.

Are you spoke to one of those jurors? What did they tell you? I'm sorry. I was just looking down on my phone, Ryan, because I'm getting a note from my producer, seeing kind of the back and forth between the potential jurors and the attorneys.

So I spoke to one of the jurors that was struck from this jury pool, and she was one of the folks that raised her hand when they asked, can you be impartial if you were to sit on this jury? And it was earlier on in the day, and she raised her hand because she said to me that she could in fact could not be impartial. The amazing thing, Ryan, is that she became a US citizen last August, and November will be the first presidential election that she will actually vote in. And when she was called for jury duty, this is the trial in which she was called for.

Here's some of what she had to say to me. Everybody was shocked. Not like frozen. No expression.

It's nothing. You know. Did he look back at you? Did he look back at you?

Did any of the attorneys look back at you at that time? Sometimes Trump would turn his head. Yeah. That was it.

He doesn't look angry, or I think he looks bored. Like he wants this to finish. She said everybody kind of understood, Ryan, the gravity of the situation, walking in and being completely shocked. The former president was sitting there.

That this was the trial that they were really walking in. Do one more note. That individual that I was just talking about, who's husband was an attorney, in fact Judge Juan Rochon denied her being a structure. She remains still a potential juror.

Okay. We appreciate it. Barbara, let's go to you now. You have reporters crawling all over this courthouse.

It is probably the most anticipated trial, certainly in recent American history. How is it possible to get a collection of jurors whose privacy and anonymity can be guaranteed? Is this going to be a constant concern throughout the trial, even after the jury has seen it? I think it may be, and I think that what the parties and the judge are going to need to do is to reassess because this juror was removed and excused today after she revealed that she didn't think she could be fair because it seemed likely that her identity would be revealed.

People are saying, hey, I know what you look like. I know that you live on the Upper East Side or whatever she was. I know what you do before living. I know what your last job is.

Is this new? And if that kind of information comes out about all of these jurors, then I think it's not going to be hard to figure out who they are. And that really violates the goal here of an anonymous jury and kind of the assurances that these jurors have been given. So very good that she got excused today.

What could be really problematic is if we get two or three weeks in and jurors start dropping, I think the plan is to have two alternates. But if you start losing jurors, you then have a missed trial situation and have to start over. So I think that if I were a party to this case, I would be getting my opposing counsel on the judge together and saying if there aren't ways that we could improve the anonymity of the jurors here. It is rather than asking them where they work, simply asking them what they do for a living.

I think that would be a little less revealing to the public. Maybe not disclosing so specifically the communities where they live. And also I know Judge Marshan is asking the press now not to report on the physical description of the jurors. It doesn't really matter whether they're tall or short or the color of their hair.

And so perhaps that could be another way to protect their anonymity. But I think this is something that the parties need to get right now up front before we get into the heart of the substance of this trial. And does the judge have a lot of discretion about what information can and cannot be released in the public? Theoretically, they remove reporters from the room when biographical information is being released and have that not be made public.

How much flexibility does he have? Yeah, no, I think that if the judge gets too restrictive here, we are going to see the press file a lawsuit for media access to the courtroom. Because typically the press is allowed to report on anything that a member of the public could observe by sitting in that courtroom. And so a physical description the judge may say is not relevant to their ability to perform their duties as jurors.

But if somebody were sitting in that courtroom, that is something that they could observe. And so it may be that we see a battle between the press and the judge if the judge gets too restrictive. So he certainly does have some discretion. There is also this first amendment right to free press access that I think could be in French if he starts getting too restrictive here.

So it's not an absolute right, there is an ability to limit things if there's a compelling reason and it's narrowly tailored to achieve that reason. And so protecting their identity from threats and integrity of this case could be a reason for that sort of restriction. Okay, I don't think we expected this to be a simple process, right? So it's probably not a surprise that there's been some hip ups here, but we've got two jurors that have been dismissed.

But on the other side of this, we do have five that have been seated, at least for now. Do you think that we're about where we need to be in terms of this process right now or are we behind schedule? No, I think overall actually we're doing fine. You know, after the first couple of days, the fact that we had seven struck me as really fast in light of what a high-profile case this is, you know, a former president on trial, you're not going to find anybody who's never heard of him or doesn't have some opinion of him.

Of course, the question is whether despite your knowledge coming in, you can set that aside and decide this case based on the facts and the law that you receive here in court. And so, you know, as we're seeing in response to these questions, when the judge asks the whole pool, is there anybody who can't be fair, lots of hands go up? And so this is quite unusual in light of most cases, you know, I've been involved in jury selection most often in a routine case that takes about a day, maybe less, maybe half a day, depending on the facts of the case. This one, I thought, might take a week or more.

The fact that we've got five jurors on Thursday, there's another day tomorrow. I think by the time the day is done, we'll probably have more. And of course, we're going to have more peremptory challenges now, so I think it's likely to go more quickly. I think we can still have a jury selected by the end of the day tomorrow.

Okay. Barbara McQuaid, always the optimist. We appreciate that. Thank you, Barbara.

And it is what is going to become a theme of this presidential campaign honestly once again today. While Donald Trump stands trial, President Biden is on the trail campaigning for a third consecutive day in Pennsylvania. Today, the president was in Philadelphia where he received a public endorsement from members, multiple members of the Kennedy family. We can say today, with no less urgency, that our rights and freedoms are once again in peril.

This is why we all need to come together in a campaign that should unite not only Democrats but all Americans, including Republicans and independents who believe in what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature, of both for Joe Biden is about for our democracy and our decency. That endorsement, of course, meant to send a clear signal from the Kennedy's that they oppose the candidacy of one of their own, RFK Jr., who is, of course, running as an independent NBC News One House correspondent, Mike Memley joins me now with more. So, Mike, tell me, how did this endorsement from the Kennedy family come together? Well, what's so interesting about this, Ryan, is that we are told, according to sources closest to the family, that this has been months in the making, and according to the Biden campaign, they've really been following the Kennedy's lead here.

It was clear from a very early stage how concerned even RFK Jr.'s own siblings were about the possibility that he would play a spoiler in this race, and they look at it as a threat to the family legacy here. If RFK Jr. gets sufficient votes in a sufficient number of states to tip the balance to Donald Trump, they fear that this really would be a dark mark against the family legacy. And so there have been conversations with the White House about the best way to move this forward.

But that dramatic photo from, uh, St. Patrick's Day with dozens of Kennedy's gathered in the Rose Garden with the President of the United States. And ultimately, this was a capper to this three day blitz through Pennsylvania. The family values stopped.

You could put it in Scranton, the union stopped in Pittsburgh, and then today, a reminder of what's at stake in this election from the Kennedy's in Philadelphia. And how is RFK Jr. responded to all of this? Well, what RFK Jr.

has said, including to saying to our own colleague, Von Hilliard, is that, listen, like any family, we have fierce political debates at the kitchen table with each other, and that there are other members of the family that do support him. But we've been challenging the Kennedy campaign to lay out just who those family members are, because that's why, and that's what's driven the urgency on the part of those members of the family that you saw on stage with President Biden today. They don't want their brother, their cousin, their uncle to get away with her, the perception that there are others, just as many perhaps who are supporting their own, that they know that the family is squarely behind President Biden's. Okay.

Mike Memley, thank you for that reporting. Coming up, we will head to Pennsylvania for the view from voters on what's motivating them to turn out, or if they'll turn out at all. But first, Capitol Consequences, we are live on the Hill, where House Speaker Mike Johnson insists that he's moving forward on trying to pass foreign aid for Ukraine, regardless of whether he could lose his job before him. That's next, you're watching the press now.

Welcome back. With his job in jeopardy, Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson is defiantly pushing forward on a foreign aid package that includes emergency wartime aid for Ukraine, meaning he is about to confront head-on the very issue that has pushed the right wing of his conference to call for his ouster. And he is doing it with a notable change of heart. For months, Johnson has joined those hardliners, and rebuffing the White House's calls for urgency around the issue of aid to Ukraine.

But now the Speaker is calling Ukraine a quote, critically important, so important, in fact, that he's willing to lose his job over it. If I operated out of fear over a motion to vacate, I would never be able to do my job. Look, history judges us are what we do. This is a critical time right now, a critical time in the world saying, I can make a selfish decision and do something that's different, but I'm doing here what I believe to be the right thing.

But that pledge is set to be put to the test, with the pressure facing the Speaker showing no signs of letting up. The House Freedom Caucus says that it's urging its members to kill the procedural vote on the foreign aid funding after a group of Republican hardliners cornered the Speaker on the floor today to pressure him not to put Ukraine aid on the floor. Joining me now from Capitol Hill is NDC's Julie Serkin. So Julie, what's the latest of this foreign funding that's driving the frustration on the right?

Let's get a bill's hand right now. Yeah, right. Well, the Rules Committee, as you know, in the House, has actually recessed, they have yet to come back together. This is the panel that is made up of Republicans and Democrats, but of course requires usually a majority party to pass the rule before it can even get to the floor, meaning the Republicans including the hardliners in the committee within theory have to support this rule in order for it to move forward.

There's some chatter that some Democrats might actually have to come out and save Republicans in order to move the Speaker's own rule on his own set of bills to provide that aid and to unlock it overseas including for Ukraine, for Israel, for the Indo-Pacific as well. So until that happens, we really don't know the fate of these bills, but Speaker Johnson had wanted a vote on these bills that will house to take it up on Saturday night. That's because he's giving members those 72 hours to read the bills. The bills look very largely similar to the Senate passed package that they moved over to the House back in February that has been stalled there.

That's $95 billion in aid to Ukraine and Israel again. But overall here, a lot of frustration behind the scenes hardliners trying to threaten Speaker Johnson. We'll see if that holds, of course, as Democrats and moderate Republicans increasingly want to move to save him. And let's talk about the timeline a little bit and talk more about the dust up on the floor today.

What kind of pressure is Johnson facing from his right? Well, I was outside of the House chamber watching this huddle on the House floor in the back corner. Ryan, it was away from camera so nobody could really see it, but we had our own look at it. Johnson, in the middle of a group of hardliners, members of the House Freedom Caucus that really have operated as a thorn in the side of the Speaker before it was Kevin McCarthy.

Of course, then after he was ousted, it became Speaker Mike Johnson. But then you had one Republican congressman, Darrigan, who told me on the phone a couple of hours ago, that he actually went into that huddle to protect Mike Johnson. He facetiously sort of humorously tempted those group of rebel browsers to go ahead and bring up that motion to kick Johnson out. What they wanted, Ryan, is for Johnson to not put Ukraine on the floor until the Senate took up the conservative border bill known as HR 2 that Democrats who control both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue and the Senate and the White House, as said for months, they will not put on the floor.

Johnson said no to that in part because of that sound, but you played at the top there. He is in support of Ukraine, and he said very strongly for the first time perhaps ever that Putin would continue his escalation in Europe if the U.S. did not send his legal weapons. So the bottom line here is the House will vote Saturday night.

If they get this passed through the rules committee, the Senate hopes to take it up shortly after Ryan. Okay. Thank you for that, Julie. Let's talk more about this with somebody who has a vote in this process.

A Republican congressman from Nebraska, Congressman Don Bacon. Congressman, appreciate you being here, and let's get right into it. First of all, where are you on this morning package? Can you support all of the different planks?

And are you even confident that they can get out of the rules committee and to a place where you'd have the opportunity to vote on it? Well, the first question is easier for me to answer than the second. I do class supporting them, but they're not optimal. You know, the speaker has had a good heart on us.

We want to secure the border. We're trying to posture the president to do more. He's got the authorities already that he could use, but I don't think failing in border security makes it right to also fail Ukraine or fail Israel. And that's where they are right now.

If we don't get border security, we can't help out Ukraine or Israel, and both of them are our national security interests. So I intend on supporting the different legislation, one for Israel, one for Ukraine, one for Taiwan. I wish I think so. I have a little bit too much humanitarian aid on them, but you can't let perfection be the enemy of good here.

In the end, Ukraine said our national security interests that remain independent, and Israel is our best ally in the Middle East, and they expended lots of munitions trying to protect themselves from 330 projectiles that I ran fired at them last Saturday. So I do intend to support that out. Your question on the rules. It appears to me that it's going to have to take some collaboration between the Democratic leadership and Republican leadership to get this out of rules.

I do know that on the four, some Democrats already told me they plan voting us because they agree with the legislation. So I do see a pathway that this is going to get through. It's unfortunate that we have 20, 30 people that do not want to cooperate with the speaker and effectively makes us a minority. And actually, weakens our hand, but it's going to take some cooperation working with the other side to get this done.

All right. Let's talk about the Ukraine bill with a little bit more specificity. Two weeks ago, you talked to Chris and Walker, I'll meet the press that you didn't want to get the president a blank check. But now some of you and your colleagues are even saying that Biden has not given enough to Ukraine.

So which is it? Where's the problem here? Well, I would prefer just more military, just keeping it to military aid and reducing the humanitarian. You know, the EU has done a lot of the humanitarian, they just passed 50 billion dollars or 50 billion, 50 billion euros out of the EU to help out with humanitarian.

Now we did get some wins. And this is wins that I fought for. I want to ensure that the president includes a tack of weapons to Ukraine. These initiatives have 180 mile range.

They hit a mailbox. Sitting Ukraine, these attack of weapons will be a game changer because the Russians hide behind the lines part of back where they can't be targeted. And this attack will change that. And so we have this in the bill, and that's why I mean by not giving the president a blank check.

We've done billions of dollars and they've been sending for the most part, 105 millimeter shells, short-fired anti-tank weapons later after a lot of prodding. They did the harpoon missiles, which were go by should have been done earlier. We've done Patriots. It could have been done a lot earlier.

We're still wanting to set up 16s. They're not there yet. So I'm trying to push the president to send more capable weapons that can change the fight on the field. I know about the situation that this is left Speaker Johnson in.

You've sent the pass and you thought he could lose his speakership over Ukraine. Marjorie Taylor Greene has said that she's not going to bring a motion to vacate until after the vote on the foreign aid bill. Do you think that is still likely? And do you think she's got enough willing partners that Johnson could lose his job?

I suspect one or two are going to do this after getting to know how they operate in the last couple of years. I disagree with it totally. It weakens Congress. It weakens our party.

It's a boon to the Democrats and the members' elections. So I think it's a shameful or just plain wrong. That's not I think the speaker will survive this. Because I know a lot of Democrats who think, hey, the speaker is trying to do what's right for our country and he should not lose his job over that.

So I suspect unlike a table motion, but if a vacate motion is put in, we'll move to table that motion. And if we wouldn't add, it's done. It will be over with President or Speaker McCarthy. We tried it and we didn't have the votes for tabling.

I think this time if some of the Democrats vote to table or don't even vote at all that the speaker will survive it. But just saying that we have to do this, we're not operating a team. All the norms that I'm used to when I got elected in 2017 have been dissipated. We've never vacated a speaker before.

I think it was 18 years before a rule has been voted down on the floor. We've done that several times now. And now we have people campaigning in each other's districts. It's a real shame.

We should expect more of ourselves. And 95% of us are doing it right. It's a small group. It's really ruining the whole team.

You know, I was in one of the press abilities with the speaker yesterday and it struck me how much he's changed his tune as it relates to funding for Ukraine. I'm sure you know that he voted against Ukraine funding before he became Speaker. I know you've been a strong supporter of Ukraine funding from the very beginning. What do you think has been the biggest change in the speaker's view of this?

Why has he now been gone from someone willing to vote against it to someone now? He's championing the idea and potentially putting himself up at the risk of losing his job. Well, I can talk a whole show on this. I don't know if I can fit it all in a minute or two here.

I personally was representing Northwest Louisiana. I think it's more conservative. Now he's the Speaker of the House. He's the Speaker of the United States of America.

Two. He's always told me he supported Ukraine in that independent Ukraine is not an absolute scare interest. He has shared my views personally. And when he ran for a speaker made it pretty clear where his heart lies.

But I also think now instead of being, you know, just one conservative of 222 being Speaker of the House now it's different. He has to govern. As defined by James Madison who wrote the Constitution, it forces us to find consensus and work together. You can't be a flamethrower or a nihilist or burn the house down kind of banks that in government.

And he is trying to govern. And the Constitution is right to protect the minority. You've got to work with the other side. They're going to divide the government.

And I think he's seen us and learned it and he's applying it right now. So we're seeing him stuff up and govern for our country. Okay. I have you stay all the rest of the hour and talk about that.

But I know you have another meeting. So I'm going to let you go. Congressman Bacon, thank you so much for your perspective. We appreciate it.

And we do have some breaking news to report out of New York. That's where two more jurors have been seated in Donald Trump's hush money trial. One is a male investment banker, the other a male security engineer. That means we're back up to seven jurors that have now been selected.

Five of them are men, two are women. We still need five additional jurors and six alternates chosen before they can move on with the trial. And up next, crisis and conflict in the Middle East will have NBC's exclusive interview with the top leader of Hezbollah, the Iran-backed militant group behind the latest missile attack on northern Israel that injured more than it does in Israeli troops. You're watching Beat the Press Now.

Welcome back to the White House and Pentagon officials met virtually with Israeli officials to discuss their plans for the IDF's potential ground offensive into Rafa. It's a follow-up on the contentious meetings earlier this month where a top advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu began yelling as he defended Israel's plans for Rafa according to US officials familiar with the meeting. Now, according to a readout of today's meeting, the US side, which included national security advisor Jake Sullivan, once again expressed their concerns about some of Israel's actions in Rafa. As Israel continues to finalize its plans for Rafa in Gaza, the region and the world continues to brace for the potential of an Israeli response to Iran after that massive aerial attack over the weekend.

Biden administration is urging Israel to show restraint and concerns about rising tensions in the region. Meanwhile, the White House also took steps of its own following last weekend's attack, announcing new sanctions on Iranian drone manufacturers, as well as sanctions on Iran's steel industry. Joining me now is retired four-star General Joseph Otel, who's the former commander of the US Central Command. He's now a distinguished senior fellow at the Middle East Institute.

Let's get into this in general and talk about the interview my colleague Matt Bradley had with the second in command of Hezbollah, of course, Hezbollah's the Iranian proxy group in Lebanon. They've been exchanging cross-border fire with Israel, but I want to get your reaction to some of what he had to say about Israel's potential response to last week's drone attack. What are you expecting Israel's attack to be? An Israeli high-run lay-ariffum, because you're doing a lay-ariffum, to determine an array of missiles at the top of Israel.

You think Israel doesn't have a plan right now? Let him look up the lines and look up the lines and look up the lines. I don't think that they're scared. Do you think they're scared?

I don't think they're scared. What about Iran? What about that? General He always seems to be baiting them, to a certain extent.

What do you think the reality of the situation is in Israel? Do you think that they have a plan to respond? Will they respond at all? Thanks Ryan.

That's good to be with you. Yeah, I absolutely think the the Israelis have a plan here. And the fact that they've taken four or five days since the attacks of last weekend to think through this, I think demonstrates they're taking on board the advice that has been given to them by the United States and probably a number of the other partners in terms of making very deliberate decisions about how they respond to this unprecedented attack against them last week. And so yeah, my own experience working with the Israelis is they don't go into things hastily and they think through the second and third order effects of things.

And I think that's certainly what is occurring in this case. You mentioned the fact that they have been talking to some of their allies who pretty much across the board have asked them to show restraint. And what would you view as a response that would escalate the situation, make it worse versus something that would be restrained and perhaps contain the situation to how it currently exists? Yeah, you know, Israel, I think has a lot of options in this.

So I think something that would be definitely escalatory would be if they perhaps try to go out through what I would consider to be kind of strategic targets, things related to related to the nuclear weapons program or related to more centralized command and control activities and deep into our rant. Those, I think, would almost definitely merit some type of response from Iran. On the other hand, going after perhaps targets in the western part of Iran that are really focused on maybe the launch sites for missiles or drone sites might elicit much less of a response from the Iranians, particularly if they were able to be done in a way that weren't well known to the broader Iranian public and they could protect the Iranians' capability to protect their own messaging. But you still think that Israel has on the table the possibility of striking Iran directly.

That still remains something that they could do. I think that it is. Now, ultimately, Israel will have to make the decision on that. Certainly, that's not the only things they can do.

There are Iranian assets that are located that are vulnerable, that are of great value to Iran, that certainly could be targeted outside of Iran. And of course, they could always return to the tactics that have been used in the so-called shadow war here for a number of years between both sides. So I think Israel has a lot of options here. I think they're waned through that.

Certainly, it's striking back on Iranian territory. I think that's carry a level of risk that I think has to be considered very, very deliberately. And they also have the geopolitical concerns to deal with as well, right? I mean, they have all these allies who are putting a lot of pressure to try and de-escalate the situation.

You also have what's becoming a more strained relationship between the Prime Minister and President Biden, the White House, the United Nations, others kind of pressuring for ceasefire talks to continue with Qatar and Egypt. And then you've got Netanyahu's political turmoil at home as well. Do all of these factors play into the decision-making process here? They absolutely do, Ryan.

And you've encapsulated a number of them quite well. I mean, they have to consider the mood and the attitude of their own citizens and how they're looking at this. They have to consider the alliances and partnerships. Things have changed a little bit in the last four or five days.

They're now 47, 48 countries that have come out and condemn the attacks by Iran. That's a different information environment than we had just a week ago. They've got to consider what's going on in Gaza. And remember, all of this, this activity over the last week, has had no impact on the situation in Gaza.

And Israel still has a very, very serious situation that they need to resolve. And of course, that makes a long-term impact to this. Beyond just how Iran will respond to this, I've got to think about how they control an escalation cycle. They've got to think about how they look for possible off-ramps to get this back into something that is more manageable, long-term in the region.

So yeah, there's a ton of factors that they've got to consider in this. A complicated situation, an understated way to describe it. General Joseph Votel, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it.

After the break, the youngest voters and the oldest candidate, new polls out of Harvard show that America's youth are backing Biden in 2024. But the margins could show signs of trouble for the president's reelection campaign for watching meet the president. Welcome back. And we have some more breaking news out of New York.

That's where we now have a full jury in Donald Trump's Hush Money trial. Twelve jurors have now been seated. Judge Moshan announced moments ago, quote, we have our jury process not quite over yet. They still need to select six alternates, but that is breaking news that 12 people have been officially selected for the jury in the Donald Trump Hush Money trial.

So let's talk about this. Joining me on set is Eugene Scott, senior political reporter, politics reporter. I should say at Axios, former New York congressman, Joe Crowley, a Democrat, of course, and Sarah Chamberlain, the president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership. So Eugene, let's start with you.

I think maybe a bit of a surprise that they were able to whittle down this field and get 12 jurors this quickly. Absolutely. I think we thought it could take weeks. And there were moments where it seemed like they were making progress and having to take a few steps back.

But I think this is really fascinating and a really important time, obviously, in American history. I think one of the things that's going to be really good for many people to learn is just how different it is and the different walks of life various people come from. And the abilities that they have to play the role that they need to in this very important moment. Yeah, you're our resident New Yorker.

What should we expect of this jury? Well, I think it's, you know, first of all, it probably will be the trial of the century, you know. So I think some of these folks are a bit nervous and scared about it. I think we saw that in terms of at least one of the jurors who was initially installed and and has to be replaced.

I think some fear there. You know, but I think it speaks volumes for the system that 12 individuals peers are willing to take the time to deliberate. And I think honestly, do that, that's the hope. Evaluate the evidence and their decision.

But, sir, there's obviously so much politics that is kind of over all the top of this. And we've already seen the former president's political allies attack these jurors who are anonymous to all of us, suggesting already that they're just liberal pawns. I mean, you think this is something that's going to continue throughout the course of the trial? Absolutely without question.

And that's why they have a lot of courage to do this. I wish them well as they go through this process. But it's a process we need to do. And I hope I'm glad it's going quickly because I hope to get this behind us soon, especially before the convention.

All right. I want to talk now about a new poll from our friends at the Harvard Institute of Politics. It says that President Biden has an eight-point lead over former President Trump among voters aged 18 to 29. It's a little better than he's fared in some of the polls out there, but it's not really a major edge.

President Biden's lead increases, though, to 19 points among likely voters that's still short of the 24-point margin you have with voters in 2020. And check this out. Now, if you include third-party candidates and look at the sample of all young voters in this poll, things get interesting real fast. President Biden at 28%, Trump at 25%, RFC junior at 11%, Jill Stein at Cornell West, both in the low single digits.

But that could be important in swing states. But, Eugene, I think at first, plus you look at this and say President Biden still owns your voters, but he needs to own them by a wide margin in order to be successful, right? He does. So I think a few things are worth noting.

Harvard Institute of Politics is based at the Harvard Kennedy School. And when I talk to swing voters and independent voters and young voters, the Kennedy name still matters, even to people who don't know a whole lot about RFK, in part because people are really disappointed with both Trump and Biden, especially young voters. And one of the things that's important to remember when you're talking about 18-year-olds, or even 24-year-olds, think about how young they were in 2016. There's a lot that they do not remember about the Trump presidency that's making them consider him in ways that people who are more familiar with him probably would not.

Is that an issue for the president? Joe, that you have an 18-year-old that didn't really remember what Donald Trump was like back in 2016? We think about 9-11. We all live through it.

These folks didn't. They're not going to memory for them. And so, yeah, I think the short-term memory that they have right now, and we're all 18 or 24-year-olds. Especially the lack of confidence in the future, or that is expressed in the poll as well.

But one of 18's, early 27, has been confident about the future. And I think it's something you adapt to. But I do think that the White House has to be concerned about that. But I also believe that as time goes on, especially if there was a conviction, we know those numbers change.

And I think that people will come back to Biden. The biggest, the more important issue here, I think is the third party. And that's why I have more concern. It was good to see the Kennedy family do that today.

It was the second time they've done it. But I have been talking about the Kennedy. Yeah, Sarah, do you think that young voters understand that a vote for a third party likely means that the person they vote for is not going to win, but their vote could still have an impact on the election itself? They don't really understand all that.

I've got a daughter sitting in this age here. She doesn't really remember much about Trump. But to her, I mean, I'm sorry to say this, but Joe Biden is an old man. He's like, he's older than grandpa.

But the reality is, they kind of like the Kennedy thing. And they're concerned about the inflation, they're concerned about the older men and women buying homes for the first time. I mean, I have a nephew's buying a home. It's almost eight percent interest.

I mean, so that's what's driving us. And Kennedy is more than that. Economics, I believe, was the main issue on that poll that was making so many of these young voters entertain Trump. Have to remember he's still a businessman.

That's what they know about him. And so that sounds more attractive to them. I will say one thing that Biden probably really has to do and maybe Trump as well, they got a step up their surrogate game and get people to connect with these young voters who are their age, you know, some celebrities and athletes. That's going to help both parties.

All right. Let's talk about what's happening on Capitol Hill right now. And I do want to play a mash of how Speaker Johnson has evolved on the issue of Ukraine funding from after he met with Zelensky in December to today. Take a listen.

We need a clear articulation of the strategy to allow Ukraine to win. And thus far, their responses have been insufficient. They have not provided us the clarity and the detail that we've requested over and over since literally 24 hours after I was handed the gavel Speaker of the House. I have also made very clear from day one that our first condition on any national security supplemental spending package is about our own national security first.

I think providing legal aid to Ukraine right now is critically important. I really do. I really do believe the intel and the briefings that we've gotten that I believe G and Vladimir Putin and Iran really are in excess of people. I think they're in coordination on this.

I think that Vladimir Putin would continue to mark their Europe if he were allowed. This is not a joke. We can't play politics with this. We have to do the right thing.

And I'm willing to take personal risk for that because we have to do the right thing in history of judges. Joe, I was in both of those gaggles that won in December the one yesterday. I was struck by the Speaker's tone. You're a man that sat in leadership meetings as a member of Congress.

I'm sure you had classified briefings. Is it different for him given the intel that he's been given about the situation? I think it really demonstrates the weight of this office. And I have to say, I'm impressed that he's grown.

A lot has changed. A lot has happened since December. And he's willing to accept that. We're in a critical junction.

We see the morale of the troops in Ukraine is waning. The Russians are dug in. And the only one we're going to have an effective win here is if the U.S. and our allies engage and support the efforts in Ukraine.

And I really say, I think this, I think, I think the value is to his character that he's willing to put on the line his leadership, his leadership to do the right thing. And I think all Americans appreciate it. To that point, Sarah, some of the things that the speakers did yesterday, we have to put our part as a difference aside. We have to govern.

We have to work with the minority. These are all things he didn't say when he was a rank and file member of Congress. And it's not something we're hearing from rank and file Republicans. Do you think his job is in danger?

I do not. The Republican leadership members support him 100%. They will be there. They will have his back.

And he has grown significantly in this job. And the other thing too is he spends a lot of time listening to Chairman Turner, Intel, and Chairman Michael McCall. They're very concerned about what's going on. And they're spending hours with him.

And it's nice to see him grow and be a speaker for all of the members. I wonder too how much of it is. Who's going to be there for me when I need the help? Do you think that after all this negotiating or basically being told by members of the hard right that he has to do it a certain way, he came to realize that maybe they wouldn't be there for him if he did everything they asked him to?

I think that's very possible. One of the things many of us were repeatedly told about Mr. Johnson, who were not familiar with him, was that he was a man of conviction and a man of principle. And I think at the end of the day, he's trying to figure out what is best for the country and what's true as to him, especially if he may end up losing this position at some point.

He's going to have to live with a decision that he's made. And I think he's making decisions that reflect that. And he has prioritized national security. And whereas, quite frankly, that does not seem to be a priority for some of his critics.

One of the arguments he made was that he was doing it not just for the country, but for the Republican party as well, trying to convince his colleagues. To be the leadership. Yeah, they do. Joe, Sarah, Eugene, great conversation.

Appreciate you all being here. It's still the calm firing up voters on all sides. How one county in battleground Pennsylvania is getting creative to combat voter apathy in this year's election. That's where he's next.

We're watching the advice now. Welcome back with so many voters saying they're not excited to vote this year. One county in Pennsylvania is trying a new way to highlight the importance of voting and encourage people of all ages to get to the polls. NBC News correspondent, Josh and Burns has more.

This is a really inspiring day. Beyond these glass doors, democracy is in action. We have 16 inductees into the voter Hall of Fame. Appreciate it.

This is Montgomery County, Pennsylvania's voter Hall of Fame ceremony. 68. So first year, first election, 1968. Anybody better?

Go ahead. Every year to be on the committee for 70 years. Honoring voters who passed a ballot in the last 50 general elections. 56, 1956.

Anybody got 1956 beat? This is like an auction. Longevity has its rewards. This is one of them.

To be able to live long enough and be able to say, gosh, I really have voted that many times. And you've seen some stuff with elections. Oh, I've seen a lot. County Commissioner Neil Lequija took office last year, running with an eye on restoring confidence in elections.

When the seat opened up, I thought this is a real place where we can make a difference, protect voting rights, and really set the standard in Pennsylvania and for the country. Right now, election enthusiasm is at an all-time low for presidential contest, according to NBC News polling going back to 2008. Lequija hopes events like this can restore enthusiasm and trust in the process, in a swing state as important as Pennsylvania. There have been lives that have been spread, obviously, in terms of questioning the integrity of the system.

Just in your own community, how much of a problem right now is voter apathy or frustration or disengagement for those various reasons? Look, I think we're dealing with issues of distrust in politicians, in the process, with the most courted voters in the whole country. I think reminding people in our communities that we set the direction of the country, it will make a difference and they should make their voice heard. I kind of want to know what everyone's favorite election was.

We can do that after this. This is bipartisan. Allen and Rosemary Hingle are two of today's honorees. We didn't do this to get honored.

Didn't do it for an award? No, we did not. While they're still unsure how they'll vote in November, one thing's for certain, they'll definitely cast a ballot. Have you all had elections where you've been or haven't been so thrilled with the candidates?

Yes, sure. Why do you show up anyway? Because you have to make a decision. If you don't want other people making the decision for you, then you have to participate.

For Greg Holt remembering the time when the right to vote wasn't guaranteed, the decision is simple. I grew up in an area that was predominantly minority. Many of those people had migrated from the South as my grandparents had. Get away from segregation where they could come to the north and be able to register and vote.

It was important to them. Cheers. What's your message now to the folks who are looking at this election, feeling frustrated, feeling apathetic and don't want to engage? Well, I think there's always going to be frustrations in life, but not voting has consequences.

And thanks to Dasha for that reporting. I'm going to bring in now Lauren Bake of our NBC station in Philadelphia. She's been talking about voters and activists who are working to get out the vote. Lauren, I know he talked to these voters all the time.

And Dasha's piece focused on rewarding older voters for their commitment. But how are activists there looking to boost participation from young voters, who historically just aren't likely to vote? Yeah. Well, Ryan, there are a number of ways already.

And I'm sure that we will see more efforts to crop up as the year goes on. I can tell you here in Philadelphia, for example, one of the ways is using the younger, newer, younger generation of leaders to carry the message. There is an effort here called Black Men Vote. It was started by a handful of city council members in Philadelphia who are all in their 30s.

And they saw this as an opportunity to be able to make connections that maybe others couldn't. I've also been in touch with Black Voters Matter, which is a group that does a lot of work on the ground here in Pennsylvania. They tell me as they are reaching out to young voters this year, they are going issues first and sort of letting those young people set the agenda and tell them what they're interested in and what they want to talk about and letting that guide the conversation. But I'm sure we will see more cropping up as they try to get people to commit to coming out to vote.

And does it seem as though these folks are receptive to these efforts? Well, you know, I said there's not just one way to do it. And sometimes it might be in ways that you don't expect. I can tell you we're here covering a visit by President Biden today.

We're in North Philadelphia and I was talking to a group of voters who were impressed by the fact that the president was coming to North Philadelphia. This is a neighborhood. It's not center city. He was going to a rec center here.

And that made an impact on them. They felt like that was an effort to make a connection. But they are still looking for a little bit more. I want to play you some part of my conversation with one of those young voters.

We really don't know what he's doing. It's maybe that's why I'm glad that he can. So we can see more. We can hear more.

We can talk to him more. Because honestly, in my age, we don't know. We'll probably say he's not doing nothing. But it's just because we don't know much.

He needs to tell he needs to tell people. Yeah, get more connected with the more connection with the group, with the younger group to feed a politician. But if you want our vote, you got to speak to the voters. And she told me that she voted for President Biden in 2020.

She is not voting for President Trump this year. But when it comes to whether she'll vote for President Biden again, she doesn't know. She is still listening. So that's why she felt like it was important for him to come here.

She's listening to what he'll have to say in the coming months. Quite the message. If you want the vote, you've got to come talk to the voters. That's I think a good message for anybody running for office around the country.

We're going to make. Thank you for that report. We really appreciate it. And Kristen is back tomorrow with more Meet the Press now.

But the news continues with Hallie Jackson right now.