Meet the Press NOW — April 19

If it's Friday. Israel strikes back. We're following the fallout after the IDF launched what sources say was a limited attack inside Iran as Tehran downplays the aftermath and US officials deny having any involvement. Plus, a full 12 person jury and all six alternates have now been seated in Trump's historic criminal hush money trial as the focus now turns to the scope of his potential testimony and cross examination.

And House Speaker Mike Johnson teams up with Democrats to advance emergency aid for Ukraine. But it could cost him his job as yet another Republican joins the effort to potentially oust him from leadership over the issue. Welcome to MEET THE PRESS. Now, I'm Kristen Welker.

We begin today with an international effort to de escalate oil intentions in the Middle EAS after Israel carried out strikes overnight in response to that massive Iranian aerial attack less than a week ago. Now sources familiar with the situation tell NBC News last night Israel launched what was described as a limited strike inside Iran and that Israel is currently assessing its effectiveness and the resulting damage. Iranian state media reports the country's air defenses were engaged in several provinces, claiming three small drones were shot down in central Iran, which is also home to Iranian military bases and nuclear facilities. For days, the Biden administration had been urging Israel to show restraint as it considered its retaliatory options.

And according to a separate source familiar with the matter, Israeli officials did notify the US Last night that their response was coming. But today, While meeting with G7 allies in Italy, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stressed that the US Was not involved. I'm not going to speak to that, except to say that the United States has not been involved in any offensive operations. Our focus has been on, of course, making sure that Israel can effectively defend itself, but also de escalating tensions, avoiding conflict.

And that remains our focus. Now in a sign that all sides are indeed trying to de escalate, Israel, Iran and the US Are all remaining very tight lipped about the incident. When approached by NBC News, both Prime Minister Netanyahu Mussof and the IDF would not confirm whether Israel was behind the strike in Iran. Meanwhile, Iranian state media continues to downplay the impact of last night's attack.

And here in Washington, the Biden administration is facing questions about its silence following those strikes. Take a listen to what White House Press Secretary Jean Pierre had to say at today's briefing. Why is it that we don't have any content at this time? It's been several hours since the reported strike.

Certainly that's enough time for the administration to investigate and come up with something to say. I'm not going to speak or speculate about any of the reports that are out there. I'm not going to comment. I'm just gonna leave it there.

Is it part of your strategy to de escalate? Look, I'm gonna again be super mindful and I get the interest, obviously I understand the interest and, and gonna be disappointing many people here this afternoon. I just don't have anything to share. Good efforts by my colleagues there at the White House.

Joining now is NBC News international correspondent Ralph Sanchez in tel Aviv. And NBC's Monica Alba is outside the White House. Ralph, let me start with you and Tel Aviv. What has been the reaction where you are and what has been the broader reaction within the region?

Well, Kristen, 20 hours now since that strike in western Iran and it is very striking. Both Iran and Israel really trying to downplay what happens this morning. We heard from the Iranian president Ibrahim Rahisi earlier today. This man is a hardliner.

He's one of the Iranian officials who said earlier in the week that any Israeli attack would be met with immediate and massive retaliation. And yet Kristen, when he gave that speech, he said nothing at all about today's strike. Iranian state media very much trying to project an image of calm. And here in Israel, as you mentioned, the official line is the government is neither confirming nor denying responsibility.

We have not heard from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. We're not expecting to. And this seems to be a public messaging strategy that is designed to give Iran an off ramp. It is designed to allow them to choose not to retaliate without being seen to lose face.

In terms of what we know about the strike itself, it happened at around 4am local time. The main target appears to have been an Iranian military base near the city of Isfahan. A source familiar telling me this was a limited strike. The Israeli spent several hours afterwards assessing the damage.

What we do not know at this point, Kristen, is whether the strike was carried out with surface to surface missiles, whether it was Iranian Israeli manned aircraft or whether it was drones. But as you said, US And Israeli officials very tight lipped at this time. Well, it is so extraordinary, raf, that you are basically getting the same reaction from officials around the globe as it relates to this incident. But it just speaks to how delicate this moment is, how much concern is there that one false move, one statement in the wrong direction could turn this into an escalation.

Well, I think that's exactly right. That is why we are seeing such discipline from both the Biden administration and the Israeli government. Nobody wants to be seen to be goading Iran. Nobody wants to be seen to be crowing about any of this.

What's very noticeable, very striking, Kristen, is here in Israel, the military has not imposed any new restrictions on the civilian population. That appears to be an indication that the Israeli government assesses, at least for now, that Iranian retaliation is not imminent. We are now into Shabbat, the Jewish Sabbath here in Israel were a couple of days from Passover. It has been quiet, it has been calm here on the streets of Tel Aviv.

And it's very striking. You compare it to last Saturday when that wave of Iranian missiles and drones were on their way. The Israeli military was on television every hour updating the public and there were restrictions, schools were closed and people were told not to gather. That is not happening right now.

Striking disparity. Rob, thank you for bringing us that from on the ground there in Tel Aviv. Michael, let me turn to you. What do you know?

What are your sources telling you about the conversations between U.S. officials and their counterparts? What's the message privately that's being conveyed? Well, we know, Kristen, that they are in near constant touch on a range of issues.

But when it comes specifically to this response from Israel to Iran, really, the administration across all agencies is being incredibly tight lipped. And that is intentional, that is by design. And that is in part to ensure that any kind of temperature here doesn't get further inflamed. It's trying to bring down any of these tensions.

And the president has been clear throughout his conversations with Prime Minister Netanyahu about a week ago that the US Stands with Israel and it's right to defend itself. And he has called that kind of support ironclad. But when it comes to warnings about a wider war or this becoming a broader conflict, the US has been consistent in saying they want to do everything they can to avoid that. And Secretary Blinken was very clear earlier today in saying the US had no role in this reported response.

And we knew that going into that. The president had even telegraphed that to Prime Minister Netanyahu in their most recent conversation saying, if you decide to go ahead and respond to Iran, the US Will not be a part of it. But also during that conversation, Kristen, the president had said to him, you should think very carefully and very critically about your next steps here. And it does not appear that Israel heeded that warning instead decided to go their own route here.

So this is another example in this already fraught relationship throughout the course of this six month long war where the US Stands by Israel but it's not like Israel is necessarily listening to everything that the US Is saying from an advice standpoint, even though the White House is quick to always say that is not their responsibility to tell Israel how to make its own military decisions. You're right to point that out, Monica. The relationship between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu that seems to be growing increasingly tense is a significant part of this story. Let me ask you about another aspect I know you've been watching on Capitol Hill.

All of the action there. These bills moving forward that were provided to Israel, to Taiwan and also to Ukraine, of course, they have been held up for months. Seems like they could get a vote as early as tomorrow. What are your White House sources telling you as they watch the action on the Hill?

Well, privately, they really did breathe a sigh of relief today after that procedural hurdle was clear. And the fact that it looks like this could happen to them is very good news. They have been pushing for this in different formats for weeks and months, as you just said. And really they've been stressing the urgency for Ukraine in terms of the battlefield needs, but also for Israel because of what we see just a week or so ago in terms of having to mount that defense after Iran did launch all of those drones and missiles.

The money that is basically in this package that would go to Israel would replenish that Iron Dome defense system and other air defense capabilities directly. So they see a specific need and connection for that. And then these other national security priorities, the president has been talking about them for so long. Remember, they wanted to put these all together in what's known as a supplemental funding package.

The fact that now it seems they're going to move separately, at least the president and the White House encouraged. If this does get across the finish line, he fully intends to sign it. All right. Fantastic reporting as always, Monica.

I'll be great to see you on this Friday. Thank you. I now want to bring in two experts. Bilal Saab, a former Defense Department Middle east security advisor, now an associate fellow at Chatham House, and Aaron David Miller, longtime State Department advisor on Arab Israeli issues, now senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Thanks to both of you for being here. I really appreciate it. Aaron, let me start with you and get your reaction to what happened overnight. The strikes by Israel that are now being called limited and officials from Israel to the United States.

Very tight lip this morning. What do you make of it? You know, last night on tv, it seemed to me we were on the cusp of World War III and nobody's talking about it. And I think it's symptomatic of the extraordinary Ying and Yang days.

I mean, you could have gone two ways on this. You could have escalated into the war that nobody wants. Or alternatively, Israel and Iran could have engaged in some prenetic signaling and messaging, the do's and don'ts that may or may not govern their behavior going forward. And you ended up with two responses that avoided climbing up the escalatory ladder.

But I only had one additional point. You know, like Dorothy said to Toto in the wizard of Oz, we really aren't in Kansas anymore. A new threshold has been crossed here. Direct strikes by each party on the other's territory.

And the only question I would ask, I don't have an answer, is whether or not those new thresholds are going to lead to risk aversion on the part of Israel or Iran or risk readiness as we go forward because the Israeli Iranian relationship isn't going away and it's going to get increasingly competitive. Well, it's a fascinating question, Bilal, let me put that to you. Do you have an answer to what Aaron has raised? And can you just characterize how tenuous is this moment?

As Aaron was saying last night, it looked like we could be on the verge of World War Three. And now obviously it seems like we've pulled back from the brink. Thanks, Aaron, for lobbying. A very difficult question.

It's good to be here. Look, he's right. Uncharted territory. It's a new normal.

Used to be what we call the war of the shadows. Indirect Iranians through proxies, the Israelis going after Iranian targets, but in the region, not in Iran proper. So stakes are much higher now. The room for this miscalculation, misperception is so much bigger.

What we're seeing right now is two belligerents who seem to want to rewrite the rules of engagements and very eager to reinforce their own deterrence, which paradoxically, as they try to do that, they're inching closer to a war. So all of a sudden, deterrence, which is supposed to be a means to an end and ending avoiding war, it's becoming an end in itself. And it's incredibly a dangerous situation. We really got lucky over the past few days that we didn't end up with what Aaron was talking.

I mean, maybe not World War 3, but at least a regional war. What do you make, Bilal? And then to Aaron of the United States response, the fact that everyone is being very tight lipped, but based on our sourcing, sending a pretty Firm message behind the scenes that now is the time to de escalate. And I guess the concern, it's not just Iran, it's Iran's proxies as well that the United States is concerned about.

Yeah, I'm not sure what's frozen on that menu that we could use a toolkit to really try to, you know, de escalate the situation. Given the fact that. And error will agree with this. We are not in control.

Okay. We have some leverage over the Israelis. We have a good channel communication with the Israelis, but we do not control any of this. And so we publicly, privately communicated to the Israelis.

And then there's also a different kind of deterrence that really has sort of reigned in the Israelis, which is the very strike of the Iranians. This was not an easy strike to defend against. I always. 99 percentile in charge of interception.

You cannot take that for granted next time around. So the Israelis saw that, and then of course, you got to take into account American preferences. And so they ended up themselves de escalating. But it still poses huge question marks next time around.

Why do the Israelis, next week or next month conduct a similar attack in the mask to take out Iranian Syrian personnel, and then the Iranians do the exact same thing and we end up with the same vicious cycle. We cannot guarantee that next time around we're going to. We're going to be dislucking. Well, Aaron, what about that?

And this idea, as Bawal says, the United States just isn't in control. President Biden urged Prime Minister Netanyahu take the win after Iran had lobbed those drones and hundreds of them had been intercepted by Israel and by the United States. It is clear that Prime Minister Netanyahu, in this moment, but in others, is not listening to President Biden, who's also urged him to come up with a plan to mitigate civilian deaths in Gaza. You know, Chris, and while I was so right, we aren't in control.

Six months, we're soon going to be the seventh month of Israeli Gaza war. And frankly, if you ask me how it's going, how it's going to end, I couldn't tell you. American influence, when parties, whether it's Israel, Hamas or Iran and Israel, when parties are locked into a conflict that they believe is vital to their national interests, even existential in nature, the influence of outside parties, even Israel's closest ally, is limited. And Bellamy knows the Middle east is littered with the remains of great powers who believe they can impose their schemes, their dreams, their ambitions on smaller ones.

And it just doesn't add up, I think containment here and managing if we're lucky. But Bilal raises a fascinating point. The next time the Israelis get into some sort of hoohah and decide to eliminate an IRGC commander, the question is whether or not Iran and Israel both would not believe that they got away with it the first time and there wasn't World War 3 or regional war, maybe they can do it again. And this is this is why I think the new reality creates in many respects, unfortunately, a greater propensity to take risks rather than to restrain themselves.

Is there more that the United States can be doing to use its leverage over Israel to try to urge de escalation in this moment? Obviously, there have been calls for aid being conditioned on them providing very clear plan to mitigate civilian deaths. And there are also calls to withhold weapons, which has not happened. Should can the US do more here?

Well, can and should have served for very different things. Obviously the can, yes, of course they but I don't really feel like, as Aaron was just saying, when you're in such a tense and highly uncertain security environment where both sides, the Iranians and Easter is looking at from an existential point of view, I'm not sure how much US Influence can really play a drastic role in de escalating here. Of course, let's not compare what's going on in Gaza, where I feel like we might have a little bit more leverage with what's happening in war dynamic between Iran and Israel, which is a whole lot more dangerous. Obviously on the latter, I believe our ability to influence the course of events is much more limited than what's happening in Gaza.

But even then, Aaron will tell you we're also still struggling massively. All right. Well, we really appreciate your insights at this critical moment and what we continue to follow in the Middle East. Thank you so much.

Balasab and Aaron, David, you Miller, thank really appreciate it. And coming up, Trump on trial. We have the very latest developments on the legal debate over what a potential Trump cross examination could look like. Plus, spear Mike Johnson gets a legislative win and at least one more enemy in the process.

We'll explain and have the very latest on the threat against his job as it gains momentum in the House. Straight ahead. You're watching THE PRESS now. Welcome back.

It has been another dramatic day in New York City Court where a full jury is now seated in Donald Trump's hushling trial after the remaining alternate jurors were selected today. The judge just held what's known as a sin of all hearing to discuss the scope of questions Mr. Trump could face if he decides to take the stand. That's a big if.

He says he'll issue a ruling on the matter on Monday. Meanwhile, there were some really terrifying moments outside court today. Shortly after the full jury was seated when a major set himself on fire in a designated protest area. Now, the fire was extinguished and police said the man was taken to the hospital where he is in critical condition.

Police say the man had engaged in conspiracy theories. NBC News national correspondent Vesuvian witnessed that ordeal. She joins me now from outside the courthouse in Manhattan. Also with me is Dan Borwitz, former assistant district attorney in the Manhattan DA's office.

Yasmin, let me start with you. I am so sorry that you have had such a traumatic day. What can you tell us about what you witnessed there outside the courthouse? It was shocking to say the least.

Kristen, we're learning some about, about this individual who set himself on fire just a couple of feet away from where I'm standing right now. He was a young man in his mid-30s, lived in Florida, came up here in the last few days. They believe between April 13th and now. As he entered into the square, he had a backpack.

He set his backpack down, took some papers out of his backpack, threw them into the air. He then doused himself with some sort of flammable liquid and then used a lighter to light himself on fire. I was live on the air on MSNBC when it happened that the flames, Kristen, were 20, 25ft in the air. I tell you, as I stand 50ft away from where he was, I couldn't tell if it was a human being and, or it was a fire that had been started in the area that was cordoned off for protesters.

And then I saw the silhouette of a human body and I realized that it was a human being who had set himself on fire. It was a couple of minutes before authorities, security personnel were able to reach him and help put that fire out. EMT came in. They have now taken him to a local area hospital and he is in critical condition.

On those papers that he threw up into the air, Kristen, were kind of wide ranging conspirac theories, it seems. Not necessarily sure if that was part of the motivation as to why he did what he did today, but a really tragic, unbelievable, really shocking moment on a history making day here in downtown Manhattan. It's just a devastating theory. Recount what happened.

I do want to ask you about what happened inside the courtroom, Yasmin, before we turned to Dan, they did choose all 12 jurors. It was a challenging process, though, right? What can you tell us about the jurors? Who are these people who will decide on.

It was a challenging process. I'm hearing. I heard a lot of emotion inside the court today from especially folks that were in the overflow room. Many of our journalists are in overflow room recounting to us and some of what we're getting in on our Google Doc that many of us are watching to see what takes place inside that courtroom is emotion from potential jurors.

Oftentimes people that had a moment to figure out the gravity of this trial, maybe overnight, were sworn in yesterday, came back this morning and thought, I'm afraid for my identity being revealed. I had anxiety about the possibility of serving in a jury like this and not wanting to serve. It took a while to get to where we are, but we had a full Christian jury and panels, and we just heard from Judge Juan Rashan. In fact, opening remarks will begin on Monday morning.

It's gonna be quite a day for all of us to be listening to those opening remarks. And we also got a glimpse into what the case is gonna look like for the people. Let me read for you a quote from one of the people's attorneys saying there is a particular need for the people to introduce evidence to assess the defendant's credibility, and they intend to make witness credibility the centerpiece for the trial. And that is an argument for permitting the Sandoval evidence that coming out during the Sandoval hearing, which they lay out some of the evidence they're going to produce if, in fact, Donald Trump decides to testify when it comes to that Drury Pool, Christian, we're looking at that.

12 jurors in actual jury box. Seven men, five women, six alternates, five women, one man as well. Let me quickly, Kristen, take you through the makeup of these jurors. If I can be a sales worker, an investment banker, a corporate law attorney, security engineer, teacher, civil litigator, a card wealth manager, speech therapist, a product development manager.

That is just within those 12 individuals that will serve in that jury box. And amongst our alternates, we have a diversity of folks as well, from an asset manager to an audio professional to a contract specialist as well. So certainly folks that are going to be in that trial for the next six weeks or so, really, the weight, it seems, of the world at times on their shoulders as they understand or come to grapple with the gravity of what is ahead for them. And they will be a part of history.

Yasmin Tremendous breakdown. Dan, let me turn to you, can you pick up on something that Yasmin talked about, which is the raw emotion that some of these potential jurors had, One apparently breaking down into tears, talking about the anxiety, just saying that they were not able to go forward with being on the jury. How extraordinary is it to find 12 people who fit the bill to serve on the jury? And could there be an ongoing challenge?

So I think to start being a juror, you know, folks get a jury summons and they say, gosh, I really don't want to be on jury duty and do I really have to do it? But what happens in my experience is that people take jury duty very seriously. When they're in that room and they get in that jury box and they get selected, they take their job very seriously, especially in a criminal case. Putting aside the fact that you've got a former president as defendant here, people understand that they hold a determination that's central to somebody's life, whether they're going to get convicted, whether they're going to go to jail.

And they take it very seriously, seriously, whether it's Donald Trump who's the defendant, or somebody who's charged in a murder or whether it's an organized crime case. And so, sure, the additional pressure that a juror will face in a high profile case like this is very challenging. And that's why the judge wisely set a large number of alternates, because it may very well be, as the trial goes on that you're going to need to swap out jurors who can't serve, who can't, who are unable to go forward for whatever reason. So this is unusual in that sense.

On the other hand, in New York, we are accustomed to high profile cases with high profile individuals, whether it's Donald Trump, whether it's John Gotti, whether it's Harvey Weinstein and so on. So you've got a history here of courts dealing in juries dealing with high profile, high pressure cases that are criminal, civil and otherwise. It's such an important point. What are you going to be watching for next week?

He hasn't talked about the fact that it is now confirmed that opening arguments will get underway on Monday. I think the openings are going to be fascinating because I think we all sort of know how the prosecutors are going to frame their case. It's an election interference case. It's got the tawdry aspects of the porn stars and the payoffs, but it also has a cast of characters from the publisher of the National Enquirer to Michael Cohen right into the White House with Hope Hicks.

So you've got, you've got a good cast of characters and a narrative there. I'm really interested in what are the defense lawyers going to say now? They're not obligated to give an opening statement. Under our law, the defendant has no burden of proof.

And is it required to give an opening statement? Isn't required with any of it whatsoever. But there's no question that they're going to give an opening statement. And the real trick is how quickly are they going to focus on Michael Cohen and will they make the opening statements?

An opening statement that's both a defense for the criminal case and a political statement. If they veer off into politics, what will the judge do? But I think what you'll see from Donald Trump's lawyers is right out of the box that go right to what they perceive as the greatest vulnerability in the DA's case, which is Michael Cohen. I think that's, that's what I'm going to be looking for.

Well, I can tell you sources inside Trump's orbit certainly spend a lot of time raising questions about him as a witness. So we will all be watching for that very closely. We know that there is going to be a hearing next week on potential gag order violations. Do you have any indication how the judge, Judge Mershawn, might rule in that regard?

No, but I think, you know, historically, whether it's Judge Machan or other judges, they proceed cautiously with contempt issues. Now, there isn't any question that he's been very clear in his orders about what he expects from defendant Donald Trump. And the DA's office has been very clear that Donald Trump has repeatedly crossed the line. What does that mean?

Out of the box? Will Judge Mershan hold Donald Trump in contempt and give him a sanction like a fine? I would say the likelihood of that is not high. Out of the box.

I think you start with a stern warning with questions. Why shouldn't I hold you in contempt and make the president, make the ex president feel the pressure that if he missteps again, that Mershon won't hesitate to impose a financial sanction, just like the judge in the civil fraud trial. Now, there's another interesting issue. You talked about it in your, in your opening here and that's the so called standard.

Now, one of the things that the DA wants to try to cross examine Donald Trump about are the instances where he violated Judge Ergon's orders about court personnel. And so to the extent that Donald Trump commits or violates the gag order or engages in disruptive conduct that the judge finds contentious, will the prosecutor then be allowed to not only will it not only get sanctioned, but will the prosecutors be permitted to cross examine Donald Trump if he testifies about the contempt that he's he's conduct he's engaged in during the course of the trial? Well, we will stay in close touch with you because this trial is just getting underway. Dan Horowitz, really appreciate your great insights.

Thank you so much. Good to see you. Thanks for having me. Coming up next, we are live on Capitol Hill where a bipartisan House vote on foreign aid has fueled more hard right discontent with Speaker Johnson, intensifying threats to try to ouster from his job.

You're watching THE PRESS now. Stay with us. Welcome back. Turning to a very busy day on Capitol Hill, the House foreign aid package took another step toward President Biden's desk.

And Speaker Johnson's grip over his Republican conference and the speaker's gavel has never been more tenuous. On the rare strength of Democratic votes, the House moved to advance debate on the Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and aid bills earlier today. In fact, more Democrats backed the measure than Republicans. Speaker Johnson spoke about his strategy after the vote.

Even though it's not the perfect legislation, it's not the legislation that we were right. If Republicans were in charge of both the House and Senate and the White House, this is the best possible product that we can get under these circumstances to take care of these really important obligations. So we look forward to vote tomorrow. We look forward to every member voting their conscience and their desire.

And that's exactly how this process is supposed to work and how the House is supposed to operate. Now as a result, the group of Republicans looking to oust the speaker grew to three today, with Arizona's Paul Dosar joining margin Taylor Greene's effort to trigger a motion to vacate the chair for Johnson to save his job, it may take Democratic support to bail him out. Joining now from Capitol Hills, Ryan Noble. He's been all over this story.

Let's start with that piece of it. Ryan, just how much jeopardy is the speaker in? I think he's a pretty good jeopardy, Kristen. And I think the path forward for him is bleak under any circumstances.

You know, the issue for Speaker Johnson is not that the vast majority of his conference supports him. That's an absolute truth. You know, 220, maybe 219 House Republicans are supportive of the speaker, but it only takes a handful of them to boot him from office. And that's what's complicated the situation for him because if this motion, if they become a privileged motion, which means that they actually have to vote on it, there likely is enough Republicans to boot him out if every single Democrat joins them.

So they'll have to need a handful of Democrats to cross party lines, either vote to table the motion or outright vote to keep him in the speakership. And that's a difficult proposition for him going forward because he essentially becomes the leader of a coalition government at that point. And that's not something that will inspire confidence with rank about Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans. So Speaker Johnson finds himself in a difficult position here, but it's also important to sacrison when we talk about this and we talk about the decision that he has made.

He's made a decision to govern. He's made a decision based on principle, and he's made it clear that he's prepared to deal with those consequences. So whatever they may be, even though right now it doesn't look like a very positive outcome for Speaker Johnson, he seems comfortable with the path that he's chosen. Yeah.

He says even if it costs him his job, they should get Ukraine and Israel, Taiwan aid passed. Let's talk about the Democrats. How are they doing this? Because the difference, it seems to me, between Speaker Mike Johnson and former Speaker Kevin McCarthy is that Mike Johnson has reached across the aisle and formed relationships with some Democrats who may, in fact, be willing to bail him out.

Now, the optics, the practicality, as you say, gets very complicated if he's leading a coalition government. But is there a chance the Democrats bail him out? You know, I think you're absolutely right about that, Kristen. Personalities matter, especially in the halls of Congress.

And the one thing about Mike Johnson is that he has no personal enemies. He may have political enemies, people that don't necessarily agree with him on policy, but as a human being, most people tend to like him. And so that at least opens the door for the conversation for a handful of Democrats to say that they would be willing to risk the political capital in order to save him. But I also think it's very important for us to keep in the back of our minds that that is no guarantee.

You know, Democrats will be risking a lot by allowing a Republican speaker to continue on in the speakership. Yes, they're very happy with him that he was willing to bring this aid package to the floor. But there's a whole host of issues that are going to be in front of Congress after we get to this morning. Package, Package.

There's the whole issue of funding the government in the fall. The farm bill the FAA reauthorization. And then don't forget, there's the certification of an election in 2024. Mike Johnson would preside over all of that if Democrats allow him to continue to hold on to the gavel.

So I think this is no guarantee. All right. Ryan Noble, thank you for your fantastic reporting analysis. You and I have a busy weekend ahead, my friend.

Thank you. For more on the latest on Capitol Hill, I'm joined now by Republican congressman from New York, Mike Lawler. Congressman Lawler, thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate it.

Thanks. Person. I want to pick up where I just left off with Ryan. Paul Gosar became the third House Republican to call for Speaker Johnson's ouster today.

As of right now, as you and I have this conversation, do you think Speaker Johnson is in danger of losing his job? Up. Look, this is a decision for the entire House. We saw what happened in October when eight Republicans teamed up with 208 Democrats to remove Speaker McCarthy and throw the House into three and a half weeks of chaos at a moment in which Israel was under attack.

I think this is a decision that everyone in the House needs to take extremely seriously and put aside a partisan political game and look at what is happening. Speaker Johnson is making a decision, the right decision, to put aid on the floor for our allies at a moment in which they are under assault by our adversaries. China, Russia and Iran are a grave threat to the free world. And he is doing the right thing, showing American resolve and leadership in this moment.

Moment. And I think it's incumbent on the institution, Republicans and Democrats, to look at it for what it is and say we're not going to participate in throwing our government into chaos. Democrats talk a lot about preserving democracy. This is a moment for them to show that they're serious about that and not join in the effort with a few folks on the right to upend our government.

So let me be very clear with you. I mean, if it takes Democrats to save Speaker Johnson, to save his speakership, are you comfortable with that? You would welcome Democrats bailing him out? It's not a function of Democrats bailing them out.

It's a function of all of us doing the right thing by the American people. This is a very serious moment in our history. Frankly, we're in the most precarious time since World War II, too. And I think, obviously we are a very divided country.

We're in a divided government. Republicans control the House. Democrats control the Senate and the White House. We need to find compromise and ways to Work together.

That's the only way major pieces of legislation are ever going to become law. And it would take every Democrat agreeing, let's be clear about this, they would have to proactively agree with Paul Gozar and Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massey to remove Speaker Johnson. So that is a choice that they would proactively make. What I'm suggesting is they should make it clear they're not going to be party to this.

We saw what happened in October when 208 Democrats teamed up with Matt Gates. It was disruptive. It didn't result in Democrats taking control of the House. And this will not result in Democrats to taking control in the House.

What it will do is cause chaos. And that is something that all of us should be saying we're not going to be party to. And just to be very clear, of course, the ouster of Speaker McCarthy was an effort that was led by your fellow Republicans. I want to play some of what your colleagues today said about the speaker, get your reaction on the other side.

Take a listen. I definitely sense that there's a souring, you know, to Republican leadership and not just in House Freedom Caucus with other people as well. So, you know, I think that the speaker should take that seriously. Well, there's continued frustration with the fact that we're allowing the, frankly, allowing House to be governed by Democrats.

That frustration. When you hear that, Congressman, and this goes back to my first question, when you hear your fellow Republicans express frustration with the speaker, do you think he could lose his job? Look, obviously there's that possibility. You have three people that have said they are prepared to move forward with a motion to vacate.

But what is comical about the comments from my colleagues is that the reason the Speaker's hand was weakened in negotiations inclusive of negotiating border provisions is because of their conduct throughout this entire Congress, their inability to work as a team and pass a rule. You know, Chip Roy is on the Rules Committee and voted against the rule in committee, has voted against the rule on the floor. Eli Crane voted to oust Speaker McCarthy. So for them to cast blame on Speaker Johnson for Republicans within the conference who want to govern is comical.

The reality is this. If they wanted border security, which I do, I voted for HR2. I voted for a CR with HR2. I introduced defending Borders, Defending Democracies, which would reenact Title 42 and remain in Mexico while providing lethal aid to our allies.

None of them co sponsored it. They have done everything they can to undermine our ability to negotiate from a position of strength. And that is why there's not border security in this package. But we are in a situation where America must lead.

We have an obligation as leader of the free world. And if we shirk in our responsibility to do that, there will be a new world order with China, Russia and Iran at the helm. And that will be good for no one, least of all the United States. States of America.

Well, Congressman, let me follow up with you on that very point. Of course, the foreign aid package is heading to a vote tomorrow. Likely, it seems like. And that is, as you just say, because Democrats supported the ability for that to move forward.

Some of your fellow Republicans, your colleague Bob Good says there's currently a, quote, coalition government in the House. What's your reaction to that? And if it takes Democratic votes to get Ukraine and Israel and Taiwan aid passed, are you comfortable with that? Yes.

Look, we're in a divided government. Apparently, some of my colleagues have never been married before. You have to be willing to compromise. And the reality is Democrats control the Senate and the White House.

We control the House. There's going to be a negotiation. What the speaker has allowed for is up or down votes on each of the individual aid packages. Some of my Republican colleagues are going to vote no on Ukraine.

I suspect there will be many Democrats voting no on Israel. And so everyone will be able to voice their opinion and. But that's what democracy is. That is what our constitutional republic allows.

We're here to govern, to negotiate. It's not easy. We don't live in a dictatorship. But I'm proud of the fact, for instance, that two of my bills, the SHIP act and the Iran China Energy Sanctions act, are part of this package Targeting Iranian petroleum.

$88 billion in increased oil sales since Joe Biden took office. That money is being used to fund Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and the terror attacks against Israel. This is the type of work we need to engage in. It requires bipartisanship and a willingness to compromise Congress, Mueller, very quickly, because we're out of time.

Are you concerned that if there is a fight over the speakership, it will be sending a message to voters that Republicans cannot govern? Look, I think it obviously undermines our ability to get the job done here, but the issues are what they are. People are concerned about affordability. They're concerned about the border.

They're concerned about crime. I'm not concerned about the impact on the elections, because the reality is voters will have distinct choices in each of these districts. I know in my district, I'm running against Mondair Jones, a radical progressive who believes in Open borders, Who called ICE agents racist, who wants to defund the police? So I'm not concerned about the consequences of this.

This is more about our government and the American people. All of us, Republicans and Democrats, have an obligation to govern. Let's pass the aid package tomorrow, Bureau. Let's not allow for chaos and dysfunction to reign supreme over the House.

Republicans and Democrats need to work together to put an end to it. All right. Congressman Lawler, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate it.

Thank you. And we'll have much more to press now after a quick break. Stay with us. Welcome back.

As we mentioned, the effort to oust Speaker Mike Johnson is gaining steam. But Speaker Johnson is remaining defiant about the threat. Are you worried about your job? No, I don't worry.

I just do my job. Is it time to climb to these left and just put the motion bake on the floor? We'll see what happens. I'm gonna do my job.

I'm not deterred by threats. Meanwhile, some GOP hardliners are standing by the speaker, not because they support his actions, but because they're worried about chaos being unleashed inside the House heading into November. Listen, I don't defend performance of the speaker. I don't take any clean to that.

I think it's a terrible mistake. However, that doesn't mean that I support what I would consider to be not the most prudent action right now. We're six months before an election. We got two or three vote margin.

There's a far greater degree of uncertainty in that situation than there was back in September. Joining me now, Simone Sanders Townsend, former senior advisor to Vice President Harrison, co host of the Weekend weekends on msnbc, and Lance Trover, Republican strategist and former spokesperson for Doug Burbum's presidential campaign. Thanks to both of you for being here on a very busy Friday. Lance, let's start with you and what is happening on Capitol Hill.

Here we are again with a House speaker who's about to walk across the aisle to get, in this case, Ukraine aid passed, aid to Israel, aid to Taiwan. What is your reality check when you read the tea leaves of what we're hearing from your fellow Republicans on Capitol Hill. Do you think his job's in serious danger? Well, I mean, obviously because of the low threshold with the motion to vacate now.

Yeah, I mean, obviously it is in danger. But I find it interesting with him, I think that kind of how we got here just in the last week. I mean, I think this is a speaker who was involved on the issue of Ukraine funding. He knew he needed backup.

And so what he do last week he went to Mar a Lago, he got President Trump's backing to say, hey, I got the support I need. He comes out on Monday and says, this is the path. That's pretty much where we are today, where we started earlier this week. And I also thought it was interesting as we with President Trump's post on Truth Social where he said, you know, Ukraine's survival is important to the US There's a little bit of a change that he said yesterday.

And what he didn't say was he was against what the vote that is going on tomorrow. I think that gave the speaker a little bit more of the Runway he needed to get this plane off the ground and some cover to the Republicans are going to vote yes tomorrow. I think you're absolutely right. And so it's so interesting because Trump had kind of torpedoed the process and then ultimately came around and said, okay, well, I can get behind it if it's in the form of a loan.

Now part of it's in the form of loan. The question is with Democrats, be on board. President Biden says, yes, just get the aid to Ukraine and we will back it. Do you expect in this case that Democrats are going to help him pass this tomorrow, but bail them out if necessary when it comes to legislation, as Democratic Leader Jeffrey said just earlier today, their focus is getting these bills passed.

And so Democrats are going to do what they need to do to work with Republicans to do their jobs. Frankly, I don't know. We always talk about foreign aid. People forget that most of the aid goes to American companies, to what really they go to big on and then takes that money that buys weapons that are made in America.

Places like Kentucky, Ohio, Arizona, Georgia. Okay, so that's where the majority of the money to is going when it comes to saving Mike Johnson. I think it really depends on what Mike Johnson does over the weekend. I'm reminded of Speaker McCarthy and Democrats.

They were not going to, you know, they were not going to look up the situation. McCarthy was like, look, he didn't do anything else per se. We're fine. And then he went on the Senate shows, right.

The Sunday before and said Democrats were directed to democracy. Dillcast were like, good luck, good luck. It's a good reenactment of how it went down. Because basically, Simone hits the nail on the head that there are some key differences between Speaker Johnson and former Speaker McCarthy and how they are going about building these relationships with Democrats and kind of the Practicality of needing to work with them.

Well, I'm not going to get into debate between McCarthy, but I just know that McConnelson, he actively participated in interaction and Donald Trump and the vote situation. Whereas Secretary, that was not the sham for lack of Trump. I don't think anyone really wants to relive what we did last fall with no speaker, particularly on the Republican side. But I think a lot of Democrats don't want to go through this.

It's not good for Congress, it's not good as a whole. It looks bad across the world. So I really don't think the exception of these few individuals, I don't think anybody really wants to go through. Well, we're talking about how Trump is kind of looming over this.

Simone, let's talk about some new polling. He has been in court this week. What I thought was fascinating, his campaigns, that he's been split time between the campaign trail in court. He was really just in court this week.

Now we have new battleground polling which shows just how close this race is in a lot of different places. Tied in Wisconsin, tied in Pennsylvania, Trump up three in Michigan. He's got a more sizable lead when it comes to Georgia. What do you make of the fact that the polls are getting tighter?

It's what Democrats have been saying is going to happen. But is it enough yet? Look, I think people forget that the last election was very close. We were in the pandemic, everybody was at home and it was a close election.

This election is going to be even closer. So I expect this to happen. I think we should expect even more tightening and the polls vacillating between now and early September. And what you saw from, I think the president today when he was speaking to IBEW union workers.

Right. He feels right at home there. I think you're gonna see him doing more of those kind of things in a lot of the polling that is coming out. Yes, there is abortion, there is Donald Trump is in court.

But there's still this underlying thing how people feel about the financial situation, about the economy. And so that's why you've heard the president, I believe, talk a little more about housing. You know, that's forward looking. And it's like, I understand and here's what we do.

If you give it. Well, it's a great point. And Lance, I mean, President Biden was out in Pennsylvania. Three different synopsis for the loan, talking about the economy.

And again, Trump was in court. A lot of people expected him to straddle the line to take his plane and get out of the campaign trail and that didn't happen. To what extent are these trials actually becoming an X factor? Well, then the Trump campaign, I don't actually hate this poll at all.

He's leading and or tie and states that he lost last time. The underlying fundamentals, economy and immigration are still testing very well for him. And that poll was taken from April 11th to the 16th where all the coverage from last late last week until early this week was about the trials. I'm not unhappy with those numbers.

And I just know, I think that we have not seen Donald Trump do these big rallies post coming out court because rallies cost money. I remember when I was on the Biden campaign and he was doing these presidential vice presidential level rallies as 15 teams to 20,000 just per rally. Donald Trump doesn't have that kind of catch. All right.

Well, we'll watch it all unfold and of course, opening statements get underway in the Trump trial on Monday. So we'll see how it all plays out. Great conversation. Happy Friday.

Simone and Lance, thank you so much. Great to have you here. We will be back on Monday with more Meet the Press now. And if it's Sunday, it's Meet the Press on your local NBC news station.

I'll have an exclusive interview with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, plus my sit down with Pulitzer Prize winning historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. Do not miss it. Plus, new poll numbers with Steve Bernanke. The news continues with Tom Costello in for Hallie Jackson right now.

He was a young Marine. She didn't care about convention. They made a life together. Then one night the Marine died.

And then the death investigation took a wild, unexpected and utterly bizarre turn. I'm Josh Makiewicz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Dayline. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.