Meet the Press NOW — April 28

If it's Friday, fuse frontrunners and foils Trump blasted on the campaign trial to buy glass Trump from the White House as they both look to a potential rematch, which they both seem to believe is each of their best bets to win the White House. Plus former Vice President Mike Pence. Pence testifies for federal grand jury investigating former President Trump's efforts over the 2020 election as Donald Trump meets with the January 6th defendant while campaigning in New Hampshire. And Russia bombards central Ukraine with its largest missile attack in nearly two months, targeting key hauling civilian homes and infrastructure as Ukrainian forces prepare for a major spring counter offensive that's due to start any day now.

And welcome to the press. I'm Chuckpot, reporting from Washington. We begin the day with the 2024 race for president. One of the biggest takeaways from our latest ABC News poll is that almost no one wants to see a rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump next year.

Just 5 of respondents told us they wanted to see both men run for president again. But something that's become clear this week is that both Biden and Trump are in that 5% category that each is counting on the other being their general election opponent. Both Trump and Biden see the other as the best way to highlight their strengths and hide their weaknesses. Their actions this week show they both believe that there's path to a second term is a rerun of 2020.

President Biden kicked off his campaign this week with a video that was less about his presidential record and more about the danger he receives from a group he calls Mega Republicans. And the first time he answered reporters questions about his run, he doubled down, calling former President Trump a threat to democracy. You said you can beat Trump again. Do you think you're the only one?

I may not be the only one, but I know him well and I know the danger he presents to our democracy. And we've been down this road before. Donald Trump directly responded to those are marches in New Hampshire presenting a contrast between his bishop and what he says of the shortcomings of the Biden administration. No, it's Biden who poses the threat to democracy because he is grossly incompetent, has no idea what he's doing, and basically he doesn't have a clue.

And that's a very bad position to put our country in. The choice of this election is now between strength and weakness, between success or failure, between safety or anarchy, between peace or conflict and prosperity or catastrophe. We are living in a catastrophe. Trump, of course, has to get through a Republican primary but he is the clear front run.

He's already looking to the general hinting this week that he might skip primary debates against his fellow Republicans. Probably something that Biden wouldn't mind Trump doing for better, worse, Trump and Biden's campaigns are signaling that they do need each other as foils in order to win. But it puts the country on path towards an unwelcome contest for voters. They both have an ineffability ratings.

Neither cracks 40%. The poll show voters think the country has been on the wrong track under both men's presidencies. But like it or not, we're currently on track for a rematch. Joining me now is our panel, NBC senior national political reporter, NBC's Dr.

Burns. She's been on the road talking to voters. Also with us, former Democratic senator from North Dakota Hatik and also a CBC contributor. And for Republican governor, North Carolina Corp.

And NBC News contributor Sahil are co dependent presidential nominees. It is kind of a co dependency. It certainly is an out argue between the two of them. Biden needs Trump a little bit more than Trump needs Biden.

They have faced each other before. Biden has won. I no doubt that Donald Trump would rather run against Hillary Clinton who was someone he defeated. But for Biden, Trump represents everything he ran against in the first place.

The whole reason he ran and the lane that opened up for him. Here's what he wanted to be president for 30 years never really worked out. And Trump came along. He was the steady hand.

He was the, the, you know, the known quantity against the chaotic president. And he intends to use all the same arguments that he used the first time this time around. And in some ways Trump is labor to he's lean further into conspiracy thinking. He is defending January 6, not embracing some of those who participated in that riot.

So his argument is there. The question is can he turn out the same coalition turned out 2020 President Biden can hold progressives weighted last time around. And will Trump's turnout be as strong as last time? I don't see those voters shifting toward Trump.

I know these guys want to jump in here but Dasha, you spoke to some photos. Let me play a little bit of that and get more from you on this. Are you excited? No.

And I think the rest of the nation feels the same way that I do. I think we want to move on from the events that transpired pre2020. Not that excited. What's your biggest concern about?

I mean definitely age. Will you vote for him? If it comes down to it, of course I Would. If it's Biden versus Trump, what do you do?

Don't walk a bridge. I don't know. It's a really tough one. It feels bleak.

It really feels bleak. There's no. It really does not start from. I haven't covered presidential election other than once where I felt like the supporters were excited about the candidates report.

Obama, McCain got there where McCain act likes. Love McCain. Obama loved Obama. It was kind of an outlier.

Chuck, these voters are saying, please, please don't make us do this again. Don't make us do this again. I mean, what's. Aha.

Was just saying like, Biden's gonna make the same arguments again. It's gonna be a replay again of the election that got people pretty darn depressed in this country. And younger voters especially are so. They just can't believe that this, that nobody wants to see this matchup.

And yet this is. And you heard from Mo there, one of the voters, he was really interesting. He's independent. He voted for Trump in 2016.

He voted for Biden in 2020 because he said he was very happy with Trump. He felt like the country lost itself. He said he's not happy with Biden. He told me that he would consider voting for Biden again.

Trump was an absolute no. He said January 6th, shut the door on Trump. But if it was Biden versus DeSantis, that would be. You know, it strikes me, Heidi, one of the ways to describe this is that almost both parties are acting like we're on a wartime voting, and you got to stick with the generals that you have, maybe not the leaders that you want.

You know, it's interesting because one thing that's getting lost in this discussion is, is Trump is not guaranteed that he's gonna get the nomination. Biden doesn't have any primary opponent. And so that puts him in that spot where he doesn't have to defend himself against a primary opponent. The question is, what happens with Trump?

And I'll tell you, there's two things since then, January 6th, which is that freedom thing that Biden's talking about and Roe v. Wade being overturned. Those were not the reality when they ran in 2020. Those are huge problems for Donald Trump.

And so, you know, I think, I think the one thing. And this will probably get me in trouble. I think the one thing that can happen as a result of this lack of enthusiasm is third party candidates will see a real opportunity to step in. Well, look, Pat, you're toying in this world with the labels.

You've been very upfront about it. There's a lot of certainly Democrats who think that any third party candidacy is more of an asset to Trump. And there's a panic about it. But I get the vacuum that's being created here.

I mean, that voter, you saw that voter. I mean, I know you're thinking, I'd like to talk about that voter to figure out, can we come up with a ticket that you support? Well, it's an embarrassment. It's an embarrassment because if these were the only two people being put up for the Charlotte Ruddery Club presidency, we'd can't we do better?

We're talking about the President of the United States. And I really, that's how people feel. And I do believe if there's ever an opening for a third party candidate, this would be it. Now, I don't think we'll know for a while.

I don't think we'll know really until after Super Tuesday, but after Super Tuesday, we'll know. Are these the two candidates that the parties are selecting for us when they know the majority of the American people don't want either one of them? It's, it's, it's shocking. I just don't buy it.

I just think our politics are so pugilistic. I've accepted the premise that no matter who ends up the leader of the party within three weeks, they become a caricature of what the other side wants that person to be. And there's negative partisanship. You're voting against someone more than you're voting for someone in this day and age.

You see the popularity numbers, which is why Narpul found that 70% of Americans don't want President Biden to run. We all know a huge portion of that 70% would still vote for him. But the alternative is not. Although we know a majority of Democrats are loan under bragging, yet he's still getting 65% of prime.

In fact, these are people that don't want to go. Well, all these voters I talked to all said it comes down to it. Yeah, I'm going to go on. I'm going to vote for him.

So he still has that. But he's a bull war. They're not voting for him, they're voting against that. And there's plenty of political science research that shows that negative partisanship makes entrenching the two party system.

In theory, you can look at the popularity and say there's no party candidate. The opposite is true. If you're voting against someone you're more intensely going against and you Want to make sure when you're voting against someone that someone beats them and that you don't divide them. You experience this war.

I mean, in some ways, right, Partisanship is probably why you want a second term. Well, absolutely. I told everybody the first time I ran, 22% of Republicans in my state would vote for a Democrat. The second time I ran, it was four.

And so people have picked a team, and you didn't change your views. You still were voting them for the same central. And, you know, so Aaron Rodgers isn't the Green Bay packers anymore. Guess what?

They're so good to be Green Bay packers fans. I mean, they pick a team, they stick with them regardless of who's leading the team. It's as though we're in a gerrymandered presidential race because all they're doing is. It used to be only congressional races were deemed to be.

You have to win the primary to win the general, because the general's over now. Everyone's running for the primary voter, the base. That's why the primary problem in Republican politics and politics in general is literally the primary primary problem is primary. The primary problem, it really is, is when you look at, like, say, ranch choice voting.

There are some examples in some states and in some cities where that starts to change dynamics, where that. There you start to see some moderates come out of the primaries. But look what. Look what's happening to the two candidates.

They're playing against each other's fear. And the most remarkable in North Carolina right now, they're playing commercials on Social Security. Biden against Trump being against Social Security, and the Trump running commercials against DeSantis on the same fear of Social Security, Knowing, by the way, that Social Security is in trouble in seven, eight years. Donald Trump literally changed the rules, though, in 2016.

First time you saw people run to get their base and then come to the middle. People didn't come to the middle, and they're not coming to the middle again. And that is what's frustrating the American public. So they also changed the paradigm.

Republican politics. You can't really do dog whistles anymore and kind of hint at things. He just came out. There's nothing clogged in what he says.

So let me play the Nikki Haley here, because I think this is a bite that would have been condemned by members of both parties 10 years ago. He's announced his, you know, that he's running again in 2024. And I think that we can all be very clear and say, with a matter of fact, that if you vote For Joe Biden, you really are counting on a President Harris because the idea that he would make it until 86 years old is not, is not something that I think is likely. What's interesting, first of all, she's not correct.

Once you've made it to 80, the likelihood you make it to 90 is actually in the 80 to 90 percentiles. So she's actually wrong on the numbers there. But the direct hit, the fact that there was. We have no etiquette political anymore in politics, she's saying what a lot of Republicans are thinking.

She sees the writing on the wall. Donald Trump has changed the game to win these voters. It helps to be brash in a way. And we don't argue with the general election.

I might argue with other candidates. You might want to do this primary and message two differently in a general election. I think she's seen that and she's not gonna go all, you know, full January 6th QAnon like Trump is. I'm curious, maybe this is a question for Pat.

Do you think the January 6th issue comes up in the primary? Why are Republican candidates so reluctant to go after them? They're afraid of the base because the base is blinded by January 6th and they don't think there's equal treatment. I think they're wrong.

But I'm telling you right now, the base is sticking with Trump no matter what happens. And it's enough percentage to win the primary. And now you have, and Biden's big. Not only is his age, but his vice president.

So if he had a stronger vice president, some people would go, well, okay, he might not be around the long term, but we've got a credible vice president. The polls don't show that well to the age point. I mean, I literally just spoke with a doctor who did the calculations based on his public records. Right.

Since 1998. Right. So it's, it's not, it's just simply not accurate. But you're right.

I mean, we're, we're, we've lost any semblance of subtlety. And part of this, you're going to say who's going to take him on. Who's going to take trump on. On January 6th depends on who gets in the race.

If Chris Christie gets into this race, trust me, it's going to be front row and center. I just don't think he's had the credibility as somebody who was the chief sort of mainstream Republican to give Trump credibility with the mainstream. I don't know how he's Chris Sununu Feels like he's much better position to be to be this year's Chris. Christina, you know, don't chuck it.

It used to be that, that hypocrisy and you know, you did one thing, now you're doing another thing. Used to be fatal. That's not fatal anymore. Right.

So you, Donald Trump and every other person that tries to be fatal. Well, I mean, and if you say, look, that was there and then I saw January 6th and I recalibrated my thinking and this is wrong. It's wrong for our party. We keep losing with him, which is a pretty powerful message.

What's the path and what's the math? It's primary. That's the question. They have to be willing to say he lost.

They're reluctant to say he lost anybody else. This is the chief. This is the chief trick he's pulled because Chris made a very powerful argument on this show on Sunday. He said, yeah, he lost in 18 losses.

And I asked him if his support is completely lost, then how does that argument work? Hey, I was in a room where he called me a loser after he just lost an election and you'd won. It was just amazing. But you know, I've been on the stage with Ben Chavis, a liberal Democrat.

I'm a conservative Republican. We're showing that we can work together and have civil conversation. I'm convinced I'm an idealistic guy that people are looking for civil conversation. We're seeing that with a debt issue.

We're seeing some other issues that the people who are more worried about the primaries, including the presidents, are not wanting to come together and solve the problems that we have to solve for the next generation. And that is my biggest concern for our country. The streak of idealism I do have. The system though is sort of almost rigged to parsons.

Yes. And like I was saying, negative Parsons of entrenches that unpopular as one or both parties of one or both major party candies get you still, you still are more antagonistic about why Wisconsin stays so polarized. Neither party los by enough to recalibrate. And as long as he is right, as long as we think it's just one more voter, one more phone call, one more this then neither side's going to extra thing.

The real fear should be the may come Sahel Dasha, how you Pat? Terrific conversation come up Dead Democrats and Decisions 2024. Democratic Congressman Josh Gottheimer joins me on the future of his party, the future of that dangerous net as well. That's next.

Plus the kids aren't all right. New Poland shows America's youngest voters anxious, fearful and dissatisfied government. But it means for our politics of 2024 and beyond. You're watching this press now.

Welcome back. Right now the other side is bunching. The clock is ticking. A potential economic calamity in the coming months if House Republicans of the White House are able to come to an agreement on raising the nation's borrowing moment to avoid a government default by administration.

Today reiterated its opposition House speaker's proposals that pass the House on Wednesday that would pair increasing the debt limit with across the board spending cuts. The White House demanding that when they increase with no strings attached and they say that their position is non negotiable. But in recent days my administration has begun to face some pressure from some moderates in their own party to sit down and begin hammering out a deal with Republicans before it's too late. Because at the end of the day, whether you like it or not, the House has a role to play.

I'm joined now by Congressman Josh Hammer, Democrat from New Jersey, co chair of bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus. And they have a if break glass in case of emergency plan of their own to try to raise the debt limit. So let's take a look at that break glass plan. Congressman Cottimer, good to see you.

Nice to see you. Thanks for having me. So you know, look, the basics of your plans seem like a reasonable way to punt, if you will, for six months. Is that the best we can hope for?

Well, listen, I think as you just said, it's break glass. What we can't afford, as you know, is going off a fiscal cliff and sending our economy and our savings and into our reputation in the world into complete free fall. Right. That's unacceptable.

So what we presented is if we're facing that and literally we can't get folks to talk and figure and work this out, here's a way that we can get some more time to actually work through some of our long term fiscal health issues and the right to spend a debt ceiling so that we don't default on our debt. And it's unacceptable to even ponder that. Look, I know you have a handful of Republicans that are a member of the problem solvers because they're better ready for something like this. But have you talked to anybody in leadership?

Have you talked to anybody Republicans have leadership that you think at some point they'll at least not stop an idea like this? I think so. You know, we've 32 Republicans and problem solvers now and I'll Tell you there's a lot of conversations with leadership and obviously they put forward what they think is their best proposal this week. I mean, I think it was outrageous on lots of fronts, you know, let alone what's going to do to veterans and seniors and law enforcement and you know, but let's put that aside for a second because we know that that's actually now put aside that that's now dead on arrival.

We got to get back to the table and figure out what we are going to do. And you know, that's what I think a lot of us are pushing for is let's, everyone's got to sit down and the White House with, with Senate leadership and half leadership and figure out a way forward here. He can't wait till the last minute. We can't afford to be downgraded and we sort of can't afford it to fall.

So I think our plan is one way out. I hope they utilize that or frankly whatever they think is the best forward that does not lead to a default. You understand? I understand the political line that the White House wants to draw on this when it comes to hey, we don't negotiate over this.

At the end of the day, is that a sustainable position to hold? I think it's fair to keep saying we're not going to mess around and negotiate with the debt ceiling and the debt or the full faith in credit of the United States. That's a reasonable position. I think most Americans and business people in business around the country would agree with that.

Right. Our credit card bill, you gotta pay your bill. You know, I think what has to happen is to sit down and talk about long term fiscal health and debt deficit. That is a place where I think the country wants us to come together and talk about.

So you know, it's a little semantics at this point, right? What you're talking about, you're really just talking about the economy of our country. And I think it's really fair to say, hey, let's go all get in a room and start talking about the kind of country and that's all that they want. But let's just sit there until every day until we actually make some progress.

Do you feel as if everybody's above board in here? You know, there's some Democrats who believe Republicans are comfortable taking the economy because it'll hurt by more than it hurts them. Yeah, I think they're listening there. Definitely people like to on the extreme right who believe it's worth a short term pain for our economy for the long term gain that they perceive they'll net out of it.

I think they're crazy. I think they're playing Little Do Fire, and they don't understand the economic impact. I think some think this is just some sort of government shutdown. This is literally the whole thing.

America, the only folks who are going to win, the government of China, right, who would like to take corruption in the world. So, you know, I think some folks don't understand the climate it could cause, but I don't think it's a political issue. I think it's more of like they just believe deeply that it's worth, it's worth it to do this to the economy, take this risk. I want to get your reaction to a conversation we spent 15 minutes having, and that is the country's discomfort and distaste for a rematch between Biden and Trump.

You're in a swing, the swing of a district, as you can find in the country, is this, is this a district that is divided because there's no moderation? Or you have half that love Biden and have that love Trump? Or do you have a district that sort of represents this poll finding that we found really only 5% of Americans want to see both men run. I'll tell you this.

They don't want to see Trump run around here, and they certainly don't want more extremism. You know, I've been talking a lot of folks about it lately, and what I hear back is on President Biden, we start for what you immediately pivot to. Look what we got done in the last two and a half years, and a much better conversation. Immediately comes a better conversation, because you think about whether it's the infrastructure bill or the chips bill or the veterans legislation or the compensation gun legislation, you start taking through actual accomplishments, which, by the way, would make up any presidential campaign.

And suddenly, you know, I think people have a different tune about the experience and just the civility and calm that President Biden brings to the equation. And so it's funny how once you go into that, people quickly perk up in a different way. And I think that's a argument to try. Going back to Trump gets an immediate, you know, thumbs down from Republicans.

I talked to lots of moderate Republicans. They say, absolutely not. There's no chance. And I'm in a suburb.

And I think we saw that in suburbs. It's interesting to me that you say that when you start talking about what you got done during the first two years, that that works with voters, because that is not the reelection announcement. I saw From President Biden. Right.

They really are leaning more into the danger of another Trump term. They're not leading with what they've gotten done. Well, listen, I think the, you know, I can speak for here in Northern Jersey. You talk about fixing the roads and bridges and building the gateway train tunnel, and you talk about actually domestic manufacturing, standing up to China, building ships and supporting our veterans and, you know, electoral reform that we does directly take on the Trump issue.

You know, people really perk up. So listen, I, you know, I'm sure you're gonna be plenty of ads that get run over the next bit, and I hope they do lean into the accomplishments because you've been around a long time. Last Congress, a lot got done. Right.

An incredible amount got done in a tight situation. So I think it's what people should talk to. Folks, good news is in about a decade, the public will then give credit. Sadly, it is, I know I say this, I think the public won't feel it for that long.

Wrong. Some things will take longer than others. But we gotta tell people. If you don't tell people, it's enough to actually communicate it.

If you don't tell people, definitely they won't know. But we're trying to feel things here immediately on broadband. And it is happening. I wish we were happening faster, of course, and there's a lot of jobs that come with that work.

But, but, you know, it's happening. We've got to make sure that we tell people about that very quickly. I know you're on some committees where this matters. The First Republic situation right now, the likely failure of that, the inability to find a buyer.

Do you view this as continued systemic risk, or is this simply a situation that's more unique to this bank? Well, I think we saw a report that came out, Silicon Valley bank today. You have certain banks that have had certain exposure, Right. If you're, if you're structured a certain way with certain exposure and certain investments in our asset class, you're, you know, you could face an issue like this.

I don't think it's systemic. I think we were facing after Silicon Valley bank systemic crisis, and we stepped in and addressed it. And we've still worked to understand exactly why the Fed wasn't more involved and watching what was happening. And I'll mention that with First Republic as well, but I don't think it's broadly systemic.

I think this is a specialized bank with very high, you know, if you look at the asset, Nicknics in this particular bank, very high net worth, depositors with massive savings and people said, oh, I can't get this concentrated, and then decided to pull out. Right. So I think it's a unique circumstance here. We have to do is make sure people feel very comfortable that the money in their bank will be there when they, when they go look for it.

And we have to back up deposits. We gotta watch very carefully on social media and these immediate runs. So we don't know what to do. But I believe this is not a systemic issue.

All right, Congressman Josh Scott Harmer, Democrat from northern New Jersey, representing, like I said, one of the slingiest sling districts in the country. Thank you, sir. Next, Trump's little troubles continue to pile up. Former Vice President Mike Pence appears before federal grand jury.

We're going to dig into what it means for that investigation into Trump's role in trying to overturn the election. You're watching THE PRESS now. Welcome back. And I am Major Bell.

In the special counsel investigation of former President Trump overturned the 2020 election. Former Vice President Mike Pence testified before the grand jury yesterday. That's according to a source familiar with the matter. Pence course was purposed to many events leading up to the January 6th insurrection and he was whisked out of that chamber that day as some riders were calling to hang him.

Pence was subpoenaed by the special counsel back in February. Last month the judge ordered him to comply, though providing him with some protections. Trump, meanwhile, was speaking in a campaign at New Hampshire yesterday afternoon when news of Pence's testimony first row, NBC News as Jonathan Allen got his first reaction to that news. Nicholas, Fascinating state that there Pence's testimony adds to the list of Trump legal headaches, which this week also included a civil trial in New York as columnist E.

Jean Carroll testified in her sexual assault and defamation suit against Trump. Joining now is former U.S. attorney and senior FBI official Chuck Rosenberg. He's of course, an NBC News legal analyst.

So, Chuck, let's start with the singular importance of Mike Pence as a witness. If the special counsel is looking into crimes involving the former president, where would you rank Mike Pence as important as a witness on whether it's, you know, getting in the way, you know, either inspiring the insurrection or getting in the way of a certification of the president at or near the top of that list? Chuck, let me explain that when you're trying to prove a case such as this, the former president's intent matters a lot. Now, he's not the only subject.

I assume there are others like John Eastman, but you want to Know what they did, why they did it, whether they did it intentionally. And so those witnesses like Mike Pence, who spoke directly to the former president or who spoke directly to John Eastman are going to be very important witnesses. Not the only witnesses, but important witnesses. We also know, if past is prologue, that you talk to the minor witnesses first, the less important witnesses, the ancillary witnesses, and you save the big ones for last.

And that seems to be what is happening here. Oh, so this also, timeline wise, this tells you a charging decision is coming, either a go or no go. It's got to be closer than me thinking, well, we're closer to the end than the beginning, but with a caveat. Sometimes you talk to minor witnesses A, B and C, and then you talk to major witness D, but you learn something new and it makes you go back and talk to A and B again.

And so it doesn't mean we're at the very end. It just means we're closer to the end than the beginning. And it doesn't only mean that they face a charging decision regarding Mr. Trump.

Like I mentioned earlier, there are other subjects here, too. So we don't know who's going to be charged, so when they're going to be charged or what they're going to be charged with. But closer to the end, absolutely. Do you think that Jack Smith could get Mike Pence to testify on the phone conversation?

I mean, there's this phone conversation we know, between President Trump and Vice President Pence in the morning on the 6th. We know that it was heated. We know a lot of things about the reaction to the call. We don't know what said specifically on the call.

Is it your understanding that the agreement that allowed that forced my Pence to testify, does he have to testify to the contents of that call or not? Yeah, that's my understanding. That makes sense to me, Chuck. Unless it's precluded by some privilege speech in the date clause or executive privilege or some other privilege like the Fifth Amendment, which I don't see pertaining anyway to Mr.

Pence. Yeah, you would have to answer honestly questions about that conversation. And going back to what you and I just discussed, it's those conversations between Mr. Pence and Mr.

Trump that help illuminate intent. So I don't see a reason why he wouldn't be asked. I don't see a reason why he would be permitted not to answer questions about that conversation. And I imagine that it would be very important look to a determination.

Right. I mean, one way or the other is going to be Important to the determination that prosecutors make. It doesn't mean necessarily they're going to charge, but that's what they need to know in order make that decision. If he makes a charging decision involving January 6th that involves former President Trump, what is the most likely charge?

Well, right, so they're looking at different theories of crimes here. One would involve a false slates of electors, which could be a fraud on the United States government, a crime or conspiracy to commit that crime. Others might be fundraising that appears to have been done off of the stolen election lie. So hard to know exactly what they're going to charge and who they're going to charge.

But we do know that that seems to be the focus, right? This, this effort to overturn a fair and free election through fraud. And by the way, Chuck, in my view, that's an extraordinarily serious crime. And so I hope prosecutors are taking their time.

They seem to be. And that's a good thing, not a bad thing. I'm curious, when it comes to attention, intent, the former president has a fascinating way he uses words. And while he expressed very public sympathy with the insurrectionists, is that enough to prove intent?

If that's all you had, I'd say no. But that's why these conversations illuminate intent and become so much more important. And by the way, it's not just what Mr. Trump says that helps to eliminate his intent, it's what people told him.

Right? I mean, if I told you certain facts, then I can presume that you know them, even if you don't repeat them faithfully. Chuck, the fact that you've been told certain things helps to eliminate your intent. So conversations are two way, and that's why you want to talk to everybody involved.

And the more people who had conversations like that with Mr. Trump or Mr. Eastman or whoever the subject may be, and the more they explained to the grand jury both ends of the conversation, the more you can help to illuminate the intent. Jeff Rosenberg.

I'm a senior Stanisl, former attorney, senior counselor as well. Always good to get your expertise. State chef. You bet.

After the break, another night of Russian terror. That's how President Zelensky described Moscow's latest bombardment of some central Ukrainian cities. We'll have the latest from our own Ellison Barber, who's on the ground. In the city hardest hit by deadly attacks.

Here's what the scene looked like just hours ago. This residential apartment building. It was hit directly. A missile slammed in the side of this building.

The death toll has just continued to rise throughout the day among the dead we know are children. Welcome back. This morning Russia launched a large scale missile attack across Ukraine firing more than 20 missiles and two drones. In the central Ukrainian city of Oman, rescue workers searched for survivors of a nine store residential building was truck officials say 23 people including four children were killed in the attack.

And in Kyiv every sirens were heard for the first time in weeks. Official say it was first time since early March that the capital was targeted by Russian missile strikes. Join me now in key this NBC correspondent Ellison Barber. Ellison, let me just got a lot to report here.

I am curious has the Ukrainian government, do they have an idea as to why? Yes, why? Last night was a missile bombardment night. Is this in anticipation of a new push by the Russians?

Is this about the counter offensive that they know is coming from Ukrainians? Is there any specific thing that this last night bombardment is connected to? So Ukraine officials haven't specifically commented on that, but the speculation seems to be that this is spurred in part by the fact that you have had more senior military officials talking about where they believe the Ukrainian forces are in terms of launching the highly anticipated spring counter offensive Last 24 hours the defense minister here in Ukraine said that forces are increasingly prepared to launch that counter offensive and try to take back some of the territory controlled by Russia. Russia has not had a lot of progress in recent months.

The fierce society has been in the east, in Bakhmut and the front line it has barely moved. It's been inches if at all. So Russia has been in this position where they are using a lot of resources. We got troops, equipment and they're not getting a whole lot done.

This was the largest missile attack on the country in about two months. And for a lot of people it was a reminder that it doesn't matter where you are in this country, that right now nowhere is safe. And one of the people we met when we were at the scene in Oman explained that to us. She has fled different seas and so this happened where she lives now?

Listen, is anywhere in Ukraine speak? Nowhere. Nowhere. I moved a lot since the war started.

I moved a lot. I've been in Ying where my my husband parents live. I've been in Kiev, I've been in Odessa. And now I moved to O and nowhere is safe.

Russia's Ministry of Defense is claiming this was a high precision targeted missile attack that was focused on hitting military related targets. Specifically targets they say that had to do with deployment of reserve units for the armed forces of Ukraine. But Chuck, we were at that building all day. We watched the people coming in and out to get what they could from their apartments.

We saw the people waiting, looking for loved ones. None of them were members of the military. Joe, we saw that, that footage earlier in that, you know, obviously that's what they wanted to hear from her, that nowhere is safe. That's exactly what Russia probably want all Ukrainians to feel that B Ukraine.

Elson, thank you and of course please keep yourself safe. Still to come, cannabis congress and cash. You want to see reporting the bipartisan marijuana banking bill that could actually pass Congress. Is it actually going to be legal now in these states that it's legal to use a credit card?

Cash, that's it. You're watching me personal. Welcome back. Late last week, Delaware became the latest state to legalize cannabis for recreational use.

In doing so, the governor is actually allowing legal and regulated market for marijuana. While Delaware residents can now seek a license to sell the drug, cannabis remains illegal under federal law. And that means only a cannabis business comes with some severe financial red tape. Our own Julie Serkin has more and how some dispensary dispensaries have been navigating this odd issue.

The last best place is probably the last place you'd expect to see this dispensaries and grow houses dotting Montana's stunning landscape. This is in ruby red Montana, where last year 57 of voters moved to legalize recreational marijuana. To give you an idea, two years before President Donald Trump received that same share in the state. Today, 22 states and the District of Columbia have legal access to cannabis.

But the lack of federal legislation is leaving small dispensary owners with big problems. This is one of the highest testing strains in Montana. Elliot Lindsay is the owner of Bozeman based dispensary Grizzly Pine. We need to move past the conversation about whether or not cannabis exists or should exist and move towards a regulated industry that is normal.

Even legal cannabis businesses are anything but normal. Every week, Elliot drives hours in an unmarked van to deposit cash at one of the few banks willing to work with him. As a dispensary owner, he can't access most major financial institutions or take credit cards. Since selling marijuana is still against federal law, we have been fortunate enough to find a local credit union.

Elliot's careful not to ruin his relationship with a local bank that keeps his business compliant with the law. Is there anything else that you as a cannabis business owner have to deal with that other businesses don't? Oh, man, yeah, there's a lot that we have to deal with. Yeah, there's a laundry list.

Operating a legal dispensary is expensive even after purchasing a license. I don't know that there's a whole lot of consumer based businesses where you would be required to wear a badge like this one. Owner could face hefty fines for failing to follow strict rules amid unscheduled inspections from state authorities. Since cannabis is still a Schedule 1 drug, legal dispensary owners don't qualify for tax exemptions like traditional businesses.

Gallatin County Sheriff Dan Springer backs federal legislation that would give marijuana businesses access to banking services. I will say it's confusing when you have a federal statute creates more CASA crime or doesn't clear it, and then you have state laws that are different than federal laws. Safe banking's biggest advocates in this state say they don't support legalizing marijuana. But now that voters chose to do it, they say it's a public safety issue not to take action.

That includes Montana's Republican senator now leading the charge in Washington on the bipartisan bill. We want to help law enforcement. This is about making our community safer by allowing these businesses access to our banks. Working with top Democrats on perhaps the biggest marijuana reform bill that could pass this year.

Businesses doing this, then the treatment of business and not as regulars. Julia, two questions for you. One is small Montana politics question. I'll do that.

Second, but the big question is the law they're seeking to pass here, is it creating a workaround, the issue of, of marijuana being a Schedule 1 drug, or are they actually gonna reschedule it? No, this has nothing to do with descheduling the drug. And that's one of the big issues from basically hamstringing Congress from going even further. Safe banking is essentially just a public safety bill, but it's one that would essentially remove any penalties or red tape around big banks from working with cannabis businesses.

And it makes that process more strictly streamlined. And in politics, sometimes who gets credit for bill matters more sometimes than when the bill gets passed. I have understood there's a little bit of a rivalry between Danes and Tester about who would get credit for this, and it actually could blow the deal up. What's going on?

That's super interesting because actually this week, totally unrelated, but the Senate failed to pass a research bill that was sponsored by Senator Tester that would essentially direct the VAs to provide us new research on medicinal cannabis and whether that would affect veterans positively in terms of PTZ and other issues. That bill failed. Senator Gaines voted against it. And that was viewed as a major setback from the marijuana advocates in that industry on what can actually pass in the future.

So super interesting question there, Chuck. Yeah, there's definitely, I think a little 2024 campaign politics going on there, Julie. Circumstances and trick reporting they're. Julie, thank you.

We turn now to debate over abortion access America. This week two Republican legislate legislatures tried to and failed to pass strict anti abortion laws. In Nebraska bill that would have limited abortion access to six weeks of pregnancy failed to advance out of state senate. They're the nation's only unit legislature, everybody's a senator and it filled by a single vote.

And in South Carolina, the state senate struck down a bill that would have banned almost all abortions effort already it passed the House. The effort to defeat the bill was led by five female state senators, including three Republicans. Abortion of court is shaping up to be a key issue nationally in the 2024 election cycle. It's already brought voters, including young voters, out of the polls and races like that Wisconsin Supreme Court election earlier this month where it was clear young voters showed up in such big numbers that Dane county out polled Milwaukee county, the Milwaukee County's bigger population.

Dane county, the home of the University of Wisconsin at Madison. A lot of young voters are tuned into this specific issue issue as well as the election. In Harvard's biannual youth poll released earlier this week, two thirds of young people said they're likely to vote in 2024. John Delvay, who is the director of polling at Harvard County School of Politics and also an NCD screw, joins me now.

John, if it look at this, when you look at the Democratic coalition that President Biden's trying to put together, where would young voters be if abortion wasn't viewed to be unvalid? Yeah, well, we know that young voters are a critical component of the coalition. President Biden would not be in the White House without them. And we also know that what has animated young voters even before the dogs were in Chuck is a concern about losing basic fundamental rights.

Before, before this was right to feel safe in school, rights of clean air and clean water. Now all guys are supercharged with of course woman's right to choose, which was the, which was really the driver to see. And people some cases record turnout in the 2022 midterms. Just a critical component.

I'm gonna put up a few polling numbers here. When it comes to what you've seen here, you've fall high because you will vote. You put it up 617 on the issue of abortion numbers that we found and break it down by age. What Is interesting here is it's really young women that are probably driving this even more so than younger men.

Men age 18 to 49 years of proportion very fairly point half of them, that's not an insignificant number. But women who are more directly affected by this, I mean it's 71%. You might be surprised at that level. Yeah.

And we saw, we've seen dramatic increase. We've seen a 30, 30 point net shift of the last couple decades in terms of the importance of choice among young women in this country. And when we look back at really who's, who's even moving the UFO within the UFO segment if you it is college as well as young women, specifically young women of color who are progressive for these issues. So.

Absolutely. Again, as I said, we saw that in Wisconsin, we saw that in Michigan. We've seen that state after state after state. I asked about the age issue because of this been an enemy conversation this week.

Our own poll showed that age was the number one reason the majority of Democrats are not enthusiastic we might like see president by run. It's not because what he's done, it literally is simply his age. What do you see in this poll if you were to advise, you know, anybody trying to talk to young people here, how much is this age issue a hurdle or is it a wall for the president? I think when we speak to young people, they are more concerned, Chuck, about what government can do again to protect these basic rights that they feel are under attack.

And what we found is that young people who are paying closer attention to the news have far better responses when asked questions about President Biden. So I think, listen, he was, he was, you know, three years younger three years ago than he is today. And he got more young voters than anyone in the history of this country. And he went from, you know, a third at the beginning of the campaign to 2/3 favorable at the end of the campaign.

And I think that this is a more pragmatic generation and we might appreciate at the end of the day it's about choices. And I think it's pretty clear the values of this generation are aligned with the president's agenda. The Republicans have a messaging problem, Republicans have a values problem and that their values are lined. I was just going to say if you were talking to the rnc, I mean how this looks like it's like an impending cliff that Republicans are about to walk off if they're not careful here.

And yet as we've seen these predictions before and as people get older they suddenly become smaller serve it except with millennials. So when you add in Gen Z and millennials, that's roughly 40% of the 2024 vote. Okay. And for the last, better part of last couple decades, I said for Republicans who want a national basis, they need to be competitive.

But that's when competitive. What, like low force? Mid-40s, mid-40s? Keep the number below 60.

But that's not the case in when we get 40% of the 40% of the electorate feeling that way. So you think it's more possible 40% of the electorate will end up voting Biden by 1 6% of the. I don't know, 40% will go that high. But what we saw in this country through Europe polling, which is national as well as what we're seeing from other Western democracies, the millennials of the first generation shut where they become more progressive, not less progressive, as they've aged due to the troubled, due to the issue of capitalism.

I think there's a lot of hit with hit with the financial impact. 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 Mankiewicz and this is Trace of Suspicion, an all new podcast from Data Lab. Listen to all episodes of Trace of Suspicion now, wherever you get your podcasts.