Meet the Press NOW – August 16

If it's Wednesday taking on Trump or not, 2024 candidates, Republican leaders and the current president are all struggling to meet this moment and address the state of US Democracy in the aftermath of Donald Trump's fourth criminal indictment. Plus new developments in this ongoing legal fight over access to a widely used abortion pill. An appeals court has just partially ruled in favor of abortion rights opponents as the issue is now on track to go back to the Supreme Court. In a campaign year.

And for the first time, a court in the US has declared it a constitutional duty for government officials to protect their citizens from the climate. What the landmark ruling out of Montana could mean for climate change litigation and fossil fuel policies nationwide. Foreign. Press now on trackside reporting from Washington.

And right now, more than two days since former President Trump's fourth criminal indictment brought the total number of criminal counts, he's facing the 91. There is no sugar coding. The top political leaders in this country are struggling to meet the gravity of this moment and fill the vacuum in moral leadership and are fraying democracy. The response from Mr.

Trump's so called Republican rivals isn't surprising, but it's once again revealing the most recent comments from Ramada Santa Stinscort and Vivek Ramaswamy. Bri the kid's closest to Trump in the polls could have come from Trump's own mouth. Loving the latest serious charges of the prior ones, glossing over the details of cases and essentially coming to the former president's defense. We see the legal system being weaponized against political opponents that is un American, unacceptable.

At the end of the day, we need a better system than that. They're now doing an inordinate amount of resources to try to shoehorn this contest over the 2020 election into a RICO statute. I think it's an example of this criminalization of politics. The fourth one's not a purely pardonable, it's broader state charges.

But wherever possible, I would pardon because I want to move this nation forward beyond this weaponization government. So this morning, Trump's former Vice president Mike Pence also parody Trump's talking points about the politization in the American legal system. But he also firmly said that Donald Trump lost. George and criticized Trump's efforts on January 6th.

Take a listen. After years of revelations of politicization at the highest levels of our justice system in this country, this undermined public confidence and equal treatment of the law. But in these times, I want to say I think it's important that we hue the first principles. No one is above the law and the President and all those implicated are entitled to the presumption of innocence that every American enjoys.

Despite what the former president, his allies have said for now more than two and a half years and continue to insist to this very hour, the Georgia election was not stolen and I had no right to overturn the election on January 6. These various responses, from the defensive to the tepid, arguably reflect years of rhetoric than the voters by Mr. Trump and his allies all over the spectrum, including in the information ecosystem, other Republican side. The closest we've seen to someone in leadership actually speak up about the former president's behavior comes from Georgia's Governor Brian Kemp, who posted this yesterday very declaratively.

The 2020 election in Georgia was not stolen. The future of our country has staked in 2024, and that must be our focus. Kemp has also been one of the few Republicans not to attack the Fulton County DA's office. But again, Kemp is the exception in his party.

And then there's President Biden, the leader of this country and potentially Trump's 2024 rival for the White House. President Biden is largely staying on the sidelines. It's a marked difference from his 2020 campaign, which was built on restoring the soul of the nation and restoring norms to American politics. Now, to be fair, it is no easy task to say what all of these politicians could or should realistically, realistically do in this toxic political environment to meet this moment.

What's happening now is clearly isn't cutting. I understand the political necessity here for certain people not to speak up. When you're the leader of the country, you gotta try to beat the moment. And political leaders on every level are not beating this moment.

So guess what? It's gonna come down everybody else, the voters. Juan Hill, you're joins me now for the latest from the Trump world. So, Vaughn, it is fascinating how they control this media environment for the next 10 days.

They get to decide when to have their arraignment. Right. They get to decide how this, whether or not to show up for a debate. This is exactly the way Donald Trump likes to operate, where everybody is waiting for him to act.

Here are they, are you, are you seeing that kind of confidence in them right now? Yeah. And it reminds me, you know, of the way things have changed from 1, 2, 3 and 4. It was after night number two at night in Bedminster when he had sort of a makeshift rally in front of his private club there.

An aide to his told me, you know, every second that, you know, the Republican voters are talking about Donald Trump is legal conundrums is the second. They're not talking about Ron DeSantis, anybody else in the Republican field. And frankly that is the truth and very well could be the case next week if they in fact you decide to come down here to Atlanta, heading to this jail behind me on the morning of Wednesday after August 23rd. At that point it's going to be up to the other Republican candidates on stage.

Martha McCollum even saw our own comments here today who will be one of the moderators in that debate on Fox suggesting that it is imperative that they respond directly to the charges filed against them. As you just lay a couple of them there, there's little reason to believe that any of them outside of Chris Christie, Ace Hutchinson will already be qualifies and Ace Hutchinson I don't believe qualify either at this point. So maybe just Chris Christie who actually distinguish themselves in a meaningful manner from Donald Trump. And it just it's hard to reckon with any the dynamics of this race change over the next five months.

No. And then we're heading towards the twilights. Okay, I can ask you a question while the train goes by the issue of this Monday event that the former president has promised. How involved are his Georgia lawyers in this?

Is this something they really did or is this rhetoric? Is it you know, is it sort of like I hold in my hand the lit is this sort of a McCarthy era thing or, or did they actually hire somebody to put together a report? I have zero reason to believe that his Georgia counsel is a part of the making of this so called reports that he intends to introduce on Monday here. His counsel, notably one of the lead attorney here is somebody who had made past public comments and social media posts that were very much anti the president's actions in the aftermath of the 2020 election.

And he said he is hoping Donald Trump on the grounds of that every individual deserves a right to a defense and that you know, here in Georgia that this is taking up a great number of resources. You know, as for the actual making this report, I don't know what it is ultimately going to look like here. But we've heard Donald Trump talk about fraudulent claims in Georgia now for three plus years and frankly every time that he has suggested he's going to reveal something new, he has yet to do it. So I sure we're going to render your question.

I have no idea what's going to come with this side. By the way. We all are in this boat with him and we certainly are going to cover what he does live Considering the fact that he can just sort of make stuff up on the fly here. We know Mark Meadow's lawyer has filed a motion to try to get a plan to move to federal court to the feds.

We assume Trump will ask for this, too. What do you know about that? Right. Again, we're waiting to see what sort of motions the Donald Trump council here in Georgia make.

They've been very quiet outside of the direct statements that they have released, including on the night of the indictment, which they said this was unconstitutional process that led to the indictment of Donald Trump. But the expectation is that there is waiting for to see how which way the motion by Mark Meadows goes here. In so many ways, it's hard to see 3-4- childhood actually taking place at this point because because of the fact you're dealing with 19 defendants. And also the reality is that somebody like Jenna Ellis, who is sort of the right hand lawyer to Rudy Giuliani, you know, she is somebody who is very much out on her own.

She is not supporting Trump in the 2024 campaign. She's been ridiculed on MAGA online. And Jenna Ellis is somebody who has already said in legal filings in the state of Colorado that she misrepresented her past statements of evaluation here in Georgia. So these are not all 19 defendants that are on one ship together necessarily.

There's very much dividing interest here among them. Yeah, I have a feeling that once the parade of arraignments ends, the Georgia case might be a lot of motions for a while before we actually get motion to an actual trial. Anyway, funnel here on the ground for Atlanta Bomb. Thank you.

So for more, that's a pretty smart panel. Ryan, President Executive director for center for American Progress Action Fund. Republican strategists. Brad Tide.

So I'm going to open a conversation you all have with your own staffs, your own news editors, your own which is this anybody leaves out of this mess. And I say this this way, Mariana. Look, we are, we're, and I understand the individual decisions of everybody making decisions based on their own needs. Politically, whether you're running against Donald Trump primary voters, whether you're Joe Biden, don't want to like create a Biden situation, but my God, the country's on the edge of a cliff.

Who's in charge? Who's leading us? That is a question to your point. Yeah, we're all trying to figure out who that person is.

I remember covering Biden during the last election. I mean, this was a huge part of what he would talk about all the time restoring the soul of the nation, restoring trust in politicians and government, the faith of this country. And he's been missing in that. And I think there's been a lot of questions as to why.

I think part of it is he doesn't want to necessarily talk about the Justice Department on his own son is under investigation. He also was pre adamant in saying when he was, I think, President elect, he would often say, listen, I do not want to talk about the Department of Justice because I don't want to be seen as someone who is colluding with the doj, which is something that of course many people who were critical Trump would say that he was also doing so. He right now is at this point where maybe he should go out there and start to say, look, Republicans are very much undermining the justice system, a pillar of democracy. A lot of people behind the scenes often talk about how dangerous that is and the fact that there is anyone we're definitely not hearing from Republicans and you don't have necessarily high Democratic leaders to be filling that voice.

I mean, what would you say? I mean, I understand the political reasoning not to get involved. First of all, I think there's two different elements. One is, is the cancer in the Republican Party.

And it's very hard. I think President Biden will have his milk. We are going to have a campaign in 2024. And there's no question that, I mean it was the core of his launch.

Advertisement the threat to democracy remains strong. Mad Republicans and Donald Trump are the core of that threat. There's no question that President Biden will make that case. That's a political case.

I think he's being really smart that the legal case has got to be made in the Department of Justice. The political case. He's present. He's out there touting the economic complex he's made.

He's focused on inflation. He's focused on a whole suite of things. I think the political argument on this will come and it's really hard for us as a country to core question, move forward if we don't deal with this in Republican Party. I get that.

I'm just curious. I do want to try it. We are at a moment and nobody is trusted to leave us out of it. Certainly not Donald Trump or Joe Biden.

All institutions are in ill repute right now. Journalism is in repute, the laws in repute. The Catholic Church is no repute. You can name the big institution and it's in il repute in the country.

It's not a time of Trust. I think Joe Biden does bear some responsibility to that because he said he was going to bring this together. That was number one party. He's governed as a complete partisan.

And let's don't give him say that he doesn't want he's offended by a White House that cooperates with the doj. After all, he was vice vice president when Eric Culler said he was Barack Obama's wingman, hardly an independent actor. So we don't even let that, let that pass. Let me ask you this.

We're in a situation where nobody in the Republic Party who's got standing thinks it's a good idea to nominate Donald Trump. And yet there's a whole bunch of people that it looks like it's inevitable. So a lot of people in Democratic Party think it looks like I gotta get a nominated 80 year old guy for second term. But it feels like inevitable.

Look at the other thing you and I talk about all the time professionally world college sports. Not a single person in charge of college sports thinks this college realignment is healthy for college sports. And what's happening? It's happening anyway.

You know, this is why I think we feel so frustrated and leaderless as a nation. Well, it's certainly a polarized time on many fronts in the United States and we all live with our smartphones every day. We all can be completely. We individually know the right thing to do is collectively applicate it.

I guess here's the part I find is it's talking point as opposed to truth. We actually have seen 2 years of the most bipartisan accomplishments in my 420 years in BC. Pay attention then. What are you paying attention?

We're talking on gun violence. 30 years. Yeah. In the last 20 years ago, gun violence on gay marriage, on manufacturing chips, on.

Are you attaching chip Barack Obama? Is that what you're doing? My point is Joe Biden has been unbelievably successful. And the idea that he.

It's not Joe Biden's right to say to be bipartisan you have to do something that's important. Other side on the Republic side which is where again we know what the case is against Donald Trump. This isn't like some situation where we're all in the dark and the prosecutors got some sort of secret tape that we haven't heard. We know he called and pressured lawmakers.

We know they set up fake electors to steal election. Why can't that alone be enough? Because more leaders than the Republican Party, the American people don't believe you should weaponize the criminal justice system against your political punk. Full stop.

Full stop. So you don't think anything American public does not believe we should weaponize the. Let me majority of this country thinks if he's picking a felony that Trump shouldn't run. Well, I can tell you though that you declare he's a run or not.

That's what his feelings are about other things about Donald Trump. But this question remains. Should you be able to prosecute your political opponents? Should your party, should parts and elected officials be prosecute the other party in the middle of the answer?

No. The problem is, the problem is, Marian, this is the frustration of all things Donald Trump. He's been doing this to the law since he was an adult, okay. Literally 20 years old with what he did with the federal judge.

I mean he dares everybody. Oh, you know, look, he made the Justice Department go for subpoena for the past five documents because he wouldn't play out the single rules that everybody else was willing to play. He always pushes down a little more forces, people going. Because, Brad, I do think generally you're right.

I think most people going, the last thing that wants to do is have this. But then he does. I'm going to push it even further and I'll see what happens. He sort of dares you to punish.

Yeah. And I think he's also really capitalized on the fact that he does have a base, to your point, that is really skeptical of government. They say very much see this because of what Trump has been saying for a long time, that yeah, there as McCarthy says, every second and every chance he gets that there is a two tier justice system and Trump's message has and will continue to be, look, they're coming after me because if they're not coming after me, they're going to come after you. And that is something that has very much mobilized his face.

I don't know if that's a general election. Look at these numbers here. The disconnect between Democrats, independents and then the Republican Party on this is amazing. Look at these numbers.

Should Trump face criminal charges? Right. Overturn the election. 95among Democrats, 57.

37among independents, which would be the more important number there. And then it's 1285among Republicans. This is an unwinnable political situation, right, for the gop. Well, I mean, we'll end up having a choice though.

We'll end up having a choice between Donald Trump with all the questions his voters have about him and Joe Biden's failed record on the economy. That's going to be a pretty big and whether he's fit to lead the country for four more years at his age that's going to be a real question. They're identical NBC News poll shows identical in all these polls. They're unfavorable ratings.

It's become the one and the same. I look at this. Joe Biden is no longer Donald Trump successfully turned Biden's last name into Clinton. Because if you look at Biden's numbers like Hillary 16 not by 2020.

I think there's a big difference there though is that you still see Biden's favorability not his job approval. Very different. Right. For Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The dislike of Hillary Clinton unfortunately is much, much higher. I'd love to see that poll. It doesn't exist anymore. It used to be that way.

I don't see that anymore. No, I mean there's not. There's not this deep intense dislike of him and they actually think that he is trying hard that there's a lot of House Republicans have successfully weaponized the Biden brand. Yeah, no, they totally have.

And even if you are talking about the legislative achievements people have no idea like polling has also show that people don't know what the inflation Reduction act is or does or chips and how's Democrats right now are very much trying to figure out with the DCCC how are we going to talk about this if people think he's competent, they don't think he's competent to leave the country. I thought about the prescription drug thing. If Donald Trump did this he'd be he'd say it every other second. I lowered your prescription drugs by the way.

I hate this justice system but I lowered prescription drugs. Right. That's not in Joe Biden's will and it's also why he's President. To be honest there's an element of Trump's bombastic lie say whatever that I think is why big reason why he's not president.

I think there is what he said frankly incorrect record of the economy. He convinced people so it still reminds me of being Republican no matter what. But he lost to a much more popular Joe Biden than Jo Biden is now a few thousand votes. The last time Donald Trump was on the ballot January 6th hadn't happened.

Abortion was still alright in this country. So I think my friend remember NY and I think as we joke maybe abortion stupid. Yeah. Oh yeah.

It really could come down to that. And speaking of that we're going to discuss that in a minute. This was likely. Thank you.

I Know, big good one. Coming up, we're going to dig deeper into the new legal push from Trump's now indicted former chief of staff to move the Fulton county trial to federal court because the Afani Willis moves towards a trial day in the thick of the 2024 primary. That's ahead of first, what today's abortion ruling means access to one of the nation's most widely used abortion medication. More importantly, what does it mean for the Supreme Court schedule?

And then we'd hear this rumor. That's next. You're watching the press now. Welcome back.

Let's turn Addison. Breaking news from this afternoon. A free judge panel from the Fifth Circuit U.S. court of Appeals this afternoon upheld part of a decision that rolled back some access to the abortion pill.

However, the drug's going to remain on the market for now thanks to a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year allowing it to remain available as these cases make their way through the appeals process. Which means even this ruling doesn't end things if you're confused. That's why I have our senior legal correspondent Laura Jared here. So, Laura, it, it's a little bit confusing, but sort of walk us through what happened today and why it kind of has zero impact.

So the upshot is that nothing changes for now. If you still want to get access to Mife Bristol, it is if nothing happened. And as you said, Chuck, that's because of the Supreme Court decision. What this does, though, is it tees up the Supreme Court to wade back into this issue.

And it could happen pretty quickly because what the fifth Circuit has done, which is the intermediate appellate court, before you get the Supreme Court, you have to go district court, appellate court, supreme Court by the fifth Circuit doing this, it tees up what the Supreme Court is actually gonna look at. What they're gonna look at is how the FDA starting around 2016, loosened the access, loosened the restrictions on the drugs that you could get it by mail so that you would have to go to a doctor's office, you could get further into a pregnancy. All those things that the FDA to make it easier to get the drug is now what's being challenged. Not the original approval of the drug, but the loosing of restrictions is now what SCOTUS is gonna have to take up when the Justice Department appeals this.

Okay, so let's narrow this down. So let's assume they the Supreme Court upholds. So does it roll back everything to pre 16? So mifer pristine is still just.

It's still available, but you have the hurdles are back. Yes. And so it Takes us back to an older regime. And so the people who challenges have said, well, how could that be a problem?

You know, you've operated for several years like that without being able to get in the mail, so how can you complain? What the drug manufacturers and the Biden administration will tell you is by reverting back in. Change the labeling. When you change the labeling, that disrupts the entire marketplace and means that the drug will have to be taken off the market for a little bit of time.

So there's a little bit of disagreement on, like, just the regulations here. And so that's why this matters. Even though practical impact is not going to change anything for anyone today. What this does is tease up a fight later on, Laura, is the fact that we've gone seven years with this new FDA regime, if you will.

Right. And we've, you know, it's sort of. At what point do you say, hey, obviously this didn't present any problems. We don't have any major medical problems here.

We don't have any. Does that matter at all? What if it was going to trial? Right.

All that evidence would come in. All of the safety assessments that the FDA has put forth that they've filed, all this paper about would come in, and then the doctors and other people who have filed suit would present their evidences. You know, they have anecdotal evidence of things happening in emergency rooms. Right.

They get to put their evidence, and then eventually a judge or jury would decide. But again, this is headed straight to the Supreme Court, and they can take it up whenever they want. And I imagine they will take it up for next term, even though they're currently on session. Wait a minute.

The Supreme Court's gonna rule out something without ever seeing the basic evidence of the last seven years? They're gonna see the evidence that it's gonna happen before a trial. And that's part of what the Justice Department has been arguing. That's a bizarre way to work, isn't it?

Well, it's why they've sort of challenged this thing from the beginning. Because, remember, it all starts with that federal judge in Texas who decides to block it nationwide without a trial. Right. Never have been done before.

And that's why the Biden administration was jumping up and down about the decision. But we'll see whether at least four justices are willing to take it up. You only need four to say yes to taking the case. You need five to decide what to do about it.

Yeah, well, I think. I think we know they probably have before Lord Sherrod. Boy, thanks for clearing this up and adding to more of the anxiety of where all this is said. Thank you.

After the break, new security concerns the grand jurors in the aftermath that's sweeping Fulton County. Indictment of former President Donald Trump. Information when that job may begin. That's next.

You're watching this Press. Welcome back. Moments ago this afternoon, full county district attorney finally proposed the trial date, March 4, 2024. This former President Trump and his 18 code defendants face racketeering charges for trying to interfere in the state's 2020 election.

Proposed date is a little more than two months after special counsel Jackson wants Trump to stand trial for election interference. And it's less than two months after the Iowa caucuses. Keep in mind this is just a request. It's not a guarantee.

And nearly every legal analyst we spoke to who says it's going to take quite some time for a case of being actually get to trial. And then once it gets to trial, it's going to take weeks, maybe months to seat a jury. Just ask the folks in full count. All this counts as Trump's former White House chief of staff, Mark Reynolds seeks to move his case to federal court.

And he's arguing that a federal law gives him that right because the actions in question are tied to his time as a federal official while he was serving the White House. This attorney says he also intends to file a motion to dismiss the indictment as soon as is feasible. Meadows finally brings to light one of several challenges will face as she brings RICO charges typically used against gangs or mobs, against Trump and his palace. Those challenges include not only the nature of charges file, but also the logistics of potentially trying 19 defendants in one trial.

For more, unpack this other user familiar with the system in Fulton county, joined by Darrell Cohen. He has served as an assistant district attorney in Fulton County. Mr. Cohen, I appreciate this and essentially you're here to teach us the Fulton county system here a little bit.

So first, let's talk about this federal law here. If you were Bonnie Willis, would you be nervous about this motion? I would not at all be nervous because she's going to have this being motion number one out of many, many motions. It'll be so numerous we'll not be able to count them.

Do I expect more of this moving it to federal court where if it does move to federal court, there's going to be a more liberal jury pool? I expect it, but I don't expect that it's going to move. No, I would not be dollars. Come on, Darrell, chuckle.

I will say this on its face. Mark Meadows attorney makes a pretty I mean this and in fact, you know, he's not an undicted co conspirator federal in the federal case and there may be separate reasons for that, but there is a simultaneous federal case. Is there any way that the Jack Smith case and the Atlanta case interfere with each other? I don't think they interfere with each other.

I think there's a tremendous amount of crossover between the two cases. But if Jack Smith case is tried first, assuming he goes to trial, or if the Bolton county case is tried first, assuming he goes to trial and there's a guilty verdict to either one of them, then there's going to be a scream, a human cry saying double jeopardy, double jeopardy. And by the way, did I say double jeopardy? So what do you well, so what happens?

It's an interesting, you know, look, all of the legal experts we talked to and you tell me why they're wrong, indicate that the Fulton county case is likely to get motioned all the way past November 20, November 2024. Tell me why we would be wrong, why the experts are wrong about that prediction. Oh, I think they're right. I think there's no chance that this case is going to be tried.

If it's tried, I don't think there's any chance it's going to be tried before the election in 2024. Obviously it could and sometimes when it can't happen, it does. It's never good. But I don't anticipate this happening.

There are too many defendants, too many lawyers. We have at least 19 lawyers and we know that there's going to be motion after motion. Each lawyer is going to be concerned with his or her client and the heck of the rest of the people, we don't care. We care about our client.

And also I think fan is looking for some people to roll over and testify. I, I think that seems to be where, where she's headed with some of this. And obviously the undy co conspirators are part of the Jack Smith plan too. It sounds like in a similar vein there.

So it's funny you brought the double jeopardy issue. The Jack Smith election interference case is likely to go to trial before the Atlanta case if he gets a guilty verdict. Could you see her dropping Trump from the trial? I could see, I could see her perhaps robbing Trump, but I don't think she would do it willingly.

I think that Trump's lawyers and all the other lawyers representing the co defendants would file the appropriate motions before the superior court judge who, by the way, is brand new. And this is not only a case of first impression for all of us, but certainly for him when it comes to trying. This is a RICO case. I look at the case against Giuliani and witness intimidation.

You look at the case of breaking into Coffee county, those seem iron clap. But if you put it all in the same case, do you risk not getting a conviction on those specific incidents or not? Well, I think, first of all, we have to remember that RICO gives Fonny, the DA's office, the opportunity to bring things to Fulton county that took place throughout the state of Georgia, outside of Fulton County. So that's number one.

But you also have to convince a jury of 12 men and women who are well meaning but don't know the law, that all of these crimes, if they were crimes, are part of an overall conspiracy, making it racketeering, not easy, because you're going to have people, whether we like it or not, it's going to be very political. You're going to have Democrats who hate Trump. I don't care what the evidence is, he's guilty. You're going to have Republicans, probably one or two.

No matter what the evidence is, he's not guilty. So funny. The DA's office has got a tremendous burden that they're going to have to overcome with using rico. Rico's not easy, even if there's no politics, because some of these acts are not necessarily cruel.

Which gets me back to, to me, there were, there was. There's a simple. You could have simplified this. And I, I don't want to read into your tone, but it sounds to me like you think there was.

You might not have gone the RICO route. You can read completely into my tone. I believe in the kiss method. Keep it short, stupid, keep it simple, stupid.

And you have to realize these jurors, whoever they are, regardless of what their education or lack is, they're not going to be veterans of the criminal system. So my view is to look up to jurors, but simplify it, not dumb it down. But. So you've done separate indictments, like, because you can easily see, right, Donald Trump's on tape threatening Ravensburg with a criminal investigation if he remains president.

You've got an actual, essentially, bank robbery will or the kin up with voter fraud, with the Coffee county. You got the intimidation of Ruby Freeman. You have distinct incidents that seem pretty easy for the public to see. Would you have done it separately that way?

What I would have done is I would have taken every case, every crime that took place in Fulton county and made it a separate indictment or a separate count. And the other charges that took place, for instance, in Coffee County, I would use that as a similar transaction showing what took place rather than trying to have a tremendous RICO indictment. Now, I just like to simplify it in front of the jury. I don't think it helps to complicate it.

Well, that's the real winners are law school professors who have real life trials to talk about the differences between federal, state prosecutors in a local jurisdiction. To me, that's the only upside here is law school students get to get a law professors get real life anecdotes to teach their students. Darrell Cohen, really appreciate you giving us a little hint about how things work can fold down. Thank you.

Thank you. Up next, the search for answers. Hundreds of people are still on account of four. There's a planned presidential visit now.

We're on the ground with the latest from now. Watching this press now. Welcome back. Relief and recovery efforts are ongoing on the Hawaiian island of Maui today.

As of last night, officials put the number of dead from last week's devastating wildfires on O6. But because of the nature of the deaths, officials have been able to identify just five victims. So far, only two of those names have been released to the public, Robert Dyckman and Buddy Jancock, two Haina residents in their 70s. Officials say they expect that fully keep rising as emergency crews make their way through structures and the hardest hit areas.

Governor Josh Green said earlier this week that as many as 1300 people were missing the aftermath of the fires, but the number of unaccounted for right now is unclear. Meanwhile, there's tensions now growing between some of our residents and government aid workers. Some local celebrity news. They have disgraceful government aid efforts and choosing to rely on community support instead.

Dana Griffin is on the ground for us in Maui from BC News, also joined by the Hawaiian Department of Defense official Jeff Hickman. Let me start with you. Walk me through here. This tension we're sensing between the feds coming in and locals on the ground.

I'm sure the delay is probably adding to the distrust because of logistics, but where's this stemming from? Well, Chuck, I think it comes from a sense of not knowing who to trust. There have been posts about not signing documents and trusting even FEMA or the Red Cross. We've also heard reports from some of the locals who say they tried to help, they tried to donate and they've been turned away or their items have been told that they do not meet the standard.

There's A certain process which they consider a little corporate formality which is very grassroots here. Ohana means family. It doesn't matter if you're blood or not. People just want to help each other.

So they don't like having to cross that red tape and wait. They wanted this road open behind me days ago and it's taking just now for it to be officially open for everyone. Last night residents, workers and first responders got to go in. And this means a lot of access for people who have been trying to come in and bring supplies to help people that are impacted in Lahaina and even beyond because there are still towns in west Mali beyond that people were either trapped or they couldn't get back home.

So the governor said he heard these people loud and clear because he had been visiting some of the survivors in their now hotel rooms and he realized that this was something that the people wanted and he granted them that chapter. Let me ask you this. The, the unaccounted for residents on the island anywhere from a thousand to thirteen hundred. Do you get, you have any sense of, of whether, of how, of whether they have a good handle on the missing and, and what's being done to try to figure this out, try to solve this problem?

Well, that question remains to be unseen. As media, we have not been allowed into the disaster zone for various reasons to respect the people who've lost their lives. Also, it's very hazardous and dangerous because of the toxic chemicals are going around. People think that there could be hundreds of men, up to a thousand plus still missing.

Only about 27% of that decimated area has actually been searched. The governor says he anticipates they could be up to 8,75 search by the weekend. So I think if we get to the weekend and we see that much progress, that may give people a sense okay, they are doing this the right way. But you know, Governor and rescue workers have also tried to remind people that this is a very slow, methodical process because not only are they dealing with health hazards, they are dealing with bodies that are clumped together.

People who were, who died literally holding on to one another. And those bodies are so delicate. They want to be very respectful and they have to identify them. And Chuck, there are a lot of kids involved here and the 30 can tell that their children because their bodies are just so small.

Yeah, no, it's the future. The near term future here may be very, very grim as more news comes in. Dan, for Hawaii Department of Defense. And this is essentially their homeland Security, your emergency response.

What you Guys call it here. It's not associated with Pentagon. Right, right, Roger. We're with emergency management so we really get to work with federal, local, state agencies.

Let's first talk about this issue of getting your arms around the missing and how hard it has been. Do you, you know, you give me your sense. Do you have a sense of how many people are accounted for? Our sense is that it's high and the number is definitely going to go up.

As far as the deaths in that situation, I was able to speak to a search and rescue member, a soldier from the Hawaii National Guard who's from that community and is a part of the search and rescue teams and the process that they go through. They do a wide search and they listen first for survivors. The next they find toothpoam over and over. They're working with search dogs.

An additional 20 just came in today because find and closing the loop on those missing is a priority for Maui county and the state. So with that number 106 and like you said, that number is going to go up. The number of people that we find and identify as also going to go up. The Maui residents can also go to the family Assistance Centers.

There's county, state and FEMA are also opening up and they're assisting with DNA swabs and to try to reunify families. American Red Cross has a reunification process on their websites too. And so every effort is being made. So you're gathering DNA from survivors in order to help identify potentially victims?

Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We have people on Maui doing that.

We're trying to figure out the process now. Family members that are not on my own to get their DNA. A couple of other questions to see if you have more. There was a video circulating that where people think the initial spark happened with a downed power line.

Is that now the sort of the leading theory of how this began? It's a leading theory online actual what happened? We don't know. The governor and the attorney generals are going to launch a comprehensive review and get to the bottom of it.

But right now we just don't have the capacity to do that. And same time me, our priority, which is to help those on Maui. What is the role of the power company is playing right now? Oh, right now they're trying to get power back up.

I saw a number that 80% of power on that side of the island is being restored. The lieutenant governor is working on relief efforts. They're getting phones and communications into the hands of personnel. I just saw a text a little while ago that Our Hawaii National Guard will be assisting the commune, watching for any flare ups to happen as they start up some other lines again.

So every effort is being made to help those affected still live in the area as well as. Yeah, look, and maybe this is all part of the after action investigation, but the alarm, obviously the alarm system is something else that many. I've talked to residents who said they don't remember hearing it. Nobody seems to think it went off.

Is this something that you know definitively yet or is this also part of an after action investigation that will be launched as soon as search and recovery efforts are done? I think that answer will be found after I do want to mention that we have the largest siren network in the nation and we test monthly and that's the sirens are our lifeline to people and so we will get to the bottom of that. And the sirens do help a lot of people. We have lava, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, and the sirens have been a part of it.

This wildfire was a phenomenon. It's the worst in our nation's history and so that makes it the worst in Hawaii. We've never had one this bad. And with speeds of 6 miles per hour, it's different.

You're happy here. The president when it gets there Monday, more federal government. What advice would you give the feds to try to earn some trust with the locals? Right.

We're hearing there's some distrust. What advice are you gonna give to President Biden into the federal team to essentially earn the trust of the locals? Well, I think it's messaging. It's getting the world around where they can go get the right resources.

We have 416 female personnel on the ground. I'm in a room surrounded by female personnel right now. The federal assistance has been amazing and swift. So right now I would suggest the messaging.

Get the word out. We've been countering the, the, the false news as well about the rumor control. So we're getting social media really hard right now. We gotta get radio because that seems to be the best way to communicate tomorrow.

So we will tell the president. Communicate, help us communicate that message. Good reminder. All of our old new technology people, sometimes old technology is the best way to communicate Good old radio waves.

Jeff Hickman from Hawaii Department of Defense. Good luck out there. Thank you, sir. Thank you.

Silicon climate change in the courtroom. A judge in Montana just came in. A group of young environmental activists. A huge win in a ruling that declares it a constitutional duty to protect people from the climate.

What it means, what it doesn't, that's George ME Preston welcome back. Climate activists are celebrating a major core victory in Montana that they hope will be a blueprint for future climate change related litigation. Perhaps it might be the only way to get elected officials back. Lawyers representing a group of 16 young of Montana ranging in age from 5 to 22.

Right. First of its kind lawsuit against the state challenging law that ours agencies from considering environmental impacts when permitting large energy projects. On Monday a judge in the state ruled that the law violated the constitutional rights of the planets to a quote, clean and healthful environment. Spokesperson for the 19 attorney general called the ruling absurd and a taxpayer funded publicity stunt, adding that their office will appeal the decision.

But if the ruling does stand, it could set a significant legal president for other states with similar climate change related lawsuits. Hold states accountable for climate policies and frankly you can hear it now. Elected officials don't want to have to do these things, but if they're court ordered to, maybe they will. Attorney now Michael Gerard, founder of the Sabine center for Climate Change Law at the Columbia Law School.

Mr. George, welcome to Meet the Press now. Good to be with you. So let's start first with okay, you get an initial win.

You know this is going to be appeal. What do you think is going to be the hardest part of the appeal here? The state had earlier asked the Montana Supreme Court to stop the trial. The Supreme Court of Montana unanimously refused to do that.

So I think that the odds of this case prevailing at the Supreme Court are pretty decent. So this is based on violating the state constitution in Montana, not the federal constitution. So is this to you in your mind a blueprint here? Do we, do we start to see a couple of things?

One, referendum in states that allow it, that try to add if they don't have a line in their state constitution to protect the environment, you put that in there and then litigate from there. Is this, is this where you want to take this next? There are five other states in addition to Montana that have environmental rights in their constitutions and 150 other countries that have environmental rights in their constitutions. What we've seen after each climate case victory is it inspires more cases in the United States and around the world.

So I think we'll both have more efforts to adopt constitutional protections in some of the US states and we'll have more litigation in the US and around the world on these theories. So what's interesting here though is that there's not a metrics here, right? So they're essentially the lawsuits that hey, you do have to have environmental impact but that doesn't mean you have to abide by the impact, correct? That's right.

The lawsuit. The state now has an obligation to consider climate change when it makes its energy policy, but it doesn't really have to change its energy policy. If the officials of the state don't care about climate impacts, they go ahead and do it. That may cut.

Create other grounds for litigation against the. Against the state for decisions that are clearly going to harm the climate. Well, then I guess you could easily see how this translates to civil litigation very quickly if the state sort of ignores an environmental impact. I guess you tell me.

Right. Well, there are around the world about 2300 lawsuits that we've counted on climate change. We have a database on them. Some of them seek to impose civil liability on various parties.

There are a lot of those cases that are still pending. We don't know the outcome yet, but this kind of case is certainly helpful, I think, about things like tobacco and seatbelts and various. You know, there's actually a long history in this country that we really don't do hard things unless there's a court order. So there have been about 25 lawsuits that are pending, mostly brought by states and cities against fossil fuel companies.

They've been held up on procedural grounds. Some of them are moving forward. There may be further procedures, but time will tell. But one difference here is that as the Maui catastrophe shows, more and more we're seeing these disasters that may well be related to climate change.

And that's having a political as well as a legal impact. Right. I guess. I guess I look at the.

When you. It's. It's a lot easier as a politician to reluctantly have to. All right, we gotta abide by this standard because of the court order versus being comfortable embracing a standard that might raise the price of gas.

And the government of Montana has not been told it has to move away from fossil fuels, only that it has to think about fossil fuels and their climate impact. Are you. Is the goal here? You said it is inspired in the past.

There's inspiring and then there's. So, you know, there's fertilizing the ground, if you will. How do you plan on fertilizing? What are the next states where we should expect this action?

There's going to be a trial next year in Hawaii under a lawsuit that was brought a couple years ago saying that Hawaii's transportation policy was too friendly to cars as opposed to mass transit. Clearly, the Montana case will be looked to by the court in Hawaii. There may be other cases that are brought under similar theories in the US I think we'll see considerably more in other countries. We've already seen the courts in the Netherlands and Germany and France and Nepal and Brazil and Mexico and other countries direct their governments to do more on climate change.

I think we will also see more of that all around the world as the governments consistently do less than is necessary to reduce gas. You bring up the Netherlands, but I remember Royal Dutch Shell, Shell Oil, right. They got so it could in one country could radically change how that company governs itself. Michael Gerard from Columbia Law School.

Fascinating legal strategy to be paying attention to. Thank you. Thank you. We turn now to another story before we go where legal and political stories are colliding.

This one regarding the congressman George Santos, a former founders of the New York Republican congressman was indicted to ambital charges alleging that he impersonated a prominent congressional lady while soliciting donations for Santos's campaign. Ordering the indictment, Sam Neely used a fake name, any email address to trick at least a dozen potential donors. Prosecutor Stingley sent Santos a letter on September 26 last year which he admitted to faking my identity to a big donor but stated that he was high risk, high reward in everything I do. The indictment does not specify who the Iraq congressional aid is, but it appears to be A top A to House Speaker Kevin McCarthy should point out that George Santos himself is not charged in this place indictment, although he was charged in federal court in spring with fraud, theft, money laundering and making false statements.

Statements that does it for us this hour. NBC News NOW coverage continues with Ali Jackson right now. I'm Craig. Mel.

Cheers. Cheers. Cheers. I've always been a glass half full kind of guy and now I'm talking to people who look at the world that way too.

Some really fascinating folks who share their defining moments, their triumphs, their challenges, their stories are fun and quite candid. So I hope you'll join me each week. Who knows, you might just come along with your own glass apple. Search Glass Apple with Craig Melvin From Today on YouTube at wherever you get your podcast.